Am I a collector or not?

I've got thousands of books. I buy what interests me, or what I
need in my researches, or what I believe will be useful as part of
my general reference library such as classic English novels or
translations of ancient Roman and Greek works or straight
reference works.

Sometimes I will buy a book merely because I like the look of the
book itself. I've got a complete Crabbe that I bought simply
because the Victorian binding was beautiful. I bought one of the
titles in the Autonym Library put out by T. Fisher Unwin merely
because I liked the unusually long and tall shape of the book.

However, I never buy a book because it is rare, or because it is a
certain type of book that I'm looking for (type in the sense of a
particular format from a particular publisher). I never buy a book
based on what I guess to be its resale value, with the idea of
trading or selling it.

The majority of the books I own, I've read, but that still leaves
hundreds I own that I have not read. I bought them because I
wanted them around in case I needed to consult their texts or
wished to read them in the future.

My question ... am I a book collector, or not?

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 02:53:14 GMT, Al Smith
wrote:

My question ... am I a book collector, or not?

If you have to ask, maybe it's time you faced up to a few things ?
8-)

"Al Smith" wrote in message
...

My question ... am I a book collector, or not?



Bibliophile, yes; collector, no.


William M. Klimon
http://www.catholicbookcollector.com

My question ... am I a book collector, or not?




Bibliophile, yes; collector, no.

That was my own feeling, but I wanted to get a second opinion. I
acquire books for what's in them, not for the books themselves.

Al Smith wrote:
My question ... am I a book collector, or not?




Bibliophile, yes; collector, no.

That was my own feeling, but I wanted to get a second opinion. I
acquire books for what's in them, not for the books themselves.

Is the distinction between bibliophile and collector really
meaningful? Are there secret collector nightclubs that you can't get
in if you are just a bibliophile?

-David

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 08:53:14 GMT, David Bilek
wrote:

Al Smith wrote:
My question ... am I a book collector, or not?




Bibliophile, yes; collector, no.

That was my own feeling, but I wanted to get a second opinion. I
acquire books for what's in them, not for the books themselves.

Is the distinction between bibliophile and collector really
meaningful? Are there secret collector nightclubs that you can't get
in if you are just a bibliophile?

-David

Certainly there's a distinction if only for the sake of clarity...
Here are a couple of examples drawn from collections I've been called
in to appraise:

Person A loved science fiction and bought everything he could get his
hands on from 1950 till his death in the late 1980s. In this vast
accumulation were dozens of book club editions, tattered digest
magazines, and the like, as well as a nice bound volume of UNKNOWN,
and numerous subscriber copies of Fantasy Press titles and the like.
It was pretty apparent to me that this gentleman made no distinction
between book club editions and genuine firsts, whatever came to hand
first was what he bought. As you may imagine, there were thousands of
dollars worth of signed Heinlein, Russell, & Asimov in the collection.
Not the condition that one would hope for, as this gentleman seemed to
find dustjackets an annoyance to be tolerated rather than an integral
part of the book to be taken care of.

Now Person B also loved science fiction and realized he couldn't
possibly buy everything, and that despite the roots of teh genre, a
book published as a hardcover original had a better chance of being
worthwhile than a book published as a paperback original. He set out
to collect first editions of all sf books published *after* DANGEROUS
VISIONS. Whether that's a valid place to start or not is something we
could hash out on rec.arts.sf.written... Anyway, his collection has
adhrered strictly to these guidelines and is a wonderful archive for a
bibliographer as it contains any number of books that weren't marketed
as speculative fiction, but certainly should be considered such.

Person A has an accumulation of books. Person B has a collection.
Value is irrelevant, both are probably within a couple of thousand
bucks of each other in terms of value. There was a lot of thought
given to Person B's collection, whereas Person A was buying
reflexively.

Another example of a very nice accumulation would be the lot of books
that author John Updike just sold. It's a rare writer that doesn't
accumulate a ton of books just in the normal course of research and an
author of Updike's stature is going to be sent complimentary copies of
damn near everything in hopes that he may make some kind remarks about
a book that may be reproduced. I'm sure that there are any number of
fine first editions, review copies with notes in Updike's hand,
presentation copies and the like that are worth a fortune. Was it a
collection or an accumulation? Pretty clearly the latter...

Cheers,

John

www.darksidepress.com

"Al Smith" wrote in message
...
My question ... am I a book collector, or not?

Bibliophile, yes; collector, no.

That was my own feeling, but I wanted to get a second opinion. I acquire
books for what's in them, not for the books themselves.

The consensus seem to be that a collector has a specific topic that they
seek out, works by and about a certain author, tales of religious
conversion, etc. You have to be searching out a specific subset of all the
books ever published. Personally I do not understand how the eclectic subset
of "books specifically interesting to myself " is less a "Collection" than
the subset that is "18th century female poets" or "adolescent series books"
or "books by X publisher".

Perhaps a "Collection" has to be a subset of the subset of "books
specifically interesting to myself ". Personally I can think of four
"Collections" I am actively working on (Sinclair Lewis, Studs Terkel, Bill
Mauldin, Walter Mosley, authors first published mysteries) and a few
"collections" where I will pick up a book if I come across one (WWII
history, books published by TypoPrint, local authors).

Look at your books, if there is any subset that can be narrowly defined that
could be your "Collection" and the rest of your books could be just "your
books". Bill Klimon has posted enough references to Edgar Rice Burroughs
that I would be very surprised if that were not a few books by him mixed in
with Bill's conversion literature. Even without a central theme I think you
are a collector, at least you are in the early stages of the disease.

Tim Crawford
Oxford, Ohio

John Pelan wrote:
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 08:53:14 GMT, David Bilek
wrote:

[...]

Person A loved science fiction and bought everything he could get his
hands on from 1950 till his death in the late 1980s. In this vast
accumulation were dozens of book club editions, tattered digest
magazines, and the like, as well as a nice bound volume of UNKNOWN,
and numerous subscriber copies of Fantasy Press titles and the like.
It was pretty apparent to me that this gentleman made no distinction
between book club editions and genuine firsts, whatever came to hand
first was what he bought. As you may imagine, there were thousands of
dollars worth of signed Heinlein, Russell, & Asimov in the
collection.
Not the condition that one would hope for, as this gentleman seemed
to
find dustjackets an annoyance to be tolerated rather than an integral
part of the book to be taken care of.

Now Person B also loved science fiction and realized he couldn't
possibly buy everything, and that despite the roots of teh genre, a
book published as a hardcover original had a better chance of being
worthwhile than a book published as a paperback original. He set out
to collect first editions of all sf books published *after* DANGEROUS
VISIONS. Whether that's a valid place to start or not is something we
could hash out on rec.arts.sf.written... Anyway, his collection has
adhrered strictly to these guidelines and is a wonderful archive for
a
bibliographer as it contains any number of books that weren't
marketed
as speculative fiction, but certainly should be considered such.

Person A has an accumulation of books. Person B has a collection.
Value is irrelevant, both are probably within a couple of thousand
bucks of each other in terms of value. There was a lot of thought
given to Person B's collection, whereas Person A was buying
reflexively.

[...]

Now, sir, you are reverting to your customary
habit of trying to generalize from your personal
preferences and by so doing create rules we
collectors all must abide by.

Both the people in your examples would be book
collectors, of course.

The basic difference is that the first person is
the sort or collector some might view as disorderly
or haphazard in his approach to collecting. The
second was a more orderly and more formal collector.
But one is as much a collector as the other.
The fact that the second person obviously meets
with your approval while the first does not
changes nothing important.

By the way, there are a number of good reasons
for science fiction book collectors to desire
book club editions. For one thing, often
new and outstanding cover art is commissioned
for the book club edition. One example is
Robert Silverberg's DOWNWARD TO THE EARTH.
In that case, no less an illustrator than
Frank Frazetta was commissioned to produce
a cover illustration specifically for the
book club edition. (Nelson Doubleday, 1970)
The powerful work of art which resulted has
become one of the more famous science fiction
illustrations. That is not the only example,
of course. In fact, many book club editions
feature better cover art than the first
trade edition can boast.

Of course, I agree there is such a thing
as a "book accumulation." Some people
simply have pack-rat habits when it comes
to books, so please don't interpret my
remarks to suggest that there is no such
thing as a "book accumulator" as opposed
to a book collector. However, I get the
distinct impression that you use the term
"book accumulator" pejoratively regarding
actual collectors: "*I* am a book
collector, but 'B', who annoys me, is
a book ACCUMULATOR."

Mr. Palmer
Book Room 314

Cheers,

John

www.darksidepress.com

On 24 Dec 2004 00:35:08 -0800, wrote:


John Pelan wrote:
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 08:53:14 GMT, David Bilek
wrote:

[...]

Person A loved science fiction and bought everything he could get his
hands on from 1950 till his death in the late 1980s. In this vast
accumulation were dozens of book club editions, tattered digest
magazines, and the like, as well as a nice bound volume of UNKNOWN,
and numerous subscriber copies of Fantasy Press titles and the like.
It was pretty apparent to me that this gentleman made no distinction
between book club editions and genuine firsts, whatever came to hand
first was what he bought. As you may imagine, there were thousands of
dollars worth of signed Heinlein, Russell, & Asimov in the
collection.
Not the condition that one would hope for, as this gentleman seemed
to
find dustjackets an annoyance to be tolerated rather than an integral
part of the book to be taken care of.

Now Person B also loved science fiction and realized he couldn't
possibly buy everything, and that despite the roots of teh genre, a
book published as a hardcover original had a better chance of being
worthwhile than a book published as a paperback original. He set out
to collect first editions of all sf books published *after* DANGEROUS
VISIONS. Whether that's a valid place to start or not is something we
could hash out on rec.arts.sf.written... Anyway, his collection has
adhrered strictly to these guidelines and is a wonderful archive for
a
bibliographer as it contains any number of books that weren't
marketed
as speculative fiction, but certainly should be considered such.

Person A has an accumulation of books. Person B has a collection.
Value is irrelevant, both are probably within a couple of thousand
bucks of each other in terms of value. There was a lot of thought
given to Person B's collection, whereas Person A was buying
reflexively.

[...]

Now, sir, you are reverting to your customary
habit of trying to generalize from your personal
preferences and by so doing create rules we
collectors all must abide by.

Both the people in your examples would be book
collectors, of course.

The basic difference is that the first person is
the sort or collector some might view as disorderly
or haphazard in his approach to collecting. The
second was a more orderly and more formal collector.
But one is as much a collector as the other.
The fact that the second person obviously meets
with your approval while the first does not
changes nothing important.

By the way, there are a number of good reasons
for science fiction book collectors to desire
book club editions. For one thing, often
new and outstanding cover art is commissioned
for the book club edition. One example is
Robert Silverberg's DOWNWARD TO THE EARTH.
In that case, no less an illustrator than
Frank Frazetta was commissioned to produce
a cover illustration specifically for the
book club edition. (Nelson Doubleday, 1970)
The powerful work of art which resulted has
become one of the more famous science fiction
illustrations. That is not the only example,
of course. In fact, many book club editions
feature better cover art than the first
trade edition can boast.

Of course, I agree there is such a thing
as a "book accumulation." Some people
simply have pack-rat habits when it comes
to books, so please don't interpret my
remarks to suggest that there is no such
thing as a "book accumulator" as opposed
to a book collector. However, I get the
distinct impression that you use the term
"book accumulator" pejoratively regarding
actual collectors: "*I* am a book
collector, but 'B', who annoys me, is
a book ACCUMULATOR."

Mr. Palmer

Bleach-bottle Bill, when I want your ill-formed opinion, I'll ask for
it, Now **** off, people are discussing book collecting.

Cheerio,

John

wrote
Now, sir, you are reverting to your customary
habit of trying to generalize from your personal
preferences and by so doing create rules we
collectors all must abide by.

Now, palmjob, you have reverted to your customary habit of drawing an
erroneous, illogical conclusion and attempting to support it using
fallacious arguments.
I think those bleach fumes have rotted your brain.
Happy Festivus!