Book Collectors
The Guardian Book Blog has a great rant about book collectors who prize the pristine first edition of a book more than the contents of the book itself:
“It’s a strange way of distinguishing worth and there’s something unappealing
about the way book collecting prioritises the rarity of a book over its contents
or even its appearance. Not to mention the fact that physical condition is given
far more importance than the pleasure a book has imparted to its readers.”
It made me think of the first first (sic) print run of my novel The Flame Tree by Hodder & Stoughton. The print run had two Author Acknowledgement pages by mistake so they pulped the whole lot and started again - except for two or three copies which I had. I gave one to someone whom I knew enjoyed collectibles and would appreciate the near-uniqueness of that edition. She turned around asked me for another copy to read so as not to diminish the value of the original unique copy I had sent her. I guess I should have expected that reaction as collectors are different from readers but I found myself quite offended - (i) she could have gone out and bought her own second copy to read (and supported my nascent writing career) and (ii) how could she even think of selling the book (as that would be the only time it would have any value) which I had given out of friendship.
There was another time when I met a businesswoman who told me she had first editions of all Virginia Woolf’s books. Wow, I said. And then to continue the conversation: Which of her novels is your favourite? She replied: I don’t know. I’ve never read them. And I don’t intend to.
Sigh. Sometimes, I wonder: What’s the point in being a writer?
Photo: thanks to “Today is a good day” on flickr
- Posted on
Fri, May 4th, 2007 - Author
Yang-May Ooi - Category
- 11 responses
- Leave a comment
May 6th, 2007 at 4:55 am
As much as I love really good cover designs and all, at the end of the day, it’s the contents that matter. I understand the collectors’ point-of-view but that last bit about the Virginia Woolf collector just made me sad.
May 6th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Yes, it makes me think of those people who buy toys but keep them wrapped up and pristine in their boxes for future value, rather than enjoying them now. Seems a shame to me.
May 6th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
This is the classic form-over-substance syndrome at work, which permeates the other aspect of life as well. I think Virginia Woolf would have turned in her grave too.
But do not despair. These people number in the absolute minority. Write for the majority of us who prefer a more intellectual challenge or stimulation.
May 7th, 2007 at 12:25 am
There are those who read and those who collect. Some do both. We write for the readers. I have a copy of The Laws of the Federated Malay States dated about 1925, looks so old and really looks good on the bookshelf. I’m sorry to say that I’ve not read any of its riveting contents.
May 7th, 2007 at 9:51 am
*The Laws of the Federated Malay States circa 1925
TUNKU, would have loved to read above book, had wondered as a kid why Perak, Selangor, Pahang and Negeri Sembilan were collectively once known as the Federated Malay States (FMS) and the remaining five states of Malaya were unfederated ones. Perhaps for one reason, FMS had a resident British Advisor pre-merdeka that the rest may not have but I’m sure the distinction in the naming is something more profound, underlying reason quite likely to go back to historical associations or agreements entered into between the Sultans and the British colonial rulers in the 19th century that I’ve yet to know for a certainty.
Hmm, 1925 AD, significant year in Britain that you probably would know.
May 7th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Hal, yeeton - I find books from previous generations about Malaya fascinating. I’ve never had the opportunity to own the original antique copies but I’ve found the facscimile paperback versions like Isabella Birds “The Golden Chersonese” a terrific glimpse into the past.
May 7th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
A CORRECTION to what I said about significance of year 1925 [certain wide-ranging reforms to take effect from January 1st to be specific unless contradicted] in Britain, should have been confined to ENGLAND possibly Wales as well, not necessarily including Scotland of which I do not know quite enough of subject matter affecting that jurisdiction that is, of course, a completely different one from England and Wales.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
*Re Federated Malay States & Unfederated States of Old Malaya
A LEARNED friend has come up with something from the top of his head, will let you know if he says more.
“I know for sure that the unfederated states were originally under Thai suzerainty in the north, while Johor always tried to remain aloof from British intervention. Adat-isti-adat-raja had also something to do with it, I think. You should check the Pangkor Treaty”
May 8th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
[Isabella Birds “The Golden Chersonese” a terrific glimpse into the past.]
YM, to give fuller particulars, according to the Wiki, it’s
“The Golden Chersonese and The Way Thither” (Published 1892 G.P. Putnam’s Sons) by Victorian traveller and adventuress Isabella Lucy Bird (1831-1904)
May 17th, 2007 at 1:24 am
[”I have a copy of The Laws of the Federated Malay States dated about 1925, looks so old and really looks good on the bookshelf. I’m sorry to say that I’ve not read any of its riveting contents.”] TH.
TUNKU, there’s no need to apologise for not reading stuff in your ownership and possession and you could not say for an opinion the contents of a book are riveting if you have not read the book at all.
I have acquired many books over the years - quite a few purchased purely on impulse - that I have never read. Stephen Hawking’s Brief History of Time is one such book, when I got to want to read it, was told by its author the theories and assumptions upon which the book was based were NOT valid, so I needn’t have bothered to read the book after all. But he had enriched himself by the millions of copies sold based on palpable falsities, so it seemed, the longer he delayed revealing the true state of affairs, the more money he made!
May 27th, 2007 at 7:11 am
I RECEIVED from a friend an email that says
Why 5 Malay states opted out of British Residential System.
Perak, Selangor, Pahang and Negri Sembilan came under British rule because their sultans could not manage their states properly. There were a lot of political problems and rivalry, including problems with the immigrant Chinese tin miners who belonged to rival “Kongsi Gelap”, namely, Ghi Hin and Hai San.
The rulers of these 4 states invited the British who were based at Pulau Pinang (inclusive of Melaka and Singapore) to help them to solve their political and social and economic problems in their states. Also to control the “Kongsi Gelap” of the Chinese community.
The British were more than glad to take over power from the Malay rulers who were mostly given fat pensions to surrender their political power.They, however, remained as Heads of the Muslim religion in their respective states. Thus was born the British Residential System and each of the 4 states had a British Resident who was virtually the Executive Administrator. In namesake, the Malay rulers were the sovereigns but they had to follow the advice of the British Residents at all times.
On the other hand, the northern Malay states of Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan and Trengganu were more under the influence of Thailand (known as Siam then). Johor was closer to Singapore’s British governor. These 5 states eventually agreed to have a British Adviser to advise them in their administration. They were only to give advice, the British Adviser did not rule. The Malay rulers in these 5 states remained basically the executives. They didn’t have to follow the advice of the British Advisers.Not compulsory for them unlike the rulers in the other 4 states.
In short, the 5 states enjoyed autonomy and the British had no power to “force” the Malay rulers to obey and follow their (British) rules and decisions.This is the fundamental difference.