From Dawn to Decadence "28/01"

Nice picture here

Let's hope the title is not an allegory of the Society's fate. :-)

At two volumes I'm sure it will be priced akin to war and peace. At $200 plus shipping I'll have to wait for secondary market.

Yeah I'm guessing $199 US, maybe offered at 10% off.

>2 gatxito:

Mr Barzun certainly thought so.

Even at 20% off I wouldn't be tempted. FS standard edition books should not cost much above $50 per volume and certainly should be less than $75.

It is not the price so much that has me waffling. It is Barzun's philosophy itself. And he does have a very pronounced and, ah, shall we say, tentative relationship with formal English grammar. His writings can be a chore to read at times and I always get the sense that he thinks he is smarter than his readers. Also, what is up with "Techne"? We all know what technology is...and we all know what craft is...

His writings remind me of Adorno or Walter Benjamin. I will most likely buy this volume if it is $200 or less.

Tim

>6 UK_History_Fan:

The original HarperCollins edition listed for $36 fifteen years ago.

I like the design. I will buy, if the price is right, which I suspect will not be.

As a galumphing autodidact frequently half a century or so behind the times in his attentions, I hadn't met the author's work until I recently read his 1947 essay The Higher Learning in America in a volume of Horizon. I've tried to gather some impression of the nature and scope of the present book, and will at least be tempted to buy if it's somewhere in the £100 region. Whether the temptation would prevail is another matter, I'm not quite persuaded yet that the work is one that will benefit greatly from the Folio treatment over and above the worth of a solid trade hardback copy. Those who know it already may be more, or less, convinced.

I'm actually glad this has been given the Folio treatment. I recently attempted to read my trade paper edition of this work, and the type is very compact and on the small side. Not the most conformable thing to read, even for me who rarely has issues reading small print. (I've also has the same problem with my mass paperback of Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell, so had to put that down as well.) So I'm hoping the FS edition opens up the feel of the type a bit more and makes it easier on the eyes.

Really pleased with this, although it depends on price, of course.

>10 terebinth:

A Stroll with William James remains one of my all-time favorite... intellectual biographies? hagiographies? I don't even know how to categorize it, but it is a great... stroll with William James, if that kind of thing interests you...

I recently bought 'decadence' in paperback. If I love it, the FS edition may be purchased.

>13 kcshankd: just ordered A Stroll with William James on your recommendation.

>13 kcshankd: Thank you, that does look enticing and necessary. I'm snowed under with reading at the moment but will start watching available copies and an order is probably imminent.

>14 Caroline_McElwee:
>15 terebinth:

I hope you enjoy it as much as I eventually did - though I decided upon starting that I had better travel back through James myself, so that slowed things down considerably. Of course there are two great Library of America volumes - and I never really have tackled Henry... hmm this may never end...

NY Times Review

I'm loving Folio's attention to non-fiction. This will be a definite buy.

I will be getting this as well. I can't resist sweeping intellectual histories like this. Another similar book is Ideas by Peter Watson, also given the Folio treatment a few years back.

>18 Quicksilver66: Yes, indeed. I'm very glad I purchased FS's 4-volume treatment of Ideas by Peter Watson.

>19 ultrarightist:

Yeah, a 4-volume treatment they should have released in a box with....yeah four volumes.

Every time I think about that/those set(s), I scratch my head wondering why volume 3-4 went OOP so soon before volume 1-2. A case of poor judgement by FS on some level I guess.

Sorry for OT

From DtoD now available plus "themed pair" offer.

This US price is a few dollars less than I expected. Might have to consider getting this at the 11% off. And that slipcase looks awesome!

I did order this. Like brother_salvatore the price was a bit less in dollars than I had expected with the discount. I also went ahead and added the Folio Byron book. I hope that Folio better aligns their dollar prices with the actual favorable exchange rates.

I am looking forward to spending some time with these. I will probably be referring to several other books as I go through this. The idea of pairing other suggested Folio books with this is quite appreciated.

Now, if Folio could only partner with The Great Courses for a Folio book and set of The Great Course lectures, I will be at the ready.

> 23 - I have done many of the Great Courses on my daily commute. I saw from their latest catalogue that they're partnering with National Geographic and someone else (I can't recall who) on some courses, and a partnership with FS for some courses (obviously not many of them) would be very interesting.

Has anyone read From Dawn to Decadence? It's only now that I'm giving the book a look on the site and the slipcase intrigued me.
Is it as insightful as it seems?

I see that P&P for From Dawn to Decadence is as if it were 2 books making it €10.50 to post to Ireland. This negates the discount completely. I realise that it is a 2 volume set but is this not unusual?

>26 N11284: Not really - the shipping of sets had always been higher than single books.

>26 N11284:
It has always been like that.You buy a set of 6 books and you'll be expected to pay the shipping for all 6.

>25 Kainzow:

I've read it. I gave it 4 out of 5 stars. Unlike BINDINGSTHATLAST, I didn't notice any grammatical shortcomings, but I also don't recall being blown away by Barzun's insights. By way of comparison, I've read a lot of Richard J. Evans, Simon Schama, Richard Marius, and A. N. Wilson, and they've all impressed me more than Barzun. But YMMV.

They now have full courses on Amazon Prime and also sample Courses on Netflix.

> 25 I should be more clear. I mean it seems to me that Barzun writes English like it is French which results in some overly complicated sentence structure. I did not mean that his English grammar is actually wrong. My bad...

Tim

You got me excited, but alas the Great Courses are not on Amazon Prime but instead Amazon Instant Video (so you still have to pay for each lecture and/or full course).

In this Folio edition, I am unable to match indicated pages. Barzun shows a greater or lessor symbol with a page number that "directs the reader to a page where the topic is carried forward or has been introduced."
I am finding what is being referenced but not on the pages indicated.
What am I doing wrong?

>33 IndyTaz:
Perhaps we are overlooking something, IndyTaz, but this looks like a very serious oversight on the part of Folio. Barzun uses these references once every page or two throughout the book, but they do not match the pages in the Folio edition. Sometimes it is so obvious that I don't even have to check, such as the reference "124>" on page 132. The text reads "..., as we shall see," and then refers us to a page earlier in the book that appears to be irrelevant to the topic. I have a copy of the original HarperCollins edition and it carries the same note (124>), but in that edition page 124 follows the reference as it should and discusses the expected topic. Unless another reader can straighten us out, this oversight (mistake) makes the Folio edition useless for serious study.

I did cross reference a name in the Index and the page indicated does match although Barzun's text cross reference page does not.

>35 IndyTaz:
Yes, the index appears to be properly converted, but the in-text references are not.

>:(

> 33,35 That's an appalling oversight by Folio if so, and such a shame as the volumes are otherwise beautifully produced. Cue flashbacks of the butchered footnotes in the Folio Gibbons and other victories of style over substance - mercifully not many in my FS experience. I hope Folio would be able to correct the omission as soon as feasible, at least for subsequent printings, as this clearly affects the usability of the text.

Had anybody informed Folio about this and if so, what was their response? I seriously doubt it would get corrected for a very long time and even then, only upon a reprinting under their now "back in print" section.

This is really unfortunate. I expect nothing but serious study from all of my books. To the batmobile...

I'd just progressed, quite rapidly, from blaming my own bone-headedness for not recognising why I was being directed to a specific page, through wondering what else the numbers could possibly mean, to strongly suspecting exactly the severe copyediting error as diagnosed here. Rats. I'd hesitated for quite some time as to whether the work was such a one as to warrant spending £60 over and above the price of a standard hardback on its Folio treatment - I think such descriptions as I could find of the current trade hardback edition settled the matter, it seems to be a production with laminated boards designed for school libraries - and now I'm wondering whether to continue reading before buying some or other earlier edition to whose pages the numbers in the Folio volumes actually point.

Maybe in future I'm going to sit back from the purchase of any new Folio title for a couple of months - I suppose the final day of any introductory offer would be one idea - to hear whether it works as it should, as I've tended to do with new browser versions. By themselves these books really aren't fit for purpose.

>41 terebinth: " I'm wondering whether to continue reading before buying some or other earlier edition to whose pages the numbers in the Folio volumes actually point. "

That is what I'm doing. The Folio edition is quite suitable for casual reading, but when I want to check out any of the several hundred cross-references I open my HarperCollins edition and turn to the page indicated. A far from ideal situation.

Ah well: I've sent the FS a message referring to the issue and suggesting the production and distribution to buyers of the work of a pamphlet relating the Folio edition's pages to those of the edition referred to in the uncorrected text. Shouldn't cost much, a couple of days' benign drudgery for an intern and the setting and printing of three or four pages, to make the work usable as Barzun intended with only slight inconvenience.

What is the ISBN for the HarperCollins? And some one get a reply from Folio about this embarrassing mistake. Dawn to Decadence was on my priority list!

The way the Folio Society takes an authors footnotes and then changes them to endnotes, drives me nuts. This is specifically why I haven't purchased Parade's End. I do not want to be flicking backwards and forwards endlessly especially if it involves multiple books.

However, for them to simply not match up with the correct page, and then having to use another publishers book for it all to make sense, is to me unacceptable, and I would be asking for a full refund (P&P included).

>44 ironjaw:

iSBN 0-06-017586-9

Oh my god! How could this have happened?

Now I will not buy this printing.

Just reserved the HarperCollins edition from the library. Thanks JRoger

This has killed it for me as well. I was going to buy this edition but not with the incorrect references. I would expect an error of this kind from some "lesser" publisher but not the FS. Such a shame. I hope they produce a corrected second edition.

Ah, I'm still coming to terms with this error. It is hard to believe, given this is FS -- I wouldn't be so shocked if any other publisher had erred in this way. I am an editor, and can't believe that a second pair of eyes was not put on this. One fewer set to deplete my bank account, I suppose. But so sad ...

Ha, we were typing the same sentiment at the same time!

Maybe someone should put a review on the Folio website noting this reference mix-up.

I assume someone's already written to the FS about this?

Oh dear. I just ordered this. Wish I'd seen this thread first. :-(

>53 gmacaree:

I wrote to Customer Services this morning (couldn't see an alternative option at the website), and have just received a reply: my email has been passed to the Editorial team with a request that they deal with it as a priority, so we'll see what's forthcoming. I did include my suggestion of a leaflet relating Folio page numbers to HarperCollins ones, which could accompany the present printing of the set and restore its full usefulness to the reader at the cost of a sideways glance for each reference and at minimal expense to the FS.

>55 terebinth:

I think this rather too large an issue for an erratum leaflet: I hope they will at least consider pulping the edition, and reissuing a corrected version.

I wonder if this egregious oversight is a result of Folio having too drastically cut its staff over the past eighteen months?

>56 affle:
Somehow I doubt whether they will go to such drastic measures - pulping a full print run and shipping a new, corrected set to anybody who's already bought a set will be a very expensive undertaking indeed.

If I had purchased this title (I was very tempted!), I would expect a cross-reference and a little something to compensate for the sub-standard books I received - say, a significant discount on my next order, or something of the sort.

>57 cronshaw:
It is very tempting to think so, there really is no excuse for not catching an error like this prior to getting a print run done...

Just finally caught up with this thread. So glad this is being discussed. I was about to purchase last week, but decided to wait a little while longer. Now I doubt I will buy at all, unless they fix the errors in some manner. I'm quite surprised this passed through the editorial team without being caught. It's likely the case it was noticed, but ignored, since it would be very difficult to not notice it in the first place. I'm a little dumbfounded by such an editorial error. Too bad.

These cross references are throughout the book and specifically addressed by the late author as a significant feature of this book. These are not at the bottom of the page nor at the end of the book. They are within the text.

For a review in this loving detail of this scope, the author added this feature. It allows the even casual reader to quickly reference the earlier reference and following exposition of the concept/person. This is even more critical since this edition is in two volumes and the Index is in the second of the two books. We all know the frustration of having two books open while actively reading.

I cannot even imagine what the reaction of Professor Barzun would have been.

I have written to The Folio Society via e-mail and await an explanation. Perhaps this book is meant to be placed on a shelf to be seen but not opened.

I made the previous entry #30 above that was shown as from Indytaz. That was a previous name that I had changed to the present Forthwith and for some unknown reason it reverted.

I have nothing useful to add, but am thankful to have this community of Devotees to give feedback (good and bad) about Folio volumes. Your comments often guide my purchases, and I will certainly be seeking out an alternative edition of this work.

Pulping the print run would have a big effect on the bottom line, but it would very much restore confidence. This is too much for an errata slip.

This is just an awful situation. There is no good outcome.

>55 terebinth: terebinth: Glad you wrote to them. I'll be interested to hear what they have to say!

This may be a stupid question, but in regards to the page reference issue, is there a consistent offset number of pages between the trade and FS editions? E.g. for the main text (excluding introduction and special content), a given page of the FS edition is always +5 pages from the trade edition (page 13 of FS = page 8 of trade edition)?

>64 ultrarightist:
That's not a stupid question at all, ultrarightist; in fact, it is a very good one, but it doesn't pan out. There is a 34-page difference in the start of Part Two between the two editions, but a 92-page difference in the start of Part Four.

What a fricking disaster. I would suggest somebody should be fired over this but it probably resulted from their overdone staff reductions anyway

I've sent them an email as well discussing my concern over the issue. I thought it is good for them to know that such editorial mishaps have a fiscal downside to their bottom line. I think overall it's an unfortunate accident more than anything, but I sure as hell am not paying for someone else's mistake.

I have to confess that I am a couple hundred pages deep into rereading Volume 1 and didn't notice - but I didn't pay any attention to the internal references the first time around, either. I am still very pleased overall, the addition of illustrations has been fantastic.

I have never been in the printing or reprinting business, but it baffles the mind that someone along the way didn't think to have an intern spend a couple days straitening this out. I would imagine that the types that would notice such a need would be most likely let go during various restructurings... to the detriment of all. All marketing fails if the product is defective.

>66 UK_History_Fan: I don't know that somebody should necessarily be fired over this, we all make errors and can learn so as not to repeat them. I think what is needed is for Folio to demonstrate a bold, honest response: (1) mention the fault on the website and in an e-mail to all members, offering either some mode of correction or compensation (or both) to affected purchasers, (2) immediately cease sale of, and pulp, faulty volumes - unless the error is highlighted in FS advertising and a reasonable discount applied, (3) produce a fresh printing with the correct in-text references. This would be expensive but would at least demonstrate Folio's commitment to quality and fairness towards members and other customers.

>69 cronshaw: Good point Cronshaw. I agree. Folio needs to acknowledge this unfortunate and careless mistake. I have really been looking forward to this publication but due to commitments elsewhere I did not order, preferring to wait a little and I'm glad that I did.

If this just was another publication from Folio I would have forgiven them but come on this is Dawn to Decadence, we're talking about. The standard of duty should've been higher for such a popular publication.

Whitewash-Blunder strikes again!
Where are the checks and balances
in this curious and somewhat stricken
fiefdom whose products and front-line
staff we so adore?!

Edited highlights from the FS reply to my email :

Thank you for your email and for drawing our attention to the issue with volume one of From Dawn to Decadence. (As I understand it, volume two is properly cross referenced.) I'm very sorry that the mistake is preventing you from enjoying your books.

Our Editorial team are trying to come up with a solution for the problem at the moment - currently they are looking at the feasibility of producing an erratum booklet - and we will be contacting everyone who has bought the title as soon as we have something concrete for you. In the meantime, though, I don't want you to have a Folio edition that you are less than 100% happy with, and I would be happy to arrange the return of the volumes at our expense and offer you a full refund.

>72 bookfair_e: Thanks for sharing that, it seems a reasonable response with the offer to pay for return postage and provide a full refund for anyone dissatisfied. I hope Folio will additionally soon indicate the problem on their website so current browsers and potential purchasers aren't needlessly disappointed.

>72 bookfair_e: "As I understand it, volume two is properly cross referenced." - FS

I have spot-checked Volume 2 and find that it is indeed cross-referenced properly. Under the circumstances, an erratum booklet for Volume 1 might be a satisfactory temporary solution. However, previous purchasers should be offered the opportunity to obtain a corrected Volume 1 following a second print run - whether free or at some kind of discount.

As a further suggestion for the second run, printing the index in Volume 1 as well as in Volume 2 would be a real convenience for readers. Someone in a posting above noted the difficulty of needing to keep the two volumes open at the same time. The index could be printed without page numbers so that it would not affect the numbering in Volume 2.

>72 bookfair_e: I also received essentially this message from Folio.

>73 cronshaw: The Folio site still indicates the following in the book's description: "These seeming asides are threaded together with an ingenious system of cross-references between chapters."

So this feature is integral to the book as I argued initially. Potential readers are now seeing this. I am sad that they failed to notice the situation until yesterday. This gives me pause.

>75 Forthwith:. I also received a similar response from them this morning. I basically told them I will not be buying it unless they eventually fix the text/layout. Errata booklets/inserts can be fun and they have a interesting history of their own, but I just can't put down that much money on something that is fundamentally flawed.

This is certainly an unfortunate event. Since FS seems slow to deal with this matter on its website, I suggest someone who has the book to leave a review on the site to at least mention this error to potential purchasers. I would do it myself but I don't have the book and so it probably wouldn't be appropriate for me to speak so publicly on this issue.

I just emailed them and said that, though I'd been considering ordering From Dawn to Decadence (which I had), having learned about the error I wouldn't consider doing so unless they reprinted it. An errata sheet is such a cheap, inadequate fix.

I passed by the dMR today and was told that there were tangible quakes in Eagle St earlier this week upon the discovery of the internal referencing errors of volume one. Apparently, all the correct references for the Folio edition had been prepared and sent off to the printers but an oversight at the printers led to the incorrect references actually being printed in the first volume, which were of course then missed by proof-checkers at Folio. I know nothing of the logistics of printing so don't understand quite how such a printer's error could have happened when Folio's editors had apparently prepared everything correctly, but it makes sense considering that the referencing of the second volume is fine.

I was also told amendments are already under way.

I wonder how soon before they issue a corrected Set?

>79 cronshaw: I keep missing you on the same visit days!

The good news is that the strained FS coffers will not be taking the hit, then! Although sales will be interrupted for a while...

>81 Polar_bear: I don't know whose coffers will be holed below the bottom line since though the printer made an error I imagine it would still have been Folio's responsibility to approve the printer's proofs.

>82 cronshaw: Good point.
Blunders ARE difficult to whitewash ;-)

Is it possible that the printer can fault in this way. I know nothing of printing.

Email reply from FS this morning: "We are, as you might imagine, upset and embarrassed by the errors in the first volume of the set. Our Editors are indeed looking at the possibility of producing an erratum brochure for anyone who has ordered, and will be ensuring that the errors are not repeated should the books be reprinted (I don't think there are plans to do this immediately, I'm afraid).

Of course, anyone who is unhappy with the set will be offered a full refund. We don't want anyone to have Folio books that they aren't completely happy with."

In other words, they are not pulping and reprinting this run.

Frankly, I would have expected their first action to be removing the book from their website until a remedy had been decided upon. At that time the set could be reposted with a clear description of the flaw, and a substantial discount for those who still want to buy it. Not doing so gives the impression they are hoping to sell defective merchanise at full price to unsuspecting readers who may not read the book immediately (or at all I suppose).

I've just e-mailed to ask if it's too late to cancel my order. If they're able to redo it, then I might reorder. But I would rather hold off until they've got the solution figured out and implemented.

>84 ironjaw:

I expect the "print job" was sent to the printer as an electronic file, from which the printing plates would have been made.

Maybe the mistake was as simple as not doing the equivalent of "accept all changes in document" in Microsoft Word.

>57 cronshaw:

My experience and the general Human Resources literature (written too poorly to cite) shows that after a staff reduction, often the remaining staff suffer a morale drop. They have survivors guilt and most often end up taking on more work and longer hours.

I hope that the present FS staff is an exception to this and that they learn and have new heights of achievement and rewards.

I can only hope that this mishap will have a fascinating and frank entry in the forthcoming Folio 70.

Oh dear, I just ordered these volumes last week. Rats.

>90 brother_salvatore:

If they persist with their plan, this 'mishap' may also feature in the Guinness Book of Records as the longest erratum slip in publishing history.

I got an e-mail back saying that they're refunding my money, and that if I refuse delivery, they'll take the books back. I asked if they were going to do the errata booklet, and said if they do, I'll keep the books and they don't have to give me the refund. The man said they are planning to do a booklet, but that my refund has already gone through.

So I guess I send them back and then order them again when the booklet comes out? This book-buying thing can be very confusing. :-)

I was browsing the website early and was very surprised to see that this was still for sale and that there was no mention of the error.

I have now submitted a review, which is currently pending approval and am curious whether the FS will allow it to be posted.

>94 nbCleo: that is nothing short of shoddy, disreputable behaviour by FS. These goods are not of merchantable quality, nor fit for purpose (...without a decoding guide!)

Is the FS now aspiring to live down to the motto:
(Blunders...) "Never Knowingly Under-whitewashed"?

A much-vaunted 'Gold Standard' reputation for superb customer service is hard to win - and easy to lose!

Strange error on behalf of the printers. I can only imagine that the finalized version with correct references was sent to the printers but they used a previous document. Unless the page numbers were corrected in first proofs and the corrections were ignored...

>95 Polar_bear: It's a subjective matter as to whether the set is not of merchantable quality and fit for purpose, some Devotees such as kcshankd above are happy with their purchase, error notwithstanding, and they are superbly produced physical volumes after all. It's not rare for books to be published with errors and have subsequent errata notes issued. We know that Folio are providing a full refund and paying for the return of volumes where customers are unhappy. However, I do think it is morally incumbent on Folio to let potential purchasers know of the printing error in the first volume since it may clearly affect reading pleasure for many. It is disconcerting that FS have known about this for over a week but have yet to add any such note to their website's detailed description of the set. Folio presently risk giving the impression that they are content to allow customers to purchase a faulty volume in ignorance, and hoping they do not notice or mind.

Ok all the complaining is really petty. They have offred a refund and are going to try to fix it, if your FAD is such that you have the nearly compulsive need to buy this and feel stymied that you are recieving a sub standard production, just hold off. If its really about the literary value of the book you can find another edition for a fraction of the cost. I can't find many errors or evidences of low quality in Folios recent output so to elevate one - though significant error - to the the level of a complete breakdown in the overall excellence of FS is just stupid.

I will say that cronshaw's point is valid for sure.

>98 jlallred2000:

It is a nuisance to have to return books. Therefore, a full refund doesn't return things to the status quo before the purchase. Therefore, if FS continues to conceal this defect from potential customers, they are not the customer-friendly company they are purported to be.

I agree that it is an unfortunate error but Folio will accept returns and I don't think we need to hammer them on one error in however so many years.

However, I agree with CPG that they should have posted an update to their website by now to inform potential buyers that the set will come with an addendum. This is a failure in public relations.

tim

Good news! Instead of an errata booklet, they're going to do a reprint. I was just on the phone with them to get some guidance as to what I should do about my order, and they told me the decision had just been made.

Whoa! The reprint is fantastic news

>101 Bookworm59: Thanks for sharing, that is good news. The time needed to arrive at such a decision would perhaps explain why no notice has yet appeared on the website. A reprint isn't a cheap option and demonstrates a commitment to high standards. This is very reassuring and puts the set back on my wish list.

>101 Bookworm59: I just got an email basically saying the same thing. They said a guess would be about 4-6 weeks before a reprint will be made available, but it is certainly going to happen. The email also says if you have already bought the books, you will receive a replacement of vol 1 once the reprint had been done, with no need to send back the incorrect volume.

I have to say that is impressive and very gratifying to hear they are taking this as serious as they have. Kudos to them during such a difficult thing to manage.

Great news. Good news from the FS. I am very happy with their decision and their commitment to high standard.

Very good news that they are going to send out replacement volumes and not require the return of the original! Hopefully they'll add some kind of information to the web page to inform potential customers if they don't remove the book from the site in the meantime.

I think that the furore was deserved given the cost of the volumes and the importance placed on the notes. When you are paying £10-20 for a book and there are errors then that tends to be grudgingly accepted (unless it's a major error in which case there should be an errata sheet of some kind); if you are paying £99 then that is a completely different matter, for a premium item of this kind the level of accuracy should be accordingly high. It doesn't matter if some readers don't notice it; they may return to the book and want to use the notes in the future and only then find the issue, or pass the book to another reader who want to use the notes.

>106 Paulfozz: Agreed. A premium price necessitates premium customer service; fantastic to see that FS has risen to the challenge yet again.

The two people I spoke to on the phone were very apologetic and kept saying that the FS is very embarrassed about the mistakes. I found myself trying to reassure them. :-) (Having made a silly mistake in my own work a couple days ago, I was in no mood to be censorious!)

True, that's one thing I am not used to. How apologetic Folio is. Coming from Denmark where no one apologies but regrets.

>109 ironjaw: - Ain't it the truth. The current vogue here in Norway is to regret that whomever whose toes you stepped on interpreted your words in such a way as to be offended.

In other words - no apology for anything, all you do is regret that some thin-skinned sod took it on himself to be offended by your perfectly reasonable statement, thankyouverymuch.

I wonder what will happen to the existing faulty copies that Folio have.

>111 wongie:. The faulty copies may become a sought-after collectable curiosity of Folio history, since there now will be less of them, if they pulp the warehouse stock. This isn't uncommon in some high end book collecting circles - some book editions are valued for the errors. Probably the most well known example of this is what is referred to as The Wicked Bible, because the printer mistakenly printed "Thou shalt commit adultery."

I have never encountered better customer service from any company. The FS is at the apex of ensuring customer satisfaction. Many larger corporations should take note.

Has the Society thought about marketing them as a limited edition - and at a premium to their original price...

Clearly this will be an edition to stay away from on the used market unless one can inspect it.

>115 kdweber: Certainly if only volume 1 is being sold!

>110 odderi: Yes it's quite funny and I had to get used to it so that I do the same now; quite reserved, well one has to be and has to mimic the culture. It's always: "Jeg beklager" I regret to everything without admitting fault.

>116 cronshaw: Ardis2 take note on scarcity :)

>112 brother_salvatore: Yes, that occurred to me. When they said to keep the faulty copies, first I was thinking "What on earth will I do with those?" and then I thought, well, maybe they'll be rare and valuable, like some of those stamps that have errors! :-)

Superb! The FS restores full confidence! It is doing the right thing, in spite of the significant cost. My heart is gladdened!

From the website:

"Please note: Delivery of From Dawn to Decadence is currently on hold until May 2015. It has been brought to our attention that the cross-references in Volume One are incorrectly numbered in our edition, and we have decided to reprint the volume. We will be replacing ALL copies of Volume One for those customers who have already received or recently ordered a set. We do apologise for this inconvenience. We take great pride in our editorial standards and as soon as we were made aware of the error we have been working to rectify the situation as quickly as possible. Please continue to order as usual and the corrected edition will be despatched as soon as it arrives from our printers."

Excellent response all round.
If it is the printer's error, it may be that the printer that is bearing the cost of the reprint, saving the FS bottom line.

>121 wcarter:

I think you're quite right. Printer's fault. Praise to Folio for keeping their standard.

Yes, I was in the shop today and they said they were doing a reprint. They had some copies of the faulty edition that they were selling very cheaply on the trolley.

the question is how cheaply? If the price was right, I would have lived with it.

I am happy and relieved. With all the recent changes in the company I wondered if Folio had lost its way. This remedy is what I expect from a company that cares about the quality of its product and customer service. The set will go back on my wish list.

I went to the dMR this morning and asked about Dawn to Decadence. I was told their remaining D2D volumes had been sent off for pulping, there certainly were none on the Naughty Trolley.

>126 cronshaw:

That's right, isn't it? - bad for the brand to have faulty copies kicking around in sets. The odd volumes matter less, because they are obviously defective by reason of incompleteness.

Absolutely. Everyone will now know that complete sets ought to be fine, since Folio is substituting an amended volume I for all faultily cross-referenced ones already purchased. However, any odd volume I which appears on the secondary market will be highly suspect.

He did say that it had to be sold today only and the reason why it was on the naughty trolley and I was sorely tempted by it.

Presumably only the volume 1 books were pulped. I guess there will be a lot of re-sealing to do.

Snail mail notification of the replacement volume plans came today. The replacement volume will deliver late May/early June; the original will not need to be returned.

Hmmm, I wonder if those of us in the US will get a notification thus. I'm just hoping it's automatic and I don't have to complain as I bought as soon as available, and intend to read this title sooner than later (though still months out as I have a long to-read list) and so will want to be able to follow the notes...

>132 jp10558: I assume it's automatic. I received an email.

So were all the first printing affected? I still haven't heard anything about them replacing the first book of my order, and I'm wondering if I ought to contact them myself...

>134 jp10558: If you haven't heard anything from FS yet, I would definitely contact them.

Yes, all copies that exist so far will have the same error. I've had an email promising replacement, but that may have been because I'd contacted them early about the issue. Personally I'd not bother getting in touch now unless copies of the corrected book were being sent out and there was no sign of mine, but probably that's just my aversion to unnecessary impersonal correspondence showing through: it seems unlikely that the FS will have any trouble calling up their records of everyone who has bought the work, and "to save time is to lengthen life", as it used to say on every Remington typewriter ;)

I just got on Folio about some damage to 2 books I recently ordered. I think I'll take terebinth's plan and see if I get anything when corrected editions start being sent. I hate to be a bother, but am picky about little things on semi expensive books like Folio...

I have been so anxious to read this book that I slowly struggled through Volume One and I have made progress in Volume Two. This is not certainly a book to be subjected to the Evelyn Wood Speed Reading technique but it was a slow but pleasurable study.

As I was venturing into Volume Two, I noticed a simple factual error. The late Dr. Barzun has incorrectly relocated Robert Owen's New Harmony settlement from Indiana to Illinois. The polluted often flooding Wabash River decidedly separates Indiana from Illinois at this location and lo and behold, New Harmony now and ever has been on the Indiana side of that non-august river. Perhaps the musically noted moonlight on the Wabash was clouded over a bit one night. Sing along with me if you wish.

In a work of this size and scope, I assume that there may be other lurking factual errors. I recall catching an error in a Bertrand Russell book (Why I am Not a Christian) of a similar nature when he incorrectly attributed the Kinsey Institute to the wrong University to my disappointment. I was a student at the incorrectly named University at the time. Oh, the times that I could have had.

Just an observation.

>138 Forthwith: Thanks for that, it's reassuring to know even the most erudite may err!

Checking my membership account a few minutes ago to see how my order is progressing and noticed an unexplained item pending with a code FD1, quantity 1, free.

I am hopeful that this will be the corrected copy of volume one of From Dawn to Decadence which I believe was due to arrive at the FS warehouse last Friday to be checked before being despatched.

A conversation in my future:

so they just gave you a book

yes

for free

yes

because of a printing error

yes

and you didn't buy anymore books

no

- pause -

I'm not buying it

Received my replacement volume one yesterday. I am completely at a loss of what to do with the flawed version.

I'm the same way. I'd feel terrible recycling it but what else are you supposed to do with a misprinted half-book?

>142 kcshankd:
I'm doing what I do with all books I don't need anymore - give it to the local library which will raise money by selling it for a dollar or two. At least it will find a home with someone who wants to read it.

>143 gmacaree: Recycling will at least save the paper! If you donate it to a library or charity bookshop for them to sell on, at least write a neat note on the free end paper, 'contains misprinted in-text references', or similar, so no-one is disappointed.

I would keep it if it was me. It's a one-of-a-kind FS mishap that should be preserved for history.

>147 brother_salvatore: I know collectors get excited about misprinted stamps, but books? It's not as if there's any aesthetic effect, just an impaired reading experience.

>148 cronshaw:

Collectors will collect anything collectable!

I’m keeping my faulty copy as a Folio curio and I’ve ordered a slipcase to be made for it from a bookbinder friend who makes them for £10 each. It will stand side by side with the two-volume set.

Interestingly, my replacement copy doesn’t include any indication that it is a second or corrected edition/printing, at least not that I can find.

>151 bookfair_e:
"Interestingly, my replacement copy doesn’t include any indication that it is a second or corrected edition/printing, at least not that I can find."

You're right! That's a serious oversight. Altered texts should always indicate "2nd edition" or "corrected edition."

Should we make Folio reprint the corrected edition for not mentioning that it's a corrected edition?

>153 gmacaree:
Yes! :-)

>144 jroger1:

That is what I usually do.. my neighborhood branch recently received my hardcover Dawn to Decadence, softcover Dune and Mr and Mrs Bridge, etc...

But... were I shopping for bargains at a book sale, and found a volume 1, I know I would spend hours looking for the matching volume 2!!! I hate to set someone up for that.

This is one set I will never attempt to acquire on the aftermarket, especially now that I know that the second printing does not identify itself as such -- thanks for pointing that out, bookfair_e.

>156 NYCFaddict:

A similar thing happened, I think, with the first Sagas volume which was reprinted very soon after publication because of some substandard colour plates. But here, at least, the replacement volumes have a different printer on the copyright page.

Yes, please do. Me too.

>158 EclecticIndulgence:
>159 NYCFaddict:

I was going from memory when I wrote the above. I see now from checking the actual books that the reprint does state 'Second printing', so it is, in fact, quite clear. But, essentially, the circumstances are still correct. I received my first printing in September 1999. I was unhappy with some of the plates (there were marks and slight creasing on some of them), and when I returned it to the dMR I was told there had been so many complaints they were going to reprint and would send a replacement free of charge to all those who were dissatisfied. I received the replacement in February 2000.

Mine has the same staining issue. Many thanks for the info.

No sign of my corrected edition yet, and nothing in my account about it. I guess I'd better contact them.

Have the issues been corrected?

There are some used copies of this for sale but I can't tell if they have the corrected first volume. I asked one of the sellers and they didn't know if their volume was corrected. What's an easy way for them to tell? I.e., if I could say something like, "check page 22. Does the first reference on the page point to page 300 or 333?" I think that would be helpful. Thanks!

Five lines down on page 53 should suffice: the pointer is to page 514 in the defective volume, 583 in the corrected one.

Thanks so much, terebinth!

>167 JedediahG:

You're very welcome: the faulty volume surfaced here a few weeks ago and still sits on top of a box in the basement while I ponder what to do with it. Do let us know what reports you get from sellers. I don't think there can be very many sets at all circulating with a faulty first volume, since the replacement was sent out to all buyers and there was no obvious advantage in not exchanging it with the one in the slipcase, but no doubt an occasional set will have escaped being put right.

>168 terebinth:

You're right! The seller I contacted has a good copy.

>168 terebinth: "I don't think there can be very many sets at all circulating with a faulty first volume, since the replacement was sent out to all buyers and there was no obvious advantage in not exchanging it with the one in the slipcase, but no doubt an occasional set will have escaped being put right."

Posts 123 et seq. in this thread suggest that there are probably some faulty sets out there....

I've still got my old faulty set and no idea on earth what to do with it. :-)

I ended up buying the first edition hard back