This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1astropi
The Bradbury books, Fahrenheit 451 and Martian Chronicles are sublime. In my opinion, they are the best editions of those two works ever published, or that shall ever be published (since for one thing, they have Bradbury's signature)! We also have The Time Machine, War of the Worlds, some Jules Verne, and Brave New World.
However, it saddens me to think what might have been. Why did Macy and/or Shiff not publish any Asimov? Heinlein? I'm really very surprised there is no Orwell! Clarke...maybe even go all out and publish Lovecraft or Hodgson! I sigh sadly for a gloriously lost opportunity...
However, it saddens me to think what might have been. Why did Macy and/or Shiff not publish any Asimov? Heinlein? I'm really very surprised there is no Orwell! Clarke...maybe even go all out and publish Lovecraft or Hodgson! I sigh sadly for a gloriously lost opportunity...
2leccol
At the time that the Bradbury books were printed, as well as the H. G. Wells books, most sci fi books were not regarded as classic literature so they were not considered to be included in the LEC roster by the club directors. The Verne classic, Journey to the Center of the Earth, is one of the nicest to be included.
3astropi
2: That's too bad. However, it did seem like Macy was trying to publish "recent" works as well. Such as "Flowering of New England" by van Wyck. However, as you said, I guess science fiction was considered "distasteful". Such a loss. Although certainly by Shiff's time science fiction had earned a reputation as reputable literature. It's really too bad he didn't include a large signed letterpress edition of 2001 with signatures by Kubrick and Clarke. That would have been a masterpiece, and undoubtedly highly coveted.
4kdweber
>3 astropi: Such as Taschen's The Making of Kubrick's 2001.
5sdawson
This is a large reason why I collect other publishers. I love classic literature, but I love 20th century science fiction as well.
6astropi
4: Actually, I was thinking of a letterpress edition of 2001 signed by both featuring photographs from the movie... SIGH.
7leccol
> 5 Sdawson: No one could blame you for searching for Sci Fi on other sites than the LEC, but there are a little over 600 titles of classics included in the LEC entries. This is the largest collection of classics available in any group of English Fine Press editions. Shiff, besides giving readers Fine Press editions, which included African-American works and modern poetry, which are notable, continued onward with LECs which even surpassed the Macy books in quality. No one can find fault with the fact that some genre editions had to be omitted. As for my self, I would rather have the Shiff books produced to the highest degree of perfection than to have some genre included. Search elsewhere for your interest, but don't blame the LEC for not covering your particular niche.
8Django6924
When you consider the number of works of classic speculative fiction published by the LEC in the pre-shift era, the percentage of that genre seems fairly respectable compared with, say, my favorite genre--mysteries. Whereas you have a substantial amount of Verne, Bradbury's 2 best-known sci-fi, H.G. Wells' best 3 (I'm including The Invisible Man, Brave New World, Jurgen and The Circus of Dr. Lao, it's a pretty fair representative of work in that field from the pre-Atomic Age.
But mysteries? No Dorothy Sayers, no Agatha Christie, no Josephine Tey, no Eric Ambler, no Hammet, no Chandler, Chesterton or du Maurier. We get Wilkie Collins' two best, all of Holmes, and Poe's stories (and, if you stretch things a bit, Pudd'n-head Wilson. Speculative fiction seems quite well-represented in comparison.
Despite my personal disappointment, I think on the whole it's hard to quibble with the LEC selection. As much as I love my mysteries, there aren't too many LECs I feel should have been overlooked in favor of Gaudy Night or Death on the Nile or The Maltese Falcon. Luckily, the Folio Society has splendidly filled in the gap, and I'm not at all sure that many in the mystery (or sci-fi/fantasy) genre really deserve the Full-Blown fine press treatment--IMHO.
But mysteries? No Dorothy Sayers, no Agatha Christie, no Josephine Tey, no Eric Ambler, no Hammet, no Chandler, Chesterton or du Maurier. We get Wilkie Collins' two best, all of Holmes, and Poe's stories (and, if you stretch things a bit, Pudd'n-head Wilson. Speculative fiction seems quite well-represented in comparison.
Despite my personal disappointment, I think on the whole it's hard to quibble with the LEC selection. As much as I love my mysteries, there aren't too many LECs I feel should have been overlooked in favor of Gaudy Night or Death on the Nile or The Maltese Falcon. Luckily, the Folio Society has splendidly filled in the gap, and I'm not at all sure that many in the mystery (or sci-fi/fantasy) genre really deserve the Full-Blown fine press treatment--IMHO.
9astropi
8: I have to strongly disagree. I think many many science fiction and fantasy works deserve the "full-blown fine press treatment". In fact, I would argue that science fiction and fantasy is highly underrated by the fine press community. Heck, you want to produce some fine press books and make some money? Start publishing letterpress science fiction and fantasy (my suggestion, start with Poe or Lovecraft)!
You can argue about "importance/significance/blah blah" but ultimately I feel a large part of it comes down to personal taste. Unfortunately, it's easy to look down upon contemporary authors. Shakespeare was criticized numerous times, not only by contemporary authors but perhaps most famously by Tolstoy (but I don't want to veer too much off topic). However, I would argue that most people love Shakespeare and admire what he did, and his influences are numerous. So, perhaps Isaac Asimov is not as influential as Shakespeare, and perhaps he never will be as influential. Nevertheless, he is still very influential, and his works are taught in schools all over the world, from the Ivy League to community colleges, to high schools. So, why should he not receive the fine press treatment?
I bet that over time many science fiction and fantasy authors will be regarded in much the same way that Homer, Joyce, and Shakespeare are (well, pretty close at any rate). I feel that just like rock and roll, the older generation does not really appreciate it but younger generations do.
British author Matt Haig has a bit to say about this, including:
"Get over the genre thing. The art world accepted that an artist could take from anywhere he or she wanted a long time ago. Roy Lichtenstein could turn comic strips into masterpieces back in 1961. Intelligence is not a question of subject but approach."
http://www.booktrust.org.uk/books/writing/online-writer-in-residence/blog/558/
Anyway, some thoughts to ponder :)
You can argue about "importance/significance/blah blah" but ultimately I feel a large part of it comes down to personal taste. Unfortunately, it's easy to look down upon contemporary authors. Shakespeare was criticized numerous times, not only by contemporary authors but perhaps most famously by Tolstoy (but I don't want to veer too much off topic). However, I would argue that most people love Shakespeare and admire what he did, and his influences are numerous. So, perhaps Isaac Asimov is not as influential as Shakespeare, and perhaps he never will be as influential. Nevertheless, he is still very influential, and his works are taught in schools all over the world, from the Ivy League to community colleges, to high schools. So, why should he not receive the fine press treatment?
I bet that over time many science fiction and fantasy authors will be regarded in much the same way that Homer, Joyce, and Shakespeare are (well, pretty close at any rate). I feel that just like rock and roll, the older generation does not really appreciate it but younger generations do.
British author Matt Haig has a bit to say about this, including:
"Get over the genre thing. The art world accepted that an artist could take from anywhere he or she wanted a long time ago. Roy Lichtenstein could turn comic strips into masterpieces back in 1961. Intelligence is not a question of subject but approach."
http://www.booktrust.org.uk/books/writing/online-writer-in-residence/blog/558/
Anyway, some thoughts to ponder :)
10HuxleyTheCat
>8 Django6924: >9 astropi: "I'm not at all sure that many in the mystery (or sci-fi/fantasy) genre really deserve the Full-Blown fine press treatment--IMHO."
In general I tend to agree. I've loved sci-fi and fantasy for far, far longer than I've been interested in and have collected fine press books, I don't really feel short-changed by the status quo and I find the 'you don't appreciate it because you're too old' argument amusing and something of a straw man.
There are niche publishers out there who serve genre fiction very well - personally I can't think that the LEC of any era could have outdone Centipede's efforts with Frankenstein (although it is arguable as to whether that book can be dubbed genre at all, given that it is one of the finest books about the human condition ever written in any) and I fail to see how the Folio Society could have improved their recent Dune by making it an LE (other than the exclusivity factor which would undoubtedly make it more attractive to collectors but to the detriment of everyone else, likely including the publisher).
I would agree that it would be very nice to have a good edition of Asimov's Robot novels (which personally I consider better books than the Foundation series) but I certainly wouldn't pay £250 to £300 for a copy whereas I would certainly pay £50 to £60 for each, provided that the design and illustrator appealed to me.
These days letterpress printing is neither here nor there, ( I think Mardersteig would have been turning in his grave about the letterpress printing in one of the FS recent efforts), but kickstarter exists for anyone who things that "you want to produce some fine press books and make some money? Start publishing letterpress science fiction and fantasy" is realistic.
In general I tend to agree. I've loved sci-fi and fantasy for far, far longer than I've been interested in and have collected fine press books, I don't really feel short-changed by the status quo and I find the 'you don't appreciate it because you're too old' argument amusing and something of a straw man.
There are niche publishers out there who serve genre fiction very well - personally I can't think that the LEC of any era could have outdone Centipede's efforts with Frankenstein (although it is arguable as to whether that book can be dubbed genre at all, given that it is one of the finest books about the human condition ever written in any) and I fail to see how the Folio Society could have improved their recent Dune by making it an LE (other than the exclusivity factor which would undoubtedly make it more attractive to collectors but to the detriment of everyone else, likely including the publisher).
I would agree that it would be very nice to have a good edition of Asimov's Robot novels (which personally I consider better books than the Foundation series) but I certainly wouldn't pay £250 to £300 for a copy whereas I would certainly pay £50 to £60 for each, provided that the design and illustrator appealed to me.
These days letterpress printing is neither here nor there, ( I think Mardersteig would have been turning in his grave about the letterpress printing in one of the FS recent efforts), but kickstarter exists for anyone who things that "you want to produce some fine press books and make some money? Start publishing letterpress science fiction and fantasy" is realistic.
11Django6924
>9 astropi: "Roy Lichtenstein could turn comic strips into masterpieces back in 1961"
That point is also, IMHO, debatable, but a bit off topic so I will refrain.
I suppose the stumbling block here is not that I don't appreciate sic-fi/fantasy (which I do--seeing as how I made the greater part of my life toiling in that field as a visual effects supervisor and artist on many of the major films and television series in that genre from 1979--2000), but that I don't consider it as a genre a suitable candidate for full-blown fine press treatment (as I don't believe most mysteries would, a genre I much prefer). Rather than indulging in a yes/no debate, would you care to explain why, other than the potential investment value, sci-fi works per se deserve fine press treatment? I'm not asking this to be confrontational, but merely to determine what are the criteria for producing any book with special paper, letterpress printing, special binding, illustrations and limited in number and with author and/or illustrator's signature.
That point is also, IMHO, debatable, but a bit off topic so I will refrain.
I suppose the stumbling block here is not that I don't appreciate sic-fi/fantasy (which I do--seeing as how I made the greater part of my life toiling in that field as a visual effects supervisor and artist on many of the major films and television series in that genre from 1979--2000), but that I don't consider it as a genre a suitable candidate for full-blown fine press treatment (as I don't believe most mysteries would, a genre I much prefer). Rather than indulging in a yes/no debate, would you care to explain why, other than the potential investment value, sci-fi works per se deserve fine press treatment? I'm not asking this to be confrontational, but merely to determine what are the criteria for producing any book with special paper, letterpress printing, special binding, illustrations and limited in number and with author and/or illustrator's signature.
13astropi
11: "what are the criteria for producing any book with special paper, letterpress printing, special binding, illustrations and limited in number and with author and/or illustrator's signature."
An excellent question! So, why are some books given the LEC-treatment and others not? Off-hand, maybe you want to say
"Oh, well, LEC books are classics. They are significant. They are important."
Well, yes and no. Many LEC books are indeed classics. However, many are not. Let me ask, how many of you have read or heard of "The Flowering of New England"? It was published by the LEC in 1940. I actually have a copy, it's a beautiful book. That year, they also published Shakespeare, Poe, Dumas, Plutarch, to name a few. I'm willing to bet none to few here know who the author of "The Flowering of New England" is. Is Flowering really in the same league as Poe and Plutarch? I would argue no, at least in terms of "impact". However, that does not mean that the work itself does not merit the fine press treatment. Likewise, Lovecraft, Hodgson, Asimov, Heinlein, etc. have works that merit the fine-press treatment. What merits such treatment? In my opinion, it's simply good art. OK, maybe not so simply. For example, "The Forever War" by Joe Haldeman looks deep into human nature. It looks at sexuality, war (of course), life, death. It explores all these facets in a superb narrative which is no less exciting than Macbeth. I would argue that Macbeth is more lyrical, the language is undeniably beautiful, but the story in Forever War is no less fascinating and Haldeman explores venues that Shakespeare never dreamed of. So, why should such books get the fine-press treatment? For the same reason that "The Man Who Planted Trees" received the fine-press treatment. It's beautiful art.
An excellent question! So, why are some books given the LEC-treatment and others not? Off-hand, maybe you want to say
"Oh, well, LEC books are classics. They are significant. They are important."
Well, yes and no. Many LEC books are indeed classics. However, many are not. Let me ask, how many of you have read or heard of "The Flowering of New England"? It was published by the LEC in 1940. I actually have a copy, it's a beautiful book. That year, they also published Shakespeare, Poe, Dumas, Plutarch, to name a few. I'm willing to bet none to few here know who the author of "The Flowering of New England" is. Is Flowering really in the same league as Poe and Plutarch? I would argue no, at least in terms of "impact". However, that does not mean that the work itself does not merit the fine press treatment. Likewise, Lovecraft, Hodgson, Asimov, Heinlein, etc. have works that merit the fine-press treatment. What merits such treatment? In my opinion, it's simply good art. OK, maybe not so simply. For example, "The Forever War" by Joe Haldeman looks deep into human nature. It looks at sexuality, war (of course), life, death. It explores all these facets in a superb narrative which is no less exciting than Macbeth. I would argue that Macbeth is more lyrical, the language is undeniably beautiful, but the story in Forever War is no less fascinating and Haldeman explores venues that Shakespeare never dreamed of. So, why should such books get the fine-press treatment? For the same reason that "The Man Who Planted Trees" received the fine-press treatment. It's beautiful art.
Join to post
