Disappointments?

Obviously we all love the Folio Society, but have there been instances where you were disappointed in a particular production? Binding less than hoped for? The wrong illustrator? Why did they give the Folio treatment to that book? I'll start, just to show that true love isn't blind--we see the warts, but they don't really make a difference!

One of my 10 favorite books in English in the 20th century is The Towers of Trebizond. I was overjoyed when I saw that Folio was bringing out an edition. When I received it, I have to say that the binding and illustrations were a letdown.

I had always pictured the ideal binding for the book to resemble that of an Anglican prayerbook, in sober tones of burgundy, brown or charcoal, with gilt stamped titles, but with a blindstamped colorful oriental design in a rectangular border on the front cover (imagine a Turkish rug centered on a dark oak floor).

And the illustrations seem all wrong to me--not that they aren't pleasing in themselves. But they remind me of drawings in "women's" magazines of the 50s, wherein you find stories of a lonely and underappreciated housewife who fantasizes about romance with the (comparatively) dashing insurance salesman who makes a monthly visit to collect payment on the thirty year annuity, or the young careerwoman or college student who is in a desperate but unconsummated affair with a married man. Now perhaps this was the deliberate intention of the illustrator and/or designer, as the story is superficially similar to those stories, but the similarities are like those between Moby Dick and a Hornblower novel. The illustrations lack depth and color, and the subjects chosen make me wonder if the illustrator thought most readers knew what a Turkish city looks like so didn't feel the need to illustrate it. Likewise, Macaulay's wonderful prose picture of the narrator's potion-induced dream certainly doesn't need a graphic representation, which would have to pale in comparison to her words, even if the artist were N.C.Wyeth in his most Technicolor flight of fancy--or Zhenya Gay in her most hallucinatory.

I suppose differences of opinion, as they say, are what makes a camel race, and I encourage others to weigh in. I'm not about to give up my Folio edition of "Towers," but I like my fantasy edition even better.

I love my edition of Towers of Trebizond - but before ordering I knew nothing about it so had no pre-conceived ideas of what it should look like.
I can only think of one book that I found disappointing - the 100 Best Paintings. Not because of its quality or the production, simply because I don't really go for 100 best of anything, and here I found the choice too conventional and too restricted. I've given a few of my Folio books away, and that was one of them.

The only time I've been disappointed was when a volume came with an obvious problem - either a signature was missing or was bound out of order - but I returned it for a replacement and all was well.

I found the Greek Myths to be boring and disjointed - so unlike the English Myths and Legons which was brilliant.

I was slightly disappointed in the Once and Future King, somehow I had imagined the illustrations more serious and impressive, and the colouring less erratic. But it's still much better than a normal copy.
Just while I'm about it, the best ever Folio book I own is the Silmarillion, with leather and silk binding! That definetly does it justice.
Breathtaking...

Speaking of the Silmarillion, I always wondered about Folio’s Tolkien editions. Do they keep the original illustrations?

I've always thought the Brave New World edition was overly garish (mirrored silver cover, with baby imprint).

Andrew, I felt the same way about Brave New World. I can understand what the design was trying to achieve, but I think it failed.

I too have reservations about the design of Brave New World. The Leonard Rosoman drawings are excellent but the binding is a triumph of style over practicality. I'm not sure whether the titling ink has bleached or simply rubbed off but my copy looks almost as though the title has been blind blocked. The mirror foil is a great concept as a metaphor for a bright, shiny new world - but it is easily abraded or scratched and the evidence of handling or reading is all too readily apparent.
Since this topic opened I have reviewed my holdings and I really can't find any that I consider to be disappointments in their conception - however, there are a number that I feel have not been well executed. All of my books are stored so that direct sunlight nevers falls on them and most are kept in rooms that face East or North - yet many books have bindings that are patently not light fast. This is particularly noticeable in books that have artificial silk bindings. You would have thought that with their production experience, the Society could do some better research into the light-fastness of binding cloths, dies and ink before starting production.

leandrod:
The Illustrations are by Francis Mosley, not the original Tolkien ones.

I've just discovered this group, and I just wanted to say that while on the whole I love Folio books, I gave up my membership a while ago because I felt such disgust at their typesetting. For example, in the "Bronte" boxed set, the hyphenation was all over the place and there were numerous orphans and widows in the text. For such well-produced books, this was a real disappointment. I feel the Society puts a lot more thought into the appearance of the books than into the potential reading of them. Another example: "Brave New World" has a wonderful outside design, but the text, set in sans serif font, doesn't work. In large amounts, such as novels, sans serif fonts are just too hard on the eyes.

Also, my "Dorothy Parker" cover has died -- gone all wrinkled and crinkly. It seems to be an experimental binding that failed miserably.

For all that, I do love most of the books I have purchased, but I tend to buy Folio books second-hand now, so that I can have a good look at them before I pay for them and know if I actually like their design or not.

The point about hyphenation in typesetting is well taken. For most of its history the Folio Society's books were set by professional compositors in printing houses with solid reputations. At a later date, when Quark Express arrived, the Society began to do its typesetting inhouse using computer software. Hyphenation is part science and part art - and it is the "part art" bit that is difficult to turn into an algorithm. Although typesetting programs are continually improving, leaving hyphenation entirely to the computer with little or no checking by a skilled compositor is a risky thing to do.
The original FS Bronte books were all set by a printing house with a high reputation - Richard Clay. I have looked at my copies and, on the strength of a quick visual inspection, the hyphenation looks fine. Folio 50 states that the later editions were based upon these texts "cut and pasted" around new illustrations. I imagine the original texts were stored as 8-hole punched tape fed to a compositor but that later ones were scanned from the original texts or proofs and re-set inhouse. I suspect this is where the poor hyphenation has crept in.
Ampersand-duck's comments on the Dorothy Parker binding prompted me to look at my own copy and I see that it too has succumbed badly to wrinkling. However, I don't think that this is "an experimental binding that failed miserably" - I think it is a production fault that has led to the two-part binding material delaminating. I have two other FS volumes that use identical metallic silver bindings (A Treasury of Mark Twain and The Genius of James Thurber) and neither of these is showing any signs of wrinkling.

re wrinkling: have you complained to FS about these? If there is a production fault, they are remarkably good at replacing books.

I'm glad to see that I wasn't alone in being underwhelmed by "Brave New World." Sometimes a daring approach succeeds brilliantly; other times the failure can be one of those "whatever were they thinking of" moments.

Perhaps folowers of this thread will be interested in an anecdote that is particularly apropos to the "Brave New World" discussion. The Limited Editions Club brought out in 1942 an edition of Edward Bellamy's 1888 futuristic fantasy "Looking Backward," which imagines life in America from the prospective of someone in the year 2000. The book was beautifully illustrated by Elise and bound in a special yellow linen made by DuPont, which was washable and vermin-proof, and to complete the modernistic approach, packaged in a clear plastic slipcase. Since they didn't really have good tests for plastic's durablility, they failed to realize that the slipcase would, over 50 years or so, shrink. As a result, as of 2000, the time of the novel's setting, my copy seems permanently encased in the slipcover . I fear to try to remove it will damage the binding. The future can be a tricky place, indeed.

I've just joined this group, so hello everyone :)

I just wanted to mention that The Daughter of Time is one of my all-time favourite books and I've been very pro-Richard ever since I first read it when I was about 15. I had been waiting for a FS version and was excited to see it in the 2007 prospectus, but sadly I found the illustrations (strange collagey things) a huge turn-off and so decided not to buy it.

Did you really?
I've got the Folio copy and I think the illustrationns are brilliant. But then, I suppose that kind of cut-and-paste stuff isn't everybodys taste. What a pity you decided not to get it because of that.

Now I remember a disappointing one - the Edward Lear Complete Nonsense. I do like some of his poems, but the limericks are completely flat, and the drawings don't amuse me.

Ampersand_duck #11 suggests that more effort is put into superficial appearance than eventual reading. Judging by the large number of these books in our local second-hand (pre-used?) bookshop I think many people buy into a subscription and then never read the books.

I think appaloosman's comments (#12) about typesetting and compositors are well-founded. As a free-lance indexer I would say that standards in publishing generally are not very high though some (most?) of the blame has to lie with the editors rather than the typesetter. I see very late proofs (obviously the pagination has to stay fixed after I've done my bit) and although it's not my job to proof-read I sometimes pick up a large number of things that should have already been picked up on.

Although I love English humour, I found that the Folio Book of Humorous Anecdotes was absolutely not funny! I cannot remember a single anecdote which even slightly raised my zygomatics...

Towers of Trebizond is also one of my favourite books. I think the edition is beautifully appropriate BUT despite reading this book very carefully I noticed partial loss from the lettering on the spine. This has been a problem on a number of editions and detracts from the appearance of the book on the shelf.

A disappointment, and a caution regarding slipcases and cover art. The cover illustration on my copy of A Traveller's Christmas, which is on paper, has begun to disappear at the front edge from wear caused by the slipcase. This began to show after reading a bit each evening for about three weeks. Obviously, one should not use the slipcase volumes with this type of cover except for long-term storage of the book. I am always careful about sliding books into and out of their slipcases to minimize long-term wear and tear, but I never expected problems over such a short period of time.

On the positive side, I have enjoyed the short stories in this volume. I enjoy travel writing generally, and Christmas tales as well.

O.

A similar problem/disappointment with another FS edition. The Oxford Classical Dictionary issued 3/4 gilt stamped leather on silk, in slipcase. For some reason, the publisher decided to tuck the leather under the silk on the boards, rather than the other way around (which would be more typical, since leather is much tougher). Unfortunately, a few slides into and out of the slipcase, and the fore-edges of the silk at the top and bottom have begun to fray. This after after only a dozen or so uses. Quite disappointing, as I expect to use this reference for years, and am considering shelving it without the slipcase all-together.

O.

I was *hugely* disappointed when I received Theodor Mommsen's "History of Rome", opened it up and saw that it was ABRIDGED. It's less than half of Mommsen's full work. Somehow the folio society neglected to mention this fact ANYWHERE in their product description. Seems like that might be an important detail to note somewhere.

Hard to describe how terribly disappointed and angered I was, especially since I'd been eagerly anticipating the volume for weeks. In many ways the experience turned me off to the society altogether. I like many of their books, but really, who wants to read a lousy abridgement? And to sell a book for $83 without even mentioning that fact is borderline criminal.

#24:
Exactly the same for me - I read Mommsen many, many years ago, and I was eagerly looking forward to read it again. Why did "they" omit to say that it was an abridgment?

While I am a HUGE Folio Society fan, I also realize that they are not infallible. Like jbmill3, I would also be hugely disappointed if I got an abridged book that was not advertised as such. I don't typically "do" abridged.

While this particular issue has not happened to me, I have received a couple of books from the Society that have been damaged in transit or were defective. I found the Society very happy to replace them. I would assume that they would find a way to satisfy jbmill3 if he gives them a call.

Mommsen was on my wish list. What has just been said will perhaps make me change my mind...

Speaking of disappointments, I'm sometimes a bit disappointed by the spines of some Folio books. On brochures, they look round and healthy, but when you get the books, most spines are flat, very flat. (I like spines with shapely curves!) I can remember it was particularly the case with the New Fowler's Modern English Usage with gilded pages: nicely curved spine on the brochure, desperately flat in reality.

Some Folio books have nice spines (e.g. the Dickens series, Darwin's Journey of the Beagle). Why not all books?

I certainly know what you mean about the spines, Frantzouche. While most of the Folio books I've received have been gorgeous (I just got the recent book of Stevenson's short stories and the spine is beautifully round) some have not been. A History of the Crusades's flat spines most notably. Photos should not so deceive!

Does anyone know why the members page is gone from folio web site?

Perhaps they got fed up with members suggesting they publish titles they had no intention of publishing? :)

I never really thought about the flat spine issue until it was brought up here. I happen to be reading Ulysses right now. When I'm in my library or safe at home, I read Folio's limited edition; when I go out to read, I take my regular Folio edition.

There is a huge difference between the two, obviously. But to the point, the limited edition has a beautiful curvaceous spine while the regular edition is totally flat.

Aesthetically, I'm all for curves. Are flat spines an issue with a books structural integrity?

It is only tightbound books that have to have curved spines. In these the signatures are stacked in a slight curve and the early and late signatures are hammered over to make the curve more pronounced before the boards' hinge is glued to the back of the stacked signatures. Since all the FS's publications are cased bindings (including the leatherbound limited editions) the degree of curve of the spine is either an aesthetic choice or the house style of the bindery.

32> Thank you, appaloosaman, for your detailed explanation. (Although I don't understand all the details; it's very technical for me...) I recently bought on eBay an FS book published in the 60s (John Evelyn's Diary), and I noticed that the binding technique seemed quite different 40 years ago from what it is now.
To hark back to spines, that book has a very round spine. Did the FS binding technique change a lot in 40 years?

I don't think there is a great change in binding. The real change is in typesetting and printing. All the early titles were printed by letterpress - all are now printed lithographically. Note that FS now makes a virtue of letterpress - The Letterpress Shakespeare.

In reply to Blackeminence, message 5

For me, The Once and Future King was perfect! So much so, that I actually e-mailed the members page on the Folio website to pass on my comments.

Again, I wonder if it's more to do with my expectations of the appropriate approach? I hadn't read the book, and a good friend kindly (and wisely) recommended it, and I found it a wonderful and engaging story, presented perfectly in this edition.

It's the kind of book I wish I had read as a child, and if so, I think that I would have had very strong ideas about the right binding and illustrations, since it is the sort of book that really fires the imagination, and creates powerful mental images.

I'm sure you're right about that, I first read a completely different edition with no pictures except on the cover and I had pictured all the characters very clearly, so when I saw the Folo ones I really couldn't get the two together.
But luckily you don't really have to, not like with a film, so that makes it a lot better.

I have to say I agree with belemnite >>15 belemnite: - I too was put off by the collage illustrations. I guess that with books you love you do often have a strong sense of what is your ideal edition.

I fully agree with unappealling illustrations. The same is true with cover or spine. I do not like spines with a big—sometimes unreadable—title disposed vertically (see e.g. Cathedrals of the Middle Ages). I think Folio also spoils some books with unappealing covers made of black-and-white photographs. I best like plain, classic covers and spines (for instance the Dickens or Trollope series). I'm sometimes put off by eccentric ones.

I was disappointed with Aesop's Fables. The illustrations were fine and the cover art was just great. However, I was disappointed in the translation and the use of the Latin names for the Greek gods in these Greek fables. A small discrepancy, but one I could not ignore after reviewing Aesop sources in college courses.

I agree Pepys. The classic illustrations and covers tend to be more universally admired.

>39 BenjaminHahn:
I have been disappointed often enough with translations used in beautifully produced works that now, before I spend much on a work in translation, I search the internet for blogs and posts to get some indication of whose translations are considered respectable. No matter how fine the production, a bad translation can ruin it. I started reading a beautifully illustrated, leather bound version of Virgil's The Aenead but after about 20 pages, went looking for a translation I could enjoy and sold the leather bound edition.

Os.

If you are looking for an Aeneid translation, the Fitzgerald translation is what is used in most college classes

>41 chase.donaldson:
Thanks. The Fitzgerald translation is what I ended up reading. The first one I mentioned was by James Rhoades. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. The language was stilted and awkward, and read somewhat like Mr. Rhoades' Latin may have been better than his English.

Os.

Yes, Fitzgerald's is the translation I used in my college courses and I enjoyed it. However, I recently picked up a copy of Fagles' Aeneid which he just completed last year and it is just as pleasurable as his Odyssey and Iliad, which FS has reproduced. I wonder if FS will consider a future printing of Virgil with Fagles' translation. Does anyone know the last time FS put out a version of the Aeneid?

According to the Folio 50, the Aenied was published by the Folio Society in 1993 and a second printing was done in 1995. This was the Dryden translation.

I am not sure whether there have been subsequent printings or a new edition since the 1995 printing.

My guess is that it will be a few more years before they put out another edition of the Aeneid. The 1993 version which I have from the Society is great; well produced, adequate translation, and beautiful binding and cover. Its kind of hard to come by on the second hand market though...expect to pay 60+

I'm a huge fan of the FS and love their books. In general, I'm ambivalent with their offerings of books by other publishers; certainly I like (and have indulged) in some of the higher end books like the Italian Frescoes series and have drooled over the Les Belles Heures limited edition. These are books that I'm not sure I could get (new) elsewhere.

What I don't like is to see books that I can get at Borders or (gasp!) CostCo, like the Harry Potter set. My wife is a big fan so she talked me into it. My preference was to wait and see if FS or someone came out with a new edition of the set. Oh well...

It's interesting that the Folio's Aeneid used the Dryden translation, which is the same as my Heritage Press edition. I think I agree with many critics who say it is the best poetic rendition because Dryden was the best poet, but it takes a while for a modern reader to get past the convention of the heroic couplet to really appreciate the poetry. I am eager to read Fagles' translaton, but my own choice until then will have to be the one Rolfe Humphries did in the 1950s. For me the music seems more like Virgil than Dryden's version.

Not a disappointment with a book but today I received an invoice from the Swiss Post Office for 62 francs (about £26) for VAT, customs clearance and commission for delivery of my latest Folio parcel, which was declared at value £28. I am miffed to say the least.

Overthemoon,

I'm shocked--SHOCKED!--(as Claude Rains would say), that the Swiss would have such outrageous tariffs--especially on things like books. Is this a recent development? You have so many Folio books, I would have thought you might have encountered this before.

Ordering books from outside of one's country can be tricky--I remember a few years ago purchasing a Folio copy of a book from England, and being appalled when the postage costs came to double the price of the book. That's why even though there are several older Folio books I'd love to have (the R.S.Surtees books come immediately to mind), I don't order any of them from the UK. I suppose that by opening a branch of the FS in the USA, the Society is able to use some sort of loophole to keep their new books from being subject to the outrageous charges the used book dealers are forced to pass on to the foreign buyer.

I just learned this lesson -- luckily, early on; unluckily, the hard way -- from a used book dealer in Australia. My used copy of Alphabet For Gourmets cost me very little... until the shipping charges bumped it up to well-beyond the cost of a new one. Oh well.

It's not often that we can say we get a good deal in Britain but with books we fall lucky - there is no value added tax payable on books new or used here. Of course, I may be wrong technically and that VAT is payable at the 0% rate but that comes to the same thing. That is good news when we buy from abroad - there is no VAT or customs import duty payable, just the postage.

Django: it happened before, a few years ago; I contacted FS about it and they found a way of bypassing the Swiss Post, using another carrier. In fact the VAT was very little (8 francs or so); all the rest is commission and customs clearance - money for nothing. I've written to Swiss Post to complain, but so far, no answer.

oh well, sorry to rant; I was just feeling very disgruntled.

Actually, this is the main reason why I didn't renew this year. I paid exorbitant amounts to the Swiss post every single time I got a package from the Society. Last time it was around the amount overthemoon mentioned. It's just not worth it. I COULD afford it, but I don't see why I should pay the same or more for taxes and customs than the books are worth. And the books are already expensive.

Since the spines are brown with a red label, my E. M. Forster box set looks just like a box of cigars. The covers look like boxer shorts. The art's nothing special either. Still I'm glad they're in my library for, you know, the writing itself.

My complete Barsetshire set by Trollope (1980) has some really limp art too. Impressively uninspired.

I've been a member for a long time (on and off) and there have inevitably been disappointments.
One was the E F Benson Mapp & Lucia set, or at least the illustrations thereto. The books themselves are fine, the right size and weight for reading in bed, and the Natasha Ledwidge drawings are stylish - but there are so few of them they might as well not have been included.
Another disappointment was John Keats - the Complete Poems. It was my fault for not reading the prospectus properly, but I was taken aback - overwhelmed - by its huge size! Too big for comfortable reading.

This brings up an interesting question--when is a book too big to be anything buy an art object, not intended for reading. I think this needs a new thread, so I think I'll start it.

I returned home today to find Perfume had been delivered. I am not often disappointed by FS books but I was disappointed that this edition contained no illustrations at all - not even a frontispiece. Thank goodness someone had the sense to use an enlarged engraved Paris streetmap for the endpapers!

re Perfume: oh that is a disappointment (mine hasn't arrived yet). It is definitely worth illustrating.

Yes, Perfume wihout illustrations is a major letdown. What happened?

You're not kidding. I was mightily upset about the lack of illustrations in Perfume. Does anyone know if this is the start of a future trend .... and the end of my membership?

Did anyone write to FS about it? In future I'll read the book details very carefully before ordering.

Edited: I just sent them a message.

There have been a few in the past - but even most of these at least had a frontispiece. It will be interesting to see whether the Society offers an explanation for the lack of illustrations. No doubt any reply will be anodyne as opposed to a robust reply along the lines of "A new member of our editorial staff was entrusted with the task but royally ****ed up. We are happy to inform you that they have been dismissed."

The 3-volume set of The Anatomy of Melancholy has no illustration at all, except for a very poor reproduction of the original frontispiece at the beginning of the first partition. I don't care so much because I like the binding and the hand-marbled cover, and anyway, I don't think that, in this particular case, illustrations would make the reading easier... Generally speaking, binding and cover are more important to me than illustrations. But my opinion might be an exception here...

Re Perfume.
Well, I just received a reply, very promptly!
"The reason for its lack of decoration is entirely due to the author Patrick Suskind. Like people who maintain that the scenery is always better in plays performed on the radio, Patrick Suskind believes that his prose is sufficiently illuminating for the informed reader."

So be it.

Actually, I reckon that all self-respecting writers think the same of their own prose.

Nevertheless, I intend to do some illustrations myself and insert them. I've always wanted to illustrate a book.

Would love to see one of your illustrations Overthemoon!

The three volume Montagne isn't illustrated, The Bible - my copy arrived yesterday, and I had thought it was illustrated, the Quran has some illustrations. I've read the latter before but never the bible and thought I'd enjoy reading it in a nice edition, and also prefer a paragraph edition.

Caroline: I'm not sure I would dare flash them around (if I ever get started on them). We'll see. I've just been thinking that FS could have put in old maps of Paris (similar to the endpapers that show the tip of the Ile de la Cité), the Cévennes area and Grasse, I don't see how Suskind could object to those. Or old copper alambics and things.

Not sure mine really counts as a disappointment, because I haven't received it yet - but I've got Anna Karenina on order, and it's the Louise and Aylmer Maude translation, when the word on the street is that the Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky translations of anything Russian are rapidly becoming the definitive ones. A tad short-sighted of Folio, perhaps?

EDIT, a few hours later: whilst in my local Waterstone's today I checked both versions out - Oxford use the Maude translation, whilst Penguin use P-V - and from my brief glances I have to say I personally preferred the Maude, so I guess my proto-disappointment isn't a disappointment at all! As you were, everyone.

Your quick glances led you astray. The Maude translation is perfectly acceptable, but the Volokhonsky translation is clearly superior and is, as you noted, quickly becoming the new standard. This is the only reason I haven't bought Folio's Anna Karenina.

jbmill3, that’s the thing about translations, isn’t it? You may think Volokhonsky is superior to Maude, but DLSmithies does not have to agree. And just because one is considered the standard or definitive one does not mean everyone must like it.

Time magazine bruited about the superiority of the P-V Tolstoy translations, but I tend to agree with LucasTrask that translations are always a matter of personal taste (unless the translator just gets things totally wrong), and that the Maude translations have not only earned the blessing of Tolstoy, but have, in fact, become standards of their own. (Who doubts that The Jerusalem Bible is more accurate and informed than the King James Version, and yet who would throw away the KJV?)

Poster 67, did I understand you correctly that the new edition of The Qur'an has illustrations? (not illuminated decorations?) That seems very insensitive to devout Muslims; if any Folio book should NOT be illustrated, it is The Qur'an.

I think all Folio Society Devotees should e-mail overthemoon and cajole her into doing those illustrations for Perfume and making them available for the rest of us!

Django6924 wrote:
Poster 67, did I understand you correctly that the new edition of The Qur'an has illustrations? (not illuminated decorations?) That seems very insensitive to devout Muslims; if any Folio book should NOT be illustrated, it is The Qur'an.

According to FS description there are “six double pages reproduced from the opulent Qur’ân of Sultan Baybars, commissioned in 1304. This is one the most magnificent of all Islamic manuscripts, with exquisite decoration added by the team of the master illuminator Abu Bakr, and it is now held in the British Library. The binding design by Frances Button is based on a frontispiece of the same work.” The flyer they mailed out for it shows one of the reproduced pages. I am tempted by it and I am still debating wether or not I should buy it.

".....The Jerusalem Bible is more accurate and informed than the King James Version, and yet who would throw away the KJV?)"
The Church of England, for a start....

Re #64 : What was implicit in my remark was who, with any sensitivity to great poetry, would throw away the KJV.

Incidentally, I don't know what the C of E is using these days, but I hope someone is using Father Knox's translation, which strikes me as a good amalgam of (fairly) modern scholarship and beautiful prose.

I believe that the C of E is currently using the New Revised Standard Version. The scholarship there is very good, but much of the Elizabethan, "beautiful prose" has been changed to "the form of the English language that is most widely current in our day".

Re #76: much of the Elizabethan, "beautiful prose" has been changed to "the form of the English language that is most widely current in our day".

Oh, the humanity.....

(I'm not sure if this is the version that Dwight MacDonald scathingly reviewed over 30 years ago, but he did a paragraph by paragraph comparison between the KJV translation of the story of Lazarus and the newer translation's version, which was flat, and depressingly prosaic in comparison. He DID acknowledge they had sense enough to retain the KJV's "Jesus wept," but he was sure there had been a lot of support for rendering this as "Jesus burst into tears."

Re #77: "I'm not sure if this is the version that Dwight MacDonald scathingly reviewed over 30 years ago..."

Actually, that was the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the precursor of the New Revised Standard Version. The NRSV follows the same trend that Dwight MacDonald holds in contempt. The quote about the form of English in 76 above is from the "To the Reader" section of the NRSV.

This comment really doesn't belong in the "Disappointments" thread, but since we're discussing the KJV, I'd like to mention that in recently reading The Four Gospels, I was reminded of the beauty of the KJV and ordered the new Folio Society version as my old copy of the KJV is in a much smaller font printed on highly translucent paper, which is very tiring to read. The new FS version eliminates both of these problems in a beautiful production, as usual.

>69 DLSmithies: et.al.

I asked a professor of Slavic languages about how to select a translation of major Russian works. I specifically mentioned Maude. He said that the Maude translations were 'accurate'. We then discussed how one's purpose in selecting a translation is as important as anything. If you want to be pretty sure you're getting the meaning of the original (as best anyone other than the author knows the meaning), accurate is a good measure. If you want the joy of well crafted prose, then accuracy will probably have to be sacrificed. This is an especially critical issue in translations of poetry.

Some translators hit a good balance, which often results in the kind of praise that Pevear is getting these days. Also, some of the best translations often come from highly regarded authors, as they have developed their craft to where they can be accurate, while still finding right 'feel'.

Another factor is simply your tolerance/enjoyment of the language of older translations. A highly regarded translation from the 1800s may seem a bit formal and stilted today, but I enjoy English works from that period, so I don't shy away from translations into English from that period. However, you will sometimes find that the older translators felt free to change or delete portions of the original that bothered their ethical, social, or religious sensitivities. The 'standard' for the English translations of Jules Verne's works are very poor in that much was left out that hinted of evolution or was thought to be simply too complex or detailed for the average reader.

A bit wordy, but I hope this is useful

Os.

Osbaldistone, I'd like to comment on your message.

I come from the opposite side - Russian is my native language, and I've first encountered most English literary works (as well as German, French, etc.) through their Russian translations. Now in Russia, and especially in the Soviet Union, the art of translation hit in my opinion an incredibly high level, so high, in fact, that the translations were complete works of art by themselves. Such are the complete translations of Dickens, Shakespeare's plays (many of them by Boris Pasternak), Goethe's Faust (again by him) and many, many others.

My only problem with them, if I can call it so, is that it was very hard afterwards to read the originals... Their tone was often very different from the one I got used to when I read the translations, and in some cases after reading both, I stuck with the Russian version. It took me a long time to appreciate in English even such a book as Winnie-the-Pooh, as the Russian version is quite a bit funnier (at least for Russians; I did come to love the original in the end, but rather as an additional version of the book I knew).

This I think is the greatest possible aim for translators - to surpass the original, at least for those whose native language is the one the book is being translated to. And in this I think the P-V translations succeed: Tolstoy's Russian is mostly bulky and cumbersome. It is never an easy read language-wise, as he has a way of constructing sentences in the least fluent way possible (which you feel especially in 'War and Peace', less so in Anna Karenina or in his other books). The greatest thing for me in the P-V translations is their immense readability, which far surpasses the original (I've only read their Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, so can't vouch for the others). I think even if they weren't as accurate, one would be hard pressed not to recommend them.

Sorry about this also becoming a bit wordy.

Again, translations are pretty much a matter of the reader's taste, as long as they don't become TOO inaccurate. Of course, #80 brings up an interesting question: what about a translation whose literary merit is far superior to an "accurate" translation? It's hard to say unless you are relatively fluent in both languages whether a superior rendering into a new language is superior to the original, but it is relatively easy to determine which translation is the superior literary product when compared to the others.

I was thinking of this the other day when reading Karim Emami's translation of Omar Khayyam. It was good, and according to experts in Old Persian, is very much more accurate than any previous translation--but since one of those translations is Edward Fitzgerald's, which experts consider more a paraphrase, which IS the best translation? I think old Omar would be very happy to have his work known to the English only in Fitzgerald's version.

#81 - the point is well taken. If you only read the best known of Fitzgerald's versions of the Rubaiyat - the one that begins:
"Awake! for Morning in the Bowl of Night
Has flung the Stone that puts the Stars to Flight:
And Lo! the Hunter of the East has caught
The Sultán's Turret in a Noose of Light."
- you have no way of judging how good a translation it is if you have no Farsi.
However, if you read his later versions of the same verse you can get a clear sense of the ideas the original was expressing and thus form a view of just how much poetic licence he takes. So we have:
"Wake! For the Sun behind yon Eastern height
Has chased the Session of the Stars from Night,
And, to the field of Heav'n ascending, strikes
The Sultán's Turret with a Shaft of Light." and finally:
"Wake! For the Sun who scatter'd into flight
The Stars before him from the Field of Night,
Drives Night along with them from Heav'n, and strikes
The Sultán's Turret with a Shaft of Light."

Re #82: Thanks so much for quoting these, as it illustrates the point I was trying to make better than I was able to do.

The first quatrain you quoted is from Fitzgerald's first published attempt (1859) at translating the Rubaiyat, and is, for me, far superior poetically to the latter 4 versions (your other quotes are from the 1868 and either the 1872, 1879, or 1889 versions, the verses being identical in the latter 3 versions). The personification of the sun as "the Hunter from the East" catching "the Sultan's Turret in a noose of light" is so much more magical an image than the rather flat description of the natural phenomena of the sun's rays lighting the higher objects first as translated in the other versions.

Likewise the image of the night sky as a bowl of liquid in which the stars are like creatures fleeing from the disturbance of the stone flung by Morning--is superior to Fitzgerald's final attempt, and FAR superior to the 1868 version with the journalistic-sounding "...from beyond yon Eastern height,/ has chased the Session of the Stars from Night." (I suspect this version might be closest to an accurate rendering of the Farsi.) Again, accuracy has perhaps caused the poetic impulse to suffer, and I'll stick with the 1859 version.

On a personal note, it is gratifying, appaloosaman, to see someone else familiar with the different versions of Fitzgerald's translation. Perhaps you may have the Thomas Y. Crowell 1921 edition of Fitzgerald's Rubaiyat, which prints all five versions and is handsomely bound in leather with Persian designs?

Nothing quite so sumptuous, I'm afraid! I have the FS edition that takes Fitzgerald's 1859 edition. But I took the quote from my slim blue Collins 1961 edition that also has all Fitzgerald's versions.

A few years ago Folio issued a 3 volume set of Dumas' Musketeer novels, 'The Three Musketeers', 'Twenty Years After' and 'The Man in The Iron Mask'.I bought the set. It was only when I read the introduction that I discovered Folio had omitted the two novels 'Vicomte de Bragelonne' and 'Louise de la Valliere' which come in sequence between 'Twenty Years After' and 'Iron Mask'.It would be very difficult to understand he plot of 'The Man in the Iron Mask' if read in isolation as so many of the plot elements are introduced in the two volumes Folio chose to omit. I was frankly annoyed by Folio's lack of nerve when they decided against the whole of the Musketeer 'saga.' I had to buy the missing segments in the World's Classics versions and read them before tacking the last of the Foilo volumes. The illustrations by Roman Pisarev in the Folio set are wonderful - a great illustrator. If anyone here has considered tackling the Musketeer series, I'd say go ahead, a great series of novels.

An interesting thing - I've been re-reading Omar Khayyam in one of the translations into Russian which I have, and when I got to the one Django and Appaloosaman had been discussing, it was nearly a word by word translation of Fitzgerald's first version. Something like this:

"Arise! The east has thrown a stone into the bowl of darkness.
On your way, ye caravans of stars. The dark has exhausted its strength.
And the proud tower of the Sultan is caught
By Sun-the-Hunter in a fiery noose."

It's not written from which language this was translated (though it sounds really beautiful in Russian too, no matter what Khayyam's true intention was). I'll try to find a literal translation and see what the original was.

Re 86: Fascinating, BorisG--I'm really curious what a literal translation would be like. The translation from which you quoted has the same poetic impulse even though I assume it's a (your?) translation back to English from the Russian. Again, it's a case of where poetry is more than the music of the words.

I have an interesting edition of the Rubaiyat which has on each page Fitzgerald's version, the original Farsi and the French translation by E'tessam Zadeh. The French bears barely any relation with the English but is considered by the editor of the book (Brigadier General Dr Hossein-Ali Nouri Esfandiary) to be the closest to the Farsi. The first verse, Awake! for Morning in the Bowl of Night, is in French:
Le soleil a dressé l'échelle du matin
Le roi du jour a mis dans sa coupe du vin
Bois donc: tel un héraut, l'aube, à travers le Monde
Répète ces deux mots comme un ordre divin
(my literal and unpoetic translation from French:
The sun has raised the morning's ladder
The king of the day has poured wine into his cup
Drink, then: like a herald, dawn, throughout the world
Repeats these two words as if they were a divine command)

There you go with poetic license! I looked yesterday through a complete edition in Russian (a different one - translated from Farsi, and which contains more than 500 quatrains), and couldn't find the one we were discussing at all. (I did see the one Overthemoon posted, but didn't link between the two.)

Could Fitzgerald have written it himself? It's one of the most beautiful ones, I think, and totally worthy of Khayyam's name, but it does stand out in its lack of wine, moon-faced beauties, and philosophizing.

Hi,

I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but I really found their editions where only one of the three page sides gilded incredibly annoying. I ordered mostly fairy tale books to read to my daughter (Blue Fairy book for example) and only the top side of the page was gilded. This was probably the main reason why I stopped ordering from them and defected to Easton Press.

Re #90: Frankly, I think that with the exception of the Easton Press books (more on those later), the usual practice when gilding (or dying) the page ends is to gild the top, which I always suspected made it easier to dust books that have sat on a shelf where dust normally collects just on the top. (Dyed page ends on top--and I can't think of any examples where all three sides of the pages were dyed--must be done for the purpose of making the dust easier to see (thanks!) and therefore remove.)

As a purely decorative touch, gilding all 3 sides has always struck me as a little ostentatious, and my Easton Press Last of the Mohicans is displaying signs of the gilt flaking off on the outside edges--the ones that get handled the most when you read.

In short, I like gilt or dyed top edges, but this alone doesn't make a fine book. Design, quality of paper and binding, and illustrations and type are the most important factors. Page edges can be gilt, dyed, deckled or speckled and it's all pretty much the same to me. (No uncut pages, though--please!--that's too much work if you are interested in reading the book.)

The one exception to my attitude about the relative unimportance of page edges: I have an old leather-bound edition of Spenser's Fairy Queen from the 1890s, and it has not only beautiful marbled end papers, but all the page edges are decorated with the same marbling! Truly lovely. I have also seen books from the years prior to WW I where the page edges are decorated with an illustration. This is a spectacular job of limited edition bookbinding, though old-fashioned and to some a little too fussy, but the results can be magnificent.

Easton will throw gold gild and leather on anything that can be put in a book. Their one approach to all books turns me off to them very much

You forgot the ribbon marker sewn into all EP books. I think EPs ribbons are too wide, but I do find them convenient and I like the fact they have them in all their books. I would personally like to see the Folio Society add them to all their books and not just the limited editions.

As for the Easton Press, I like some of their titles, and recently bought their 3 volume Astounding Stories set. I am also very interested in several other sets and one series that they publish. However, I much prefer the wide variety of bindings used by FS to the all leather bindings of EP.

As for gilding or dying the page edges, when it is done I prefer all three sides (or at least the top and side), so when only the top is done I do think it looks odd. However, in no way does it bother me or take away my appreciation for FS (or other publishers) books.

Lucas, I second the vote for ribbon markers.

Depending on what Easton Press series has your interest, you might want to check the online book exchanges for the original Heritage Press (or even Limited Editions Club) versions of these works. Frankly, the quality of the older Heritage Press (pre-Norwalk, Connecticut) is much superior to the Easton Press books--leather bindings be damned!--and the Heritage books are usually much cheaper. The 100 Best Books series from EP are just reprints of the Heritage originals, and I assure you the clarity of the printing and the reproduction of the illustrations is far superior to EP. Many of the older Heritage Press books had handset type, original lithographic prints (not offset or photolithographic), and some were even leather bound and/or hand illuminated!!! I bought a gorgeous leather-bound Heritage Press edition of Harte's Tales From the Gold Rush with silk moire endpapers from biblio.com for a third of price of the average new EP edition.

Sorry to be a little "urban" for a second, but way to represent for Macy Django!

Re #91:

I certianly agree that gilded edges do not in themselves make a fine book, but it is part of it. I fully realize the practical purposes to it, but even so we purchase these books not only for their famous stories but also for their esthetic appeal and I've simply never been able to get my head around single gilded side pages. It just seems sort of lop-sided to me!

Re #92:

I know what you mean. Sometimes it seems at first EP books all look the same though if you look closer you can see their subtle differences. If EP threw in as many wonderful illustrations as FS does, the world would be a better place!

Re #93

Not all of EP's ribbons are that large. I have seen two sizes of ribbons, larger and smaller (big ones for the larger books, smaller ones for the little books). I can certainly agree that FS books could certainly go with ribbons as well. I'm quite interested in EP's science fiction line up, especially their signed first editions. I really should get back into FS's lineup, they've brough out many selections I've been waiting for to be bound in something more than a paper dust jacket (Gnostic Gospels is a particular interest)

re gilt edges - I do believe that the gilt edge adds a certain thickness to the pages to prevent dust getting in (have read that somewhere or other), and there is really not much point putting it on side or bottom. On the side it would rub off on the fingers.

I third the vote for ribbon markers.

Re: #97

I completely agree with you regarding the practicality of fully gilded pages, but even so it just seems so dang lopsided to me! I suppose if you wanted to look at it, we buy these books from this press firstly because they're great stories, but also for its esthetic appeal. I don't know, maybe I just suck :(

Re #98: Pas de tout, Goran. One man's gilt is another man's guilt, I suppose. As I said, I like those old books with marbled page edges or illustrations. I was only saying that I personally wouldn't defect to Easton Press from the FS just over the page edges. Frankly, I'm amazed the Easton Press can afford to sell well-bound leather books (with the too cool ribbon markers!) at such a low price. I hope they continue to prosper.

Re: 99

Well they've been doing it for something like 30 years, so I guess they probably know what they're doing. On the other hand, one could be surprised FS could afford to stay in business with their constant contracting of semi-famous and famous artists. Hehe, i find it funny how you said "defect." What can i say, the dark side is tempting! Besides, Easton Press prints more modern stories which is a nice plus.

Easton Press also prints far more science fiction, which is my favorite genre. However, other than the Astounding Stories set which I bought and the Lensman set, I am not looking at their S-F titles at this time. Instead I am interested in their Famous First Edition series, Wizard of OZ set and James Bond set. However, I have no intention of defecting to them.

Re: #101

I too am far more interested in science fiction, especially the classics so they do well for me. Though I must admit FS's science fiction works are just beautiful. I've subscribed to the Masters of Science Fiction series and have gotten some of their signed first editions of science fiction as well. If FS would publish more SF work with their trademark quality, i'd be in heaven!

Has anyone else gotten Blake's Jerusalem? I was disappointed to see that the illustrations did not take up the full page, causing me to have to squint at each of them to read the writing and really to take in the drawing. Also, the text is in the back of the volume, while all of the drawings with the difficult to read text are bunched up at the front. I was really looking forward to this and was disappointed with the result.

How does everyone else feel about this kind of layout? I prefer the drawing across from the text with all of the commentary and footnotes below the text, which saves you having to flip back and forth. Many of Dante's books (Cary's translation) do this extremely effectively, allowing you to both enjoy the book and to keep track of what is going on via the footnotes.

Regarding #58 and following, I finally ordered a copy of Perfume: The Story of a Murderer and just got it a little while ago. My younger daughter wanted to read it. She is an artist, and I explained to her about the lack of illustrations and suggested that she illustrate it for me. After she read the book, she told me that the most important sense in the book is smell, and she thought that maybe it wasn't illustrated because the visuals would detract from the emphasis on scent. Maybe that is why the author did not want it illustrated. Anyway, she gave it a good review, so I can't wait to read it.
--BJ

The author refused to let Folio illustrate his work, as to not distract from his prose!

I suppose an author has his rights--but I think the Society might have thought twice about printing this, as for me Folio Society books are virtually synonymous with "illustrated books." Having decided to print it anyway, I think they should have made a very noticeable caveat about the lack of illustrations in announcing publication.

I wonder how Süskind was persuaded to agree to the movie. Or maybe he didn't.

Re #107: Not to put too fine a point on things, overthemoon, but I think cupidity was a very persuasive factor in his decision. According to the trades:

"Producer/screenwriter Bernd Eichinger, had been trying to get Süskind, with whom he was friends, to sell the rights to the novel from the time of its original publication in 1985. In 2001, he finally managed to convince Suskind to sign over the rights, for 10 million euro."

If he charged his friend $10 million euro, one wonders what he might have charged a stranger........

Anyway, I'm sure the Folio Society couldn't afford to offer a comparable enticement to Süssking to overcome his scruples.

Considering how much money the movie made, you could just as easily say that his friend originally tried to pay him less than the story was worth.

I read at IMDB.com the quote you posted, but they also said, "Eichinger very much considered the film to be a dream project."

The truth is probably that they worked it out just like people do, with neither of them being particularly greedy or unfair.

It's completely ok for an author to control whether there are illustrations or not, for whatever reasons he likes.

If anything should have changed, then it should have been FS deciding not to do the book.

Re #109: Points well taken, and I agree completely that the Folio Society should have reconsidered their decision after hearing the author's refusal to allow illustrations.

However, I can't agree that a certain element of greed was NOT involved in Süsskind's sale of the film rights. Were he so concerned with the sanctity of his prose as to think a handful--or even a hundred--illustrations in a book would be a distraction, I have to think he would not have sold the film rights for 10 million euros--or 50 million. J.D. Salinger, after all, has steadfastly ignored incredibly lucrative offers to film Catcher in the Rye, as well as many of his other works.

I can't help feeling that there's something Pecksniffian about Süsskind's decision--despite the high-flown rhetoric of his "prose being sufficiently illuminating for the reader." Perhaps it wasn't merely financially motivated; he might have insisted on right of approval of the illustrations (for which control I would ask, were Folio considering printing my novel).

Did the film make a lot of money? I don't think it fared too well in the U.S. market, and heard it had a mixed critical reception. ADDENDA: After writing this last paragraph I did some research and found out that the picture did very well overseas--earning 98% of its total gross--approximately $165 million US outside the US.

Of course, other authors leap at the chance to sell their book rights and no one calls them greedy. This guy says no for years, but they finally make the offer irresistible and he goes for it (if that's what happened). HE'S greedy.

As for the book, surely pure greed would have had him saying, "sure, illustrate the book, I don't care. Just send me the check." Instead, he refused, maybe knowing that such refusal could kill the deal and lose him money.

Maybe the situation is that he does care, but 10 million Euros is too much to turn down. Is that Pecksniffian, or a tough call that most people wouldn't spend a second debating? Must it be Pecksniffian vs. J.D. Salinger? Maybe there's a middle ground.

Anyway, it's all speculation, of course. I have no idea what happened. Lacking information, I TRY to assume good (or at least reasonable) motives before bad ones.

Given that I got that I got Wealth of Nations as my renewal offer, I think that Smith might have something to say about this conversation...

Re #111: Those other authors you mention really shouldn't be considered greedy because the desire to increase one's personal wealth is nearly universal, and in many ways commendable--cf. Aesop's story of the Ant and the Grasshopper. "Greed" is a matter of degree--the desire to accumulate wealth in excess of one's reasonable needs. I think holding out for 10 million euros would fall into this category.

In fact, I wasn't being critical about his shrewd business dealings in selling the film rights--I was merely trying to explain why I think he sold them in response to overthemoon's question #107 above. Tthe desire to get the best price possible seems totally acceptable in these days, and I have always felt that the Seven Mortal Sins, are called such because they are an essential element of our being in Life--and are thus almost a partial definition of humanity. (In fact, some of these, such as Lust and Sloth I cheerfully embrace.)

It's when they are indulged at the expense of others that they become causes for censure. Now there is no evidence that Mr. Süskind's sale price hurt anyone else, and I'm even willing to believe that the 10 million euros was accepted because it permitted him to provide for his family, support the local symphony, endow a few scholarships, and ease the sufferings of people in Darfur. Even though altruistic desires were not the basis for his acceptance, I would still find no fault in getting the compensation he felt his labors deserved. What I objected to was the comment (which in all fairness may not have been his exact quote) that his prose needed no further "illumination." If he really thought that was the case, why, as overthemoon asked, did he agree to a filmic presentation? I can understand, tolerate and even accept avarice; what I can't stand is sanctimony.

Again, we don't know the precise reason for Süskind's refusal, the conditions he or the Folio Society may have attached to the negotiations, his motives or what he actually may have said, so let me apologize for any remarks I have made that caused him, his family, his agent, or his apologists any anguish, and in the spirit of the season, "God bless us, every one."

ADDENDA: My particular apologies--and I mean it sincerely--to Mr. Süskind for consistently and carelessly adding an extra 's' to his patronym in #110 above.

I was a bit disappointed in Folio F. Scott Fitzgerald set. The baby blue stylized Art Deco design did nothing for me. I found it a little too geometric and it seemed to jump off my shelves and scream, "New books! New books!" in a way that most Folio books do not. I ended up replacing them with the Fitzgerald set from Easton Press, which is probably the most beautifully made Easton Press set I know of. It used two ink colors on the spine, plus gilding and the color of the leather itself.

I've looked at that Easton Press Fitzgerald set a couple of times. I like the different colors and wish they would do that more. In fact, I stopped getting Easton Press books mainly because I was getting too much "sameness" on my shelves with only the color of the leather varying while the title was simply in gold. The ones that still tempt me are usually when they use a couple of different colors on the spine. The previous Hemingway set did this to great effect, if I remember rightly; the current one they offer went back to a uniform look. I love the variety in the Folio Society bindings.

Yes, one of the way Easton Press has cut costs over the years is by making most of their covers/spines solely gold on leather. The old Dickens set and Hemingway set used black as well--buy you are correct, the new ones are simply gilt on leather. The Arabian Nights set still uses black and gold on the red leather. The Fitzgerald is the only one I know of that is currently being printed that uses two ink colors, plus the gold and the leather color, for a total of four colors on the spines/covers. They are really beautiful and make so much more of an impact than the simpler gilt on leather designs.

I really like the way Folio titles mix in with my Easton Press and vintage titles. I originally started collecting only leatherbound books years ago, but the collection looked too oppressively one-note. Folio offers so much variety on their spine designs that they give my collection a much needed "oomph."

Sometimes a FS book/set just doesn't work for me, like the Fitzgerald one, but for the most part, I've been very happy.

>116 maisonvivante:
I second all of that - It was the samenss of Easton Press (and the older Franklin Library) editions that pushed me to buy more FS and stop buying Easton (plus, I think FS commissions much better artwork and illustrations, overall). However, their sci-fi publications tend to stand out more (at least when I last bought them a few years back) even though they are still gilt-stamped leather only, because they are more creative, with less symmetry.

Os.

Heh, at this stage of my 'bibliomania' I actually PREFER the 'sameness' of the older Franklin Library leathers. Not to say I don't have my fair share of FS.

Re #114 and following: For me the Folio Fitzgerald is a major failure. Your criticism of the binding and design is right on the mark, and the illustrations are inexcusable: Fitzgerald was the icon of the Jazz Age--a period of wild flamboyance that wasn't equaled again until the psychedelic 60s. The black and white cartoons, aside from getting the costume and architecture right, have no feeling for the colorful exuberance of America in the 20s. I would have been happier had the illustrations been
more along the lines of J.C. Leyendecker's Arrow shirt ads (or Ertè's Vanity Fair covers).

I also agree that the Easton Press Fitzgerald is one of the best "Complete" sets of an author I have seen, and that despite my predilection for each book wearing the "clothes" that best fits the character of the work, I intend to get this set and put up my Folio set on e-Bay.

I finally found and ordered a reasonably priced Dorothy Sayers set before Christmas. While I am happy to have the set it is definitely a disappointment.

I strongly dislike Natacha Ledwidge's drawings. The bindings nearly cause me to wince when seeing them on my bookshelves. The interior illustrations almost cause me to skip pages when reading in order to get away from them.

This, of course, rules out my purchase of the Mapp and Lucia set. Out of curiousity, is anyone here a fan of Ms. Ledwidge's work?

#120
Actually, I received a flyer yesterday from Folio detailing the Mapp & Lucia set and it was the accompanying illustrations that made me decide to put the set in my basket. I was doing so well too. There are no illustrations on the website page and I hadn't really looked at the book description on the site (computer eyes aren't too great right now) so I wasn't even tempted until the flyer came. And now books I wasn't even considering buying have been ordered. Those flyers should come with a warning sticker: "Dangerous to your pocketbook"!

>120 JamesIII:

Her illustrations, I think, are very well-suited to the Benson books. Her depictions of Georgie, in particular, are hilarious.

By the same token, her illustrations for The Towers of Trebizond, one of my favorite books, are the reason I started this "Disappointments" thread--they are superficial to the point of annoying.

Dissapointed at the treatment of The varieties of religious experience by William James Really wanted this work and jumped at it when I saw it on the sale.
However I think it's pointless binding a XIXc American pragmatist with an oil painting by El Greco-manierism and Counter-Reform full throtlle. It doesn't give any hint or "taste" of the book-
Methinks that they only did the artsy thing.Without developing any concept behind it. Hope they do better next time they approach this book.

(Touchstones edited)

Sorry to rejuvinate a dormant thread, but I just had to post here after leafing through my copy of Agincourt for the first time since I acquired it.

I was very excited about this edition, not only because of its content, but also because the production looked wonderful on the website. Most of it, in fact, _is_ wonderful. Nice paper, typesetting, and plates. But that front board, noooo!! Could it be any more dull? I was prepared for the fact that that the cover is printed, not blocked (a shame in itself). But the printing is just plain lacklustre. A metallic finish to the gold parts of the cover and re-saturation of the reds would have made it really shine. Instead, the cover looks more like it was produced on an inkjet with an empty red cartridge!

It's the only time I have ever opened a Folio edition and truly felt underwhelmed.

If you want to witness the thing for yourself, there are four copies left on the Folio website.

I'm currently reading Anna Karenina and I particularly dislike the gold glitter that gets all over my hands, shirt, pillow, etc - and that's just on reading the first 30 pages. Seems more like a poor Christmas card then a book. Looks quite nice, other than that, though.

Probably one of my most hated are the Dark is Rising series - hideous illustrations and those ugly coated paper boards. I have to retain my set for nostalgia reasons, but I wish they would have made different choices with this set. The Scholastic covers from childhood were much better.

>125 EclecticIndulgence: I'm currently reading Anna Karenina and I particularly dislike the gold glitter that gets all over my hands, shirt, pillow, etc - and that's just on reading the first 30 pages. Seems more like a poor Christmas card then a book.

I exchanged my copy for the older 1975 edition, which I much prefer; that was one of the (main) reasons.

I was very disappointed with the new Pilgrim's Progress LE. The only things that distinguish it from a typical fine edition are the cloth-covered slipcase, and the price It was at least $300 more than, say Militon's Paradise Lost with Blake illustrations. luckily, I don't have to worry about the cost.

Never been disappointed with the books, once in hand (Quality Assurance issues aside). I find their website depicts the books fairly accurately,
and I always go over the production details carefully before buying (paper, kind of leather, etc.).

Only one disappointment for me with FS: The paper used for A Scanner Darkly and Do Androids is GLOSSY.

Yes, glossy paper all throughout within.

Worst possible printing choice you could make. The book is beautifully designed, no doubt, but it feels like flipping through a cheap magazine.

The Book of Psalms - The print is miniscule. Do not buy this edition.

As I Lay Dying and Possession.
The latter in particular looked really nice on the website.
I'd say Labyrinths by Borges too could do with a 'relooking'.

I went to their Holborn store a couple of months before they closed it wanting to buy some books to start my collection back then. One in my wishlist was 2001: A Space Odyssey and when I saw it in person I opted not to buy it. I was not convinced by how the metallic foil looked and especially, did not like that the back was not rounded.

>131 Kainzow: Agreed re. Labyrinths. I've read that there's difficulty surrounding the rights to publish Borges, but I sure would love to see his stories in the fine edition they deserve.

I’m reading the Aeneid LE, and the illustrations are captioned with the quote of the text to which they relate as well as the line number where the text is. The line reference for the illustration in book 9 contains a typo - it should be to line 725 instead of 275. I would have hoped that in an LE they’d have put more care into proofreading.

>133 SolerSystem:

Although 'Labyrinths' is still awaiting a true fine press/private press edition, the "early Sidney Shiff LEC era" published his short story collection 'Ficciones' in a stunning edition (1984) with full flat-black aniline cowhide leather. The book was designed and illustrated by famous Conceptual/Minimalist artist Sol Lewitt and the Cloister Bold type (cold and forboding) was set by Mackenzie-Harris (Arion Press). While awaiting a nicer edition of Labyrinths this LEC edition should certainly tide you over until then.

>135 dlphcoracl: I have it and second this comment. It is a quite lovely book.

Squarish, bulky, and supple. But no sunlight! The spine fades rather quickly.

My biggest disappointment is the Chinese-made Silmarillion. There are several problems with it. The first one might be just a defect with my copy - the gilding was stamped poorly. I don't know how common this defect is and how Chinese printing(s) compares with the older European and British printings. Perhaps it's just a rare defect, although I suspect there are more such sloppily done bindings out there.

The second problem is the paper. I do NOT like paper used in all Chinese-made editions. It's too smooth, plain and ordinary; not much different from paper in my printer. This is the reason I've decided to avoid all reprints done in China. I'd still buy, reluctantly, completely new editions made there, but only if there is no alternative (e.g. Under Fire).

But the real reason for this post is the quality of printing. I have NEVER seen a Folio printed so badly. I know C&C can print well, as I have a few other Chinese folios - The Vikings, Under Fire, etc. But my printing of the Silmarillion is ridiculous (9th printing, 2018), not sure if other Tolkiens are printed as badly. Apologies for poor photos, lighting conditions are not good at the moment. The text is actually deeper black than appears on the photos, the problem is the weird pixellation of all text.

>137 elladan0891: Dear Lord. No chance of an earlier version replacement, I suppose?

>137 elladan0891: this is atrocious. Have you brought it to FS’ attention?

>137 elladan0891: you sent me rushing off to inspect my own Silmarillion which was printed at Grafos, Barcelona, 8th printing 2013.
To my naked eye, the letters looked OK, although the kerning is uneven in places. But then I looked at the text through a macro lens, and saw that it is almost as bad as yours - not one of the letters has sharp edges. The paper is Abbey Wove.

Using the same macro lens I compared with the paperback that was nearest to hand, where the edges of the letters are perfectly sharp.

It would be interesting to know what the first edition and earlier reprints were like...

As for the gilding, the flames on the boat have a few red flecks, but very few compared with yours.

>138 RATBAG.: >139 ChampagneSVP:
This was a gift, so I can't return it, unfortunately.

>140 overthemoon:
Very, very interesting. So looks like C & C had a bad type to start with, they just made it worse. Now I wonder how the early British editions look like. Also wondering if LOTR/Hobbit have this issue.

My Silmarillion is from the second printing, 2002, at the Bath Press, Bath: mercifully free of pixellation.





It's a sorry state of affairs that the C&C effort at least wasn't spotted at an early stage and rejected.

Perhaps the poor quality was spotted, but the staff member who flagged it was overruled by a someone higher up the management chain?

>142 terebinth:
Good to know that the earlier printings were fine. I will look to replace my copy with a Bath Press printing.

Can anyone comment on the print quality of the Hobbit and LoTR? Do later printings have the same issue as the Silmarillion? I still need to acquire both.

>144 elladan0891: I recently bought the LoTR, 19th printing 2020, Yu Long Pure Paper by C&C Offset, seems the printing is a bit pixelization, but the printing on title page is clear and sharp, but the the content page is not the same, not sure whether they make this on purpose or printing issue.
Pic for your reference.