Comment by sofayam
3 days ago
If you are going to collect books as physical objects, rather than their much more convenient digital versions, then it strikes me you should actually find the signs of previous interactions with that object (library stamps, marks from other readers etc) make them more interesting than pristine copies that no one has read.
Personally I do like these marks. But I buy books to read, not as an investment. I recently bought a book on "How to survive being gassed" published in 1934. It had a typed A4 sheet of paper in it with a poem about how to identify the different types of gas. Humourous and probably useless but real and very alive.
I also take umberidge with the idea that digital books are more convenient. A physical book is more engaging, more beautiful, more real and more present than a digital book. All things that I find convenient when I want to interact with knowledge and art. Horses for courses I assume.
The UI of paper books is better in most ways. Ebooks don’t need separate large print editions, and have full text search. Basically every other point goes to paper books. I don’t bother to defend the aesthetics of books, because their actual utility is high, too.
They’re damn bulky, though, especially when there’s an alternative that weighs nothing. Damn bulky.
I tend to disagree, or at least argue that UI/UX is strongly subjective. I have sought out digital copies of books that I have in paper form just because I strongly prefer reading on an ereader for text. Obviously, something with graphics is likely to be better in paper.
You can't lose your place easily. Lighting isn't an issue if you buy a backlit model. Reading lying on your back or side is much easier. Traveling is easier with an e-reader. Access to wikipedia and the dictionary on the same device.
There are emotional reasons that I like paper books, but if I'm just trying to read, give me an ebook.
2 replies →
*umbrage (I like when people tell me, so hoping that isn't taken the wrong way).
Otherwise, very much in agreement!
Umbrage.
The thing is, I've had a number of instances where the paper copy of a book was so poorly typeset (usually overly long lines on too-wide pages, e.g., _The Inklings and King Arthur: J. R. R. Tolkien, Charles Williams, C. S. Lewis, and Owen Barfield on the Matter of Britain_ edited by Sørina Higgins) that I actually purchased the e-book version so as to be able to read it comfortably.
I'm guessing you don't (yet) need large type to read comfortably. When that time comes, you may gain an appreciation for the accessibility features of a good ereader.
I'm much more comfortable with a magnifying glass tbh. For most books I need my glasses and a good quality reading light though.
2 replies →
You bring up a good point about physical vs digital.
I'm still not sure if my children for example, understands that when I'm staring at an iPad I'm almost always reading a book. Does a vast library in iBooks translate to them as well as the same library on physical books in a bookshelf in the house? My sense is it does not.
And when I'm gone, will anyone find any interest in my iBook library? In its highlights and notes? In the books I've read and re-read dozens of times?
Some of my fondest memories are going over my older or deceased family members' book shelves. I have never, however, gone over anyone's tablet. Part of that is because it's newer, but something about the browse-ability of an e-book misses the mark. I can't see which book is worn from being read and re-read, or brimming with notes and scribbles. In digital, it's hard to tell which books that person found significant, but in physical it's obvious by the condition (or even number of copies) of the book.
> I can't see which book is worn from being read and re-read, or brimming with notes and scribbles.
It's amusing to read that, for on one side of my family, scribbling in a book would be considered a most heinous crime! I keep any writing to the flyleaf if the book is a gift, but don't otherwise write in them. Another thing that complicates the matter in my family is that we have always been serial second-hand book buyers, and in such a case a book's physical condition is not necessarily an indication of how much it was loved by its immediate previous owner. On the other hand, my grandmother tended to insert relevant newspaper cuttings into the book for the benefit of future readers!
I'm from a books-are-sacred family, though I don't particularly subscribe to that myself. But I've never understood the idea of annotating books in the margins; I don't reread them that often, nor was I a literature student.
Your grandmother's idea sounds wonderful, though.
> And when I'm gone, will anyone find any interest in my iBook library?
Probably not, but nor will anyone else find interest in your physical library. One's collections are invaluable to oneself, but usually uninteresting to anyone else.
I donated hundreds of books when I cleaned out my parents' house. Most probably ended up in a dump or recycled.
One of my most treasured books is a copy of Goethe's _Faust_ (in translation) with notes from a nun.
That runs very much counter to how collectors actually collect books currently. The more pristine the book, the better, aside from particularly rare or valuable inscriptions.
The story of a bookseller who made a fortune selling complete libraries to collectors, warts and all:
~ https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/10/28/a-controversia...
Different collectors buy different things- some like books owned by specific people, others want works (drafts, letter, editions, etc) of an author.
Pristine is for some, a book that's been lived in is worth more to others who look for margin notes.
Arguably the “lived in” copies are only notable if they’ve been owned and scribbled in by someone who is themselves notable. There’s no serious demand for books that have been scribbled in by nobodies like myself.
While that's true, and I do prefer books that actually have interesting histories, rather than being purely pristine and box-ticking, I have to admit that many collectors seem not to be, and are purely interested in box-ticking first edition first printing, pristine copies of books, with no marks, or just an author signature. Outside of the most exceptional and well-known of cases, this seems to extend to cases where other editions seem more interesting, rarer, or more notable.
Of course, this has the advantage of keeping prices down for those of us looking for those other editions and conditions, but it can at times be rather perplexing. I was once in an auction where it was evident that the auctioneer was also surprised by a case of this: in an auction with a first edition by an American trade press, and a first UK edition from a year later by a particularly notable private press, with a smaller print run, typeset and printed by hand by notable historical figures and friends of the author, and an estimate of around four times the first trade edition... the UK edition sold within estimate, and while the first edition sold for significantly more than the UK edition, vastly over its estimate.
In another case, I had a bit of trouble finding sellers online who even noted the edition of a particular 19th century book in its description if it was not a first edition, despite the second edition being at the center of a significant historical legal drama, being nominally banned and ordered destroyed, and making a mess of British blasphemy law in a case where no one, including both the government and the prosecution, wanted the publisher to be found guilty.
My guess is that many book collectors will set a particular goal, for example, collecting first editions or author-signed copies of a particular genre, set of authors, etc, and will follow that goal, rather than acquiring individual books for individual reasons.
More generally, collecting communities often seem to fall into purely seeking rarity, placing the highest demand on the items with the least supply regardless of why the supply is small. Thus at an extreme in book collecting, for example, you have collectors who see entirely uncut pages as being preferable, despite it making the book unreadable. I have a friend who is fond of antique pens who expressed disappointment that in seeking the rarest pens, the community often ended up placing the highest value on the worst: the pens with bad designs that didn't work well, the variants and colors that were particularly ugly, all the models that sold very poorly and were quickly discontinued, and are thus rarer.
True, but collecting is generally a terrible investment from a pecuniary perspective, unless you’re the mercenary type of collector who sells to people making terrible investments.
Sure, albeit I’ve definitely got some stuff that’s appreciated quite considerably in price. Not that I intend to sell it.
1 reply →
Sure. But while I can understand this approach for rare objects which are the result of great craftsmanship (I would rather not have a crack in my faberge egg) a book is generally a mass produced article with little individual character until someone has left their mark on it.
Even still, most folks would prefer a pristine first edition than one that’s been heavily used.
1 reply →
Are you actually a bot? I'm struggling to imagine a literate human who does not know this.
My name clearly states I am NOT a cyborg.
[dead]