New Releases 2025

FS have a Facebook post up with a picture hinting at a release next year. Looks like The Great Gatsby to me. Possibly an LE.

It’s The Great Gatbsy for sure, the description also fits the book.

It also seems like a cropped photo of the leather binding, so it being an LE is a good guess.

>2 Nerevarine: It's the 100 year anniversary so it makes sense. They usually release a new LE around the end of January/start of February so this could be it.

Just what we need - another Folio edition of Gatsby. There are other books you haven't printed yet, guys...

Other books it could be with that cover and description (but isn't):

- The Drowned World by J.G. Ballard
- Don't Look Now by Daphne du Maurier
- The Call of Cthulhu by H.P. Lovecraft
- Là-Bas by Joris-Karl Huysmans

>4 folio_books: While I entirely agree with your opinion, it does make sense to release a centennial edition of this book.

However it doesn’t matter to me, as I’m not a fan of The Great Gatsby and would never consider a buy.

Luckily I have the half-leather Thornwillow edition of The Great Gatsby, so my wallet is safe…

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

Clearly, it's Greenlights by Matthew McConaughey.

>9 HonorWulf: Well alright, alright, alright...

Year Round Things to Do After Dark, in a limited edition of just 12,500.

>11 boldface: With a limited number of volumes with tipped in signatures from randomly selected Folio employees for an extra modest £600, restricted to the first 12,500 orders.

Looks better than the LE!

"Core" edition. What has happened to our standards?

>14 wcarter: Agreed

>15 Chemren:

Sounds too basic, I guess.

>14 wcarter: I also quite like the look of it. It reminds me a little of the Shadow of the Wind SE which I also like the look of.

>13 assemblyman: hopefully cloth/buckram-bound

>19 drizzled: Hopefully.

FS have an email out with a release time of March for The Book Thief.

>19 drizzled: Possible I would think - it seems to be closely following the path of the Zafon SE

https://www.foliosociety.com/usa/the-book-thief-core-edition.html?fbclid=PAZXh0b...

Looks like the SE is bound in textured paper.

>22 BooksFriendsNotFood: Well spotted. Thats disappointing.

>22 BooksFriendsNotFood: SE? This is the CE.

>22 BooksFriendsNotFood: And £90 ROW, not the £105 of the SE The Shadow of the Wind.

Perhaps £80 UK?

---

Edit: I say! Did anyone notice the sizes are different too:

LE: 10˝ x 6 ¾˝
SE: 9 ½˝ x 6 ¾˝

Would it be likely the SE will also do away with the blue printed text?

And January 28th for Fire and Blood, just featured in a Folio email:

https://www.foliosociety.com/uk/fire-and-blood.html?om_campaign=omme_ae341852-45...

>26 FitzJames: Finally! Looks like this one is being released just ahead of the Spring collection. Pricing is in the search results: £110.00 / $150.00.

>27 HonorWulf: ROW: £125

>26 FitzJames: It’s a definitive buy for me, to go along with ASOIF series.

But I’m a bit let down with the number of illustrations : only 5 for a 600+pages book.

>8 Cardboard_killer: "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe"

Yes, the Global Warming Edition!

>29 Nerevarine: That's a bummer... At least, they decreased the price..

>29 Nerevarine:

The illustrations looks great, but that's a disappointing number.

I thought about getting it, since I loved ASOIAF (the books), but I read really bad reviews. Has anyone read Fire and Blood?

>33 RRCBS: I have and enjoyed it. It’s not the same as reading ASOIAF as it’s set up as a written history which I found a nice change to the main story. I read it on release but haven’t reread it but from memory I found it very enjoyable.

Pictures of the present series and the new Fire and Blood.

Part of me is a little bit glad Fire & Blood doesn't quite match the rest of the series (at least to my eyes; the color variation is pretty pronounced to me); it means I remain perfectly content with my Subterranean Press edition. :)

I said I'm perfectly content. Absolutely fine, no FOMO here.

Definitely don't need another edition of the same book. That would be wasteful and take up precious shelf space.

I will keep repeating this until I believe it. :)

>36 emarshal:

Don't I know that problem, albeit it for other editions. LOL

re: Fire and Blood

I've been trying to get through this on a Kindle for quite some time...it's a bit a of a slog, so I'm quite content not to own a physical copy.

>38 treereader: same here, this was one of the rare examples where I bought an ebook. It was just 4,99€ as a promotion when the TV show started and I haven’t been able to finish it since.

Newly added to the 'Coming Soon' page of the Folio website, the DC Superman (LE), Selected and Introduced by Jenette Kahn, coming 4pm GMT, 4th February.

>40 FitzJames:

I'm not seeing it - neither the item nor the "Coming Soon" page. Could you post a link, please?

Certainly!

https://www.foliosociety.com/row/coming-soon

>42 FitzJames:

That was fast! Thank you very much.

I collected DCs as a child, over 60 years ago. Even then, Superman was never much to get excited about, compared with Flash or Green Lantern. This new Folio enterprise doesn't make the shortlist for consideration, I'm afraid.

Bizarre. Wonder what bells and whistles are being added to make this an LE....

Edit: Folio has just removed the "Limited Edition" label, so looks like that was an error.

There is a non-illustrated, slipcase edition of Fire and Blood if the FS version isn't a good value proposition for anyone: https://www.amazon.com/Fire-Blood-Slipcase-Inspiration-Dragon/dp/0008699690/ref=...

And for the Christie-inclined And Then There Were None is back in March.

https://www.foliosociety.com/row/and-then-there-were-none.html

Edit : Wrong thread

>46 FitzJames: Awesome! The ebay prices are ridiculous. I hope they do new Christies too.

C'mon, let's finish James Bond this year!

And any new Agatha Christie books are always welcome.

>46 FitzJames: Ouch... this will incentivize some people on the fence to buy the rest of the non-Poirot / non-Marple books. And by 'some people' I mean me.

Even if I don't like they used black and white illustrations for that book.

New book announced:
https://www.foliosociety.com/the-lottery-and-other-dark-tales.html

>52 David_Mauduit: £250 in the UK vs. £315 for the ROW store (whereas in the case of “We have always…” the difference is smaller – £250 and £285, respectively)

Well well!

It looks like they learnt from inflating 2022's The Haunting of Hill House's x250 limitation (which sold v. well) to 2023's We Have Always Lived in the Castle's x500 (which... has not); x250 seems a much more sensible proposition.

>52 David_Mauduit:

Looks like a hard pass. I enjoy Gothic and Macabre stories. But this production is not worth the price -- other than for hard core Shirley Jackson collectors, which I expect is the target audience for these limited edition, FS Shirley Jackson publications. Even then, waiting for another fine press publishing of her works seems like the way to go. Will re-asses when the standard edition comes out.

So, so far we've got:
The Book Thief SE
Fire and Blood
DC Superman
And Then There Were None (reprint)
The Lottery and Other Dark Tales LE

That's like half the Spring release confirmed judging by last year.

I wonder whether the fact that this was about to be released was why We Have Always Lived in the Castle was not discounted in the sale: they didn't want to look like they were having trouble shifting book 2 in the series just before releasing book 3.

I have the non-deluxe Centipede Press edition of The Haunting of Hill House, which cost USD$100 and the Folio LE, which cost USD$395. I like the Folio illustrations, but the much cheaper Centipede version is better in every other conceivable way than the Folio LE. I’m not making that mistake again.

>56 A.Godhelm: And the Things Fall Apart reprint too.

Circe was also mentioned as being due for release this year:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/article/2024/sep/08/tiktok-meets-tolkien-how-t...

Then, on a longer time-scale there is Giovanni's Room and the Clive Hicks-Jenkins ill. Iliad/Odyssey LE.

>54 FitzJames: Yeah, Castle's 500 limitation never made any sense since given that most people probably wanted a matching set with Hill House. But with only 250 Hill Houses in existence, it basically meant that only half the Castle buyers could actually do so.

>46 FitzJames: thank you, I recently received an ‘offer’ for this title - this re-release will save me a pretty penny

>52 David_Mauduit: I was so psyched when I saw the email! I gave up on hoping for a new Shirley Jackson LE in the series since We Have Always Lived in the Castle still hasn't sold out, but yay for FS being unpredictable.

It's even $15 cheaper than Castle. I'm excited for the continuation of the extra print as well.

EDIT: Excepting Rob Roy, this will be my first LE since Neuromancer in August that I haven't already read previously.

In case anyone was curious, someone in the Facebook group had reached out to FS abut the Neil Gaiman short story collection which was expected in 2024 and they confirmed that they are not proceeding with that publication.

>63 BooksFriendsNotFood: No surprise there. After the New York Magazine expose, I doubt we'll see any more Gaiman at Folio or elsewhere.

>63 BooksFriendsNotFood: No publishing company would be so lacking perspicacity as to continue with the volume. 'Twould be absolute suicide, folly of the first water.

>63 BooksFriendsNotFood:
They'd already tucked tail after the podcast. They told me that the winner of the illustration competition will do something else for them, so at least they didn't leave that person hanging.

Do you think a standard edition of this Shirley Jackson book will be printed with the first wave of books this year?

>66 SF-72: That’s good!

>67 cazaniq: Not the first wave but probably within 6-12 months.

>69 HonorWulf: THank you! Was this the same as the previous Jackson release? I noticed it also had an LE and regular release

>70 cazaniq: The first two Jackson books had the LE and SE released simultaneously. This time around, the LE is being released first and the SE will presumably be in a future collection.

Do we know what paper is used in the Shirley Jackson LEs? Is it the same as the SEs?

>72 foliolibrary: Yes, Abbey Wove for both variants

>72 foliolibrary: The Abbey Wove in Castle is a thicker paper compared to the Abbey Wove used in most SEs. It feels much better than the Abbey Wove used in The Book Thief LE as well.

>74 BooksFriendsNotFood:

People often forget that one specification of these papers can be radically different than another specification. The LotR and Hobbit LEs are both labelled as Munken Pure, yet the actual papers are hugely different from each other.

Robert McFarlane - The Old Ways could make an appearance this year. It’s the only one of the winners of the travel survey a few years back which has not made an appearance to date. The other two winners were Syria and Innocents Abroad.

Fire & Blood is live:

https://www.foliosociety.com/uk/fire-and-blood.html
https://www.foliosociety.com/usa/fire-and-blood.html
https://www.foliosociety.com/row/fire-and-blood.html

Fire and Blood looks great. I do think it would look better without the black edge. It’s almost a shame I have only a passing interest in this series

I'm scared to start any fantasy series beyond Tolkien, Eddings, or Brooks. No more wormholes for me!

I have the signed Subterranean Press edition illustrated by Gary Gianni. It’s a nice enough edition but I found the book itself to be a dull slog. No way I’d buy another edition of this book.

I received an email from FS advertising their Jane Austen set to mark the publication anniversary of Pride and Prejudice. They ended the email with:

P.S. We’ll be celebrating with something special later in the year. Pray, stay tuned!

>82 assemblyman: Maybe they'll finish the Jane Austen series with Lady Susan/Short Works, but it'll probably be a limited edition of P&P.

>83 HonorWulf: My interpretation of it was it will probably be a limited edition of Pride and Prejudice. If that is the case are they going to do the SE in a LE rebind or will it be something new? Either way it will sell as it's a popular book.

I have the gold set of Austen novels (I’m not sure what the FD consensus are on them but I think they’re nicely done) and would definitely buy a LE of P&P - would also be interested in Emma & Persuasion too.

I wouldn’t bet against a P&P LE. Sometimes Capt Obvious just might be obvious.
But given the new business direction, I also wouldn’t bet against an LE P&P… and Zombies.

What the world needs is a fine press edition of Mansfield Park. But I agree that probably what we'll get is a LE rebind of P&P, a book that already has very nice editions.

>86 LT79: That's a short book by Terry Glaspey that provides background on Jane Austen's religious upbringing, as well as the three family prayers that Jane Austen wrote when she was a teenager that survived the passing of time. Each prayer is only a page or so in length, so the book is mostly commentary.

>87 cwl: "But given the new business direction, I also wouldn’t bet against an LE P&P… and Zombies."

With bonus content - a cardboard cut-out of a zombie.

>90 PeterFitzGerald: Each one comes with an authentic finger of Jane Austen. Limitation 750.

>88 CabbageMoth:

That's what I don't really get. I can't see the attraction people have for LEs of public domain works that have literally dozens of different editions already, many in "premium" formats.

>82 assemblyman: Thank you for pointing this out because I came away from that email with disappointment. I saw that it was about the gold editions and apparently didn't even bother reading to the end. I'm excited!

I'd be ~okay~ with a P&P LE if it had a new artist but I'd much rather have either a whole new LE set (which I doubt because the Shakespeare LE had so much advance notice to hype people up so I would've expected something similar if they were going to give Austen the same treatment) or something else super special.


>88 CabbageMoth: Rambler Press does really lovely editions of Jane Austen! They've only done Persuasion and Northanger Abbey so far but I think Mansfield Park is coming next!

Persuasion: https://www.instagram.com/p/DBikO-EuThl/?img_index=1

Northanger Abbey: https://www.instagram.com/p/C-pdRIboCVi/?img_index=2

>84 assemblyman: I think a LE rebind is likely because the artwork in the email the same as from the SE books they currently sell. They didn't seem to be teasing new illustrations. Possibly they'll add a special introduction by Keira Knightley or something.

I have to say I find Jane Austen to be like Shakespeare -- I like listening to audio or watching both on the screen or in the theater, but reading them is a bit of a slog for me.

In the Folio Curiosities email for February, it says that The Lottery LE “includes an exclusive giclée print of the author herself.” I’m curious to see whether this will be an illustrated portrait or a photograph (I’d hope for the former).

Found the art print in the header image of the below article. It’s nice! It does add that extra oomph which such a simple albeit beautiful LE greatly benefits from.

https://entertainment-focus.com/2025/02/06/the-folio-society-publishes-limited-e...

>98 BooksFriendsNotFood: An art print? Meh. I was hoping for fridge magnets or at least some stickers 😏

>99 drizzled: I can probably be excited about almost any additional item as long as there is dedicated space for it in the presentation box lol.

EDIT —

Me before I knew there was a print: I like the LE, but I could skip it if I wanted to. I won’t, but I could.

Me after seeing the print, wallet in hand: It’s a need, not a want.

😂

The Great Gatsby LE release confirmed for 10 April at 4pm GMT, limitation of 500:

“ A century of dreams, decadence and desire

To celebrate 100 years since the publication of The Great Gatsby, we’re releasing a spectacular Limited Edition on 10 April at 4pm (GMT).

Faithful to Fitzgerald’s 1925 text, this Folio gleams with newly commissioned illustrations by Yuko Shimizu capturing both the novel’s dazzling allure and its underlying darkness. An illuminating afterword delves into its unforgettable themes – ambition, idealism and the bittersweet pursuit of the American Dream.

With just 500 copies available, this is a rare invitation to a world of opulence and dreams in pure Roaring Twenties luxury. Sign up below to secure your invitation to the glittering release of this Limited Edition!”

>101 MisterTrister: That looks rather swish, and the colour scheme of the solander likewise. A shame really, as I've never taken to solanders over slipcases.

From the artist's Instagram, 03.ii.25:

https://www.instagram.com/p/DFmRzRIsyXp/?hl=en

Very big box for a fairly small book (or it is a big book and the box is the size of a small campervan).

Oh my, I love Yuko Shimizu‘s art! She is such a genius.

Regarding the upcoming Gatsby in April, there was a short video of Folio's from which I screenshotted the following of the interior:

>105 FitzJames: Whoa I’ve never seen this before, thanks for sharing! While I’m disappointed that the case being so much larger than the book did not mean that there was something else inside it, I like how big the actual book is and its rather narrow dimensions!

>106 BooksFriendsNotFood:

That's actually what doesn't appeal to me. I intensely dislike books with proportions like these - far too little width compared to the length. That's also the one thing I really dislike about the limited edition of 'I am Legend' and a reason why I'd never by another book with such proportions. It's so much less comfortable to read.

Hmm, rough guess on the overall size of the box? I'm somewhat interested in this one but don't want books that can't fit into by bookshelves (turned down the Beowulf LE even at half price on that basis).

I guess the book itself can't be smaller than 10" at the very least and then about another 2" top and bottom for the box, so minimum 14" overall?

Again, at the risk of sounding like a stuck record, FS could avoid this kind of speculation simply by publishing production details before the launch.

>108 cyber_naut: True, Folio could give us all the specs days or weeks in advance but I've been here long enough to know how much people love to speculate with little or no information to go on. I'm like you, I would be happy to get the details up front, but it seems a bit mean to spoil everyone else's fun.

>107 SF-72: That's interesting! My first exposure to similar dimensions was FS's Monkey from 2023 and I was immediately obsessed haha. Granted, it really fit there because reading it felt somewhat like reading a scroll which felt appropriate, but I will happily read more narrow books even without any reasoning that makes it applicable XD

Will definitely get The Book Thief and maybe Cicero, though might save Cicero for a sale…

>106 BooksFriendsNotFood: A Tiktok video from mid-February! I can't link it as it has an 'at' in the address which LibraryThing cannae deal with.

>108 cyber_naut: I'd definitely guess over an A4, maybe 13" or 14" in height?

>111 Ragnaroekk: >114 LT79: 🙌

>113 FitzJames: I was able to find it by looking through FS's TikTok page, thank you! For the record, your screenshot is perfect though because it provided all the information I needed ◡̈

I don't know if this is something that others are feeling, but largely, I haven't been terribly impressed with Folio's choices of artwork lately. I passed on both Dune Messiah and Children of Dune--though the art is still largely realistic and representational, they both lack an interesting compositional quality that Sam Weber's had in their original Dune release. Was looking forward to Blood Meridian as well, but the illustrations lacked an intensity that I associate with that novel. I mainly only collect Folio editions of novels I already love and want a 'deluxe' edition for (I don't blind-buy expensive editions of novels I'm not familiar with), so the art is really what entices me, but I haven't bought anything of theirs since the Gormenghast LE.

>107 SF-72:

I agree. It is quite an ugly aspect ratio for a book (which is presumably why it is not commonly seen).

>117 stubedoo:

It has unfortunately become a ratio that US publishers more and more often go for with paperbacks, which means that I now buy UK editions if possible, though their paper is usually less good and in some cases the change means that a series now isn't in tune anymore since they're a different size. I assume in that case it's about saving money somewhere in the production process, but with FS it seems to be an awful design choice, or at least I assume so.

>107 SF-72: If you do not like this edition, I wholeheartedly recommend the Illuminated Beehive Books edition illustrated by the Balbusso Twins, which can be purchased from Amazon for $60 (search for THE GREAT GATSBY: An Illuminated Edition):

https://www.beehivebooks.com/collections/illuminated-editions/products/gatsby

>120 EPsonNY:

Thank you for the recommendation. The only book I have by them, Crime and Punishment, has a much too small font, but I assume that wouldn't be a problem with Gatsby, which is relatively short.

>121 SF-72: Agree, layout & font size do make reading that edition a slog... but I have purchased it solely for Dave McKean's illustrations.

>122 EPsonNY:

That was it for me, too. Still, a readable book would have been nice.

>107 SF-72: I can heartily recommend the LEC edition - if a higher tier edition is sought. The proportions are just right, the paper’s very good, but not outstanding and I favour the ‘ deco illustrations. Oh, and the cover is superb. ‘Ubiquitous’ produced a welcome exposé on YouTube .

>124 cottonoverwood:

Thank you for that recommendation. That's one of the things I really enjoy about this forum, how knowledgeable people are and the advice one gets.

I was looking to the Core Edition of The Book Thief of someone who had rather speedily received their Spring Collection order, and in particular its edition notice page; an edition notice page alike in all respects to my appended LE’s one. It would appear the Limited and the Core’s printing are identical, because in point of fact, they are: it is the same print run.

The very last paragraph which contains our binding information carries the deliberately* vague: ‘bound by them with a design by the artist’—perforce, you cannae be precise as to material when you are going to house it in two different bindings. The descriptor must be so written consciously with the advance knowledge that the same book block will see service twice, whether in the same year or in the next.

I wondered then if there were any other limited editions, where, if one tootled over to the edition notice page, the binding material details are singularly lacking, and therefore, we may infer that a Core/Standard is upon the horizon.

Seven recently released titles** hold the vague ‘...design by the artist’ note which heralds the book block was devised to do dual-duty for the LE-SE, either concurrently or eventually (sorry chaps, the likes of A Canticle for Leibowitz, and Neuromancer carry no binding notes at all to their respective edition notices, like most LEs). ’Tis also how the Core/Standard Editions of these titles can all say ‘First printing 202x’ because they belong to the same print run as the Limited, only in their eventual binding do they differ.

2022
The Haunting of Hill House: “Printed on Abbey Wove paper at Graphicom, Vicenza, Italy, and bound by them with a design by the artist”
The Turn of the Screw: “Printed on Abbey Pure Rough paper at Gomer Press, Llandysul, Wales, and bound with a design by the artist”

2023
Roadside Picnic: "Printed on Abbey Pure Rough paper at L.E.G.O. S.p.A., Vicenza, Italy, and bound by them with a design by the artist"
The Shadow of the Wind: “Bound by Josef Spinner, Großbuchbinderei GmbH, Ottersweier, featuring a design by the artist”
We Have Always Lived in the Castle: “Printed on Abbey Wove paper at Graphicom, Vicenza, Italy, and bound by them with a design by the artist”

2024
The Book Thief: “Printed on Abbey Wove paper at L.E.G.O. S.p.A., Vicenza, Italy, and bound by them with a design by the artist”

2025
The Lottery and Other Dark Tales: “Printed on Abbey Wove paper at Graphicom, Vicenza, Italy, and bound by them with a design by the artist”

This I grant, is a very long way of saying should you ever see said phrase: ‘bound by them with a design by the artist’ used in a LE sans any reference to binding material, and with no announcement yet of a SE, that one will be along shortly.

---

* “Nobody panic. That was deliberate. It was deliberate.”
** That I found, there may be more of course that escaped me.

Edit: Added I Am Legend and Roadside Picnic.

>126 FitzJames:

Interesting. Thank you for sharing this.

So people really are paying a high premium for a pasted-in signed sheet and fancier binding. Gone are the days when there would be a difference in papers or format, it looks like, and very useful to know. Thank you!

>128 cwl: Well, apparently, the paper on the LE and SE edition of Shirley Jackson, while described as 'Abbey Wove', are different.

>129 foliolibrary:

I wouldn't take Folio's paper claims to mean much. The LE LotR and LE Hobbit were both "Munken Pure", but my LotR has markedly better paper than The Hobbit, and all three of my Hobbit LEs have slightly different paper, the third copy (second replacement), markedly so -- almost white, rather than cream. I think "printed on whatever we can lay our hands on" is probably accurate. Who is going to prove otherwise (especially with Abbey Wove, which doesn't exist outside of Folio, anyway -- it is just a marketing name)?

>130 stubedoo:

One of us must surely work in a materials lab. Does paper hold up under vacuum in an SEM?

>126 FitzJames: the point here is not just the literal phrase, but the fact that the literal phrase is missing the binding material.

"bound by them (in cloth or whatever) with a design by the artist"

(I reiterate this because it took me a minute, and seeing it with the removed tokens in place makes it clearer to my visual processing. Maybe for someone else too.)

So then the next question is, are there are a large number of BBTWADBTA standard editions without corresponding limited editions?

>132 abysswalker:
Took me a while, but I worked out that BBTWADBTA stands for "bound by them with a design by the artist".

>132 abysswalker: Yes! That was my point, that the omission of the material from the phrase is necessarily intentional as it must be "when you are going to house it in two different bindings," but I probably ought to have been clearer.

As a little aside, when a second printing of one these eight titles appears (eBay, 2nd pr. I Am Legend), the phrase reads:

"Printed on Abbey Pure Rough paper at L.E.G.O. S.p.A., Vicenza, Italy, and bound by them in cloth printed and blocked with a design by the artist""

There are I think eight LEs with the exact phrase without mention of material (I haven't been able to find a photo of I Am Legend's first printing edition notice page, but I must assume it follows the pattern). Thus, the only one so far without a corresponding standard edition is the latest Shirley Jackson.

As to your reverse phrasing however? I do not know, but I like the thought!

>134 FitzJames: This detective work is crazy amazing. I wonder if it might behoove FS to be more explicit and when they release an LE to say, "There will be no following SE" and then they create a huge FOMO. Granted, a lot of the LEs recently have been selling out pretty fast and don't need extra details to create FOMO. But it would have been helpful with "The Moonstone" and "Tristram Shandy". It is a two-edge sword though. If they said that an SE would be forthcoming, how many people would sit out and wait for the SE?

>135 billburden: This is the crux of the issue. In the past, one knew implicitly that an LE would be materially different from any future SE, especially in format and materials (much higher grade of paper, Nigerian goatskin, cloth-covered Solander case, etc), nor could an SE ever be anticipated and it was a pleasant surprise when they did appear. The first edition that used the same block seems to be Twelfth Night and there was a good deal of questioning at the time about whether it was the same or not. These days, there is so little to distinguish LE’s apart from binding and a cheap signature sheet that for many it is worth waiting for what has become a regular appearance of an SE. But FS has hit on a product that works, never-mind what one might feel about it, so there is no reason for them to change until it no longer works.

>136 cwl:

I see the LE/SE choice as being basically a price-discrimination thing. Folio takes the customers that aren't especially price-sensitive and sells them fairly simple LEs which aren’t terribly special, just slightly limited with a label (and they do this very profitably) and can then sell just a very slightly lower-tier product (at a much lower price) to the customers that are price-sensitive, with minimal editorial or physical retooling between the two products. They will be making a good profit on the SEs, but I imagine the LEs are extraordinarily profitable, given how basic many of them are at this point (though it has to be said, quality solanders aren't cheap to produce) . They will do it until buyer behaviour changes (which it may not for a long time).

If people were more interested in genuinely nice, instead of limited, their product range would be quite different.

I used to buy the majority of limited editions was back when, these days barely any. They've certainly lost me. That being said, I'm sure they're doing better with regard to earnings and storage these days - good for them.

>138 SF-72: And as a result storage becomes easier for us as well! I'm sure I would have long run out of shelves/storage/flat surfaces if they kept releasing limited editions on the same level as we used to get!

>139 AdPacem:

True, and it's good for my bank account, too. Still, I miss those gorgeous limited editions.

>50 sdawson: For those hankering for new Agatha Christie, keep in mind January 2026 marks the 50th anniversary of her death. Given how FS loves to commemorate such occasions, it's possible something special could be released at that time.

>141 A.Nobody: That would be amazing 🙌

>141 A.Nobody: >142 BooksFriendsNotFood: Maybe the three volume Hercule Poirot Short Stories set with new illustrations?

>143 red_guy:

More likely these days, a huge reflective LE of They Do It With Mirrors, complete with concealed phial of an unspecified white powder, with attached label signed by the artist, embedded in a secret compartment in the solander. The first three orders receive a bonus pair of Miss Marple's binoculars, as featured in the story.

>144 boldface: LOL !

From the latest Folio communiqué featuring The Night Circus:

"P.S. Look out for some exciting news about Erin Morgenstern and Folio soon!"

>147 FitzJames: gotta be The Starless Sea, no?

Only dip in here every now and again nowadays, but skimming through this thread and the FS website, I'm surprised to see how little non-fiction they are now doing (57 books vs >220 SF-72: fiction based on filter numbers on the website), and how little is discussed here (only one book mentioned in the whole thread as far as I can see). Given the route they've taken on fiction (only one bought from FS in the past 5 years), it really was only the non-fiction, particularly the historical travel/exploration writing, that was keeping me tenuously interested. However, struck at how little of the latter they now appeared to be doing, I went to investigate the website more closely, and realised then that non-fiction as a whole seems to be steadily disappearing.

>85 foliolibrary:
I have the gold set of Austen novels (I’m not sure what the FD consensus are on them but I think they’re nicely done)
The Joan Hassall illustrated set remains one of my favourites.....

>83 HonorWulf:
Maybe they'll finish the Jane Austen series with Lady Susan/Short Works.....which it includes.

>149 Willoyd: I've noticed the difference in quantity of fiction and non-fiction. I've specifically noticed a rather sharp decrease in classic philosophic works (Cicero can count as one, however) compared to the past. I understand there may be little points of contention with the following statement: Works of fiction are more "timeless" than nonfiction works and, therefore, it makes more sense to publish a "heirloom"/"luxury" edition of a book that isn't going to be relatively "dated" once somebody writes a better historical account, scientific interpretation, etc. Indeed, FS is rather unique in that they publish any nonfiction at all. Case in point, "The Silk Roads" by Frankopan is praised for its quality. However, I think William Dalrymple's "The Golden Road", which hasn't been released in the US yet, totally contradicts the notion of the Silk Roads being as important as commonly believed.

Most "fine book"/"illustrated" book publishers stick to fiction. The significant outlier is Easton Press. Easton Press prints tons of nonfiction that is both "classic" and recent. However, my experience with Easton Press is that they mainly produce just the text. They don't offer the same editorial attention to pictures, etc. that FS does with it nonfiction. So, FS does put more effort into each nonfiction book they produce.

But, furthermore, choosing a nonfiction book is much more fraught than fiction. Nonfiction doesn't sell as much as fiction I think in general. And those true "classic" tomes are even less read than fiction "classic" tomes.

That being said, the current edition of "The Right Stuff" was an interesting experiment because I found the inclusion of illustrations apropos a fiction work to be wholly incongruous with nonfiction. So, I'm happy they haven't continued in that direction.

With respect to the upcoming Hicks-Jenkins Iliad–Odyssey pair, the artist's (very detailed) blog post at the beginning of March outlines the volumes' initial design thus:

The consensus was for two quarter-bound volumes (leather spines and cloth-covered boards) housed in a simple sleeve-case. The case would entail much less work than my previous book at Folio Society, Beowolf, which had been housed in a clam-shell box. We agreed eight double-page illustrations per book, plus endpapers that would extend the illustration potential by being narratively themed rather than patterned. Essentially there would be ten illustrations per book, plus cover artwork, title page and limitation page

The Odyssey, full cover:



...and title page:

Revisions were made to the specifications for the edition, and it was decided not to present the books in a sleeve-case, but in an elaborate box that would sit upright on a shelf, with an unfolding spine revealing the leather spines with the titles on them. While there was an agreed palette for the contents of both books, I felt we might consider using different colours for the leathers of the quarter-bindings. A warm russet/tan would suit The Iliad, and a soft, greyish marine blue for The Odyssey. I mixed sample colours for Folio Society Production Director, Kate Grimwade, and within days the samples were prepared and came back for approval.

The whole post is well worth a read, if only for the interesting insights as to being commissioned by Folio, as appended below.

Source: https://clivehicksjenkins.wordpress.com/2025/03/02/the-iliad-and-the-odyssey/

>150 billburden:
Id agree with what you say except for the fact that FS seems to have moved away from the timeless fiction it used to publish to include much that (IMO!) will date fairly rapidly itself.

Ironically perhaps, I was primarily referring to non-fiction that is unlikely to 'date' - at least any further - such as historical travel and exploration.

But, yes, short term sales are unlikely to match the fiction they're now selling. Same with non-fiction - the Frankopan being a case in point - good for short term sales but will date rapidly. Personally, I couldn't see the point (in buying). But then they're looking to a completely different market now.

>152 Willoyd: Interestingly, much of the classic fiction and nonfiction FS used to publish in the olden days (with Trollope and Gibbon being the figureheads) is considered dated by some readers today.

Personally I have to admit that they give me the idea of their typical reader being a venerable person with wispy white sideburns and pince-nez spectacles and an ear trumpet. But I also admit I'd love another edition of the Decline and Fall.

>151 FitzJames: What a blunder to go with the Wilson translation.

>150 billburden: Folio isn't publishing "timeless" works of fiction. They mostly making "heirloom"/"luxury" editions of current potboilers that will certainly date, and relatively soon.

In 60 years will more than a small handful of readers still be picking up any of the following authors?
Erin Morgenstern
George R. R. Martin
Haruki Murakami
Cormac McCarthy
Madeline Miller
Michael Crichton
Robert Harris
Kazuo Ishiguro
Stephen King

I'd say most fiction dates way sooner than non-fiction.

As for non-fiction, you still have to take into account the quality of the actual writing. Good non-fiction is not a fact delivery machine. That's wikipedia. I just read "Chaos" by Tom O’Neill where he dug up a few NEW insignificant facts about Bugliosi's prosecution of the Manson family. The problem is Tom O’Neill is a bone-headed moron and a bad writer. It was a slog to get through. If FS was to publish a Manson book they should choose "Helter Skelter" as it is the much better book, even at 50 years old.

>153 dyhtstriyk: Trollope yes, Gibbon never.

>156 PartTimeBookAddict:

I'd say that Stephen King may well be relevant in 60 years. He has remained pretty relevant for 50 years so far. He isn't necessarily to my taste, but his following has been huge and persistent.

>156 PartTimeBookAddict: Cormac McCarthy has a high probability of lasting 60 years, Murakami and Ishiguro as well. I don't really see them fitting into the 'potboiler' moniker. You're mixing people who write airport books with people who have a whole shelf of literary criticism devoted to analyzing them.
>158 stubedoo: Another salient point. I've beat this drum before but the way authors slink into 'literature' with time when they were clearly writing what we'd think of as genre work today; adventure books from Kipling, detective stories from Doyle, horror stories from Poe, western stories from James Fenimore Cooper, navy yarns from Melville, you can be as uncharitable as you want with a lot of the top 1000 books lists. Lewis and Tolkien are old enough that they're slotting into core literature instead of fantasy or children's books, joining Carroll and Baum.
You'll get torn apart attacking key figures this way now, but I'm fairly certain people 80 years ago would have a whole other idea of what authors belonged to the ages, and which were purveyors of cheap trash for the masses. As a time capsule the LEC selections and Franklin Library books show a very different list than you'd get today.

>153 dyhtstriyk:
Interestingly, much of the classic fiction and nonfiction FS used to publish in the olden days (with Trollope and Gibbon being the figureheads) is considered dated by some readers today.
People are still reading them avidly, some centuries later, so dated they are not. There are some 'readers' who regard books as dated....

>156 PartTimeBookAddict:
It's always difficult to judge what will survive and what won't - it's quite an entertaining game (with a long wait for the outcome!) trying to identify what are future 'classics' and what will disappear. I don't disagree with some of your choices, others I think might survive (I find the adulation for Ishiguro totally bemusing, but it's there, even from the Nobel committee!). That is why I refer instead to 'short-term' and 'long-term'. Established books and novelists are more the long-termers - they won't set the sales alight but should keep selling steadily. Short-termers are generally the more recent, who are popular at present, and will sell loads now, but whether they last, well that's a gamble. To take an example of one trilogy that I hope/expect will become a 'classic', there is a distinct possibility that even the likes of the Hilary Mantel trilogy will date longer term - there's simply no judging future tastes. My own predictions would also include Morgenstern, Miller, Crichton and Harris, along with the likes of Child, and a load of others, but I'm insufficiently interested in some of the genres (eg fantasy, sci-fi) to judge, whilst others leave me rather bemused as to why anybody would want to buy an FS edition even now - they're fine enough in paperback or trade hardback ('Universe' is the latest of those).

But then, my own reading tastes have massively changed in recent years, and my reading has now moved much more towards the smaller independent presses and work coming out of the non-Anglophone world, which FS is perhaps one of the worst at covering. To me, FS's collections are the ones looking really horribly dated. The latest is one of the dullest I think I've seen.

I certainly thought Stephen King was a pop horror writer when I was in my early years of reading. Took me twenty years to pick up one of his books, and, my, some of them are very, very good. His best have been lauded for fifty years now; certainly if they weren't going to last a good amount of time they would have been forgotten by now, as so many others.

It would be difficult for me to believe Ishiguro, Murakami, and McCarthy won't be read seriously after I'm dead. (And I don't like McCarthy's work at all, but I can recognize it as good literature.)

>162 LT79:
Love it! (Wish there was a like button here!).

>149 Willoyd: They've been consistently publishing around 3 non-fiction books per quarterly collection for the past number of years, which is roughly 30%. They don't tend to keep these books in-print like they do some of their fictional perennials, which is why they only make up around 20% of the current catalog on the website.

>164 HonorWulf:
Interesting point - thank you.

>156 PartTimeBookAddict: Yes, I think the majority of that particular list will be read in 60 years, just as the "pop culture" favorites of the 19th century have continued to endure as what we now call "classics". The more interesting question is what will the average human reading habits be like in 60 years as technology continues to evolve and attention spans continue to shrink...

>158 stubedoo: also King is almost certainly in the top 20 best selling authors of all time. Sales aren't the only metric of quality of course, but they do say something about likely persistence.

>166 HonorWulf:
just as the "pop culture" favorites of the 19th century have continued to endure as what we now call "classics".
A few have, by far the majority have not. And of those whose names are still known, most are for one or two books of theirs, with most pretty much vanished into reading history.

>167 abysswalker:
also King is almost certainly in the top 20 best selling authors of all time. Sales aren't the only metric of quality of course, but they do say something about likely persistence.
Behind, amongst others, Barbara Cartland, Danielle Steele, Harold Robbins, and Jackie Collins.

Read or even seen any GWM Reynolds, Margaret Oliphant, Edward Bulwer-Lytton, Harrison Ainsworth, James Payn, Rhoda Broughton lately? Just to choose half a dozen Victorian best seller writers. The list could go on.

O tempora o mores!
Kids and their degenerate reading tastes these days, eh?

>159 A.Godhelm: I didn't mix up anything. Many potboiler authors have a LOT of critical appraisal. "The Road" is a potboiler. Murakami is an airport writer. They'll be around until lunchtime.

Sixty years ago the Pulitzer Prize went to Shirley Ann Grau for "The Keepers of the House". Has anyone here read it? I haven't, yet.

I'm happy to see the passion everyone here has for the authors they like. (Although no one stood up for my favourite, Michael Crichton, boo hoo.) Most of these are good writers and we need to read what we like. But I don't think they will be timeless. There's nothing wrong with that.

Harold Robbins sold like crazy, but it is unbelievably bad writing. I think Stephen King is corny and once he's dead (and after the 10 "unfinished" manuscripts have been unearthed and published) and there is no longer a multi-million dollar advertising machine behind him, he will be forgotten.

Time will tell!

Always amazed of how oftentimes King is seen as a writer of some cheap horror paperbacks. Stephen King is a very good writer. He is able to draw up characters like not many others. I will be bold and say: I will prefer him over McCarthy anytime.

I love the "it's all about advertising" thing. Because advertising sells books, and JFK is about to reappear to set things right!

>173 woodstock8786: I liked "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" and a few of his short stories. The rest are too bloated and repetitive. If I had a nickel for how many times "I'm a done Tom Turkey" was said in The Green Mile...

I much prefer Richard Matheson, Cornell Woolrich and Patricia Highsmith.

And don't discount the popularity of the films for some these authors -- Stephen King (The Shining, The Shawshank Redemption, It, Misery, The Green Mile), Michael Crichton (Jurassic Park/The Lost World, The Andromeda Strain, Coma, Westworld), Cormac McCarthy (The Road, No Country For Old Men, All the Pretty Horses) -- as long as those are around, it'll extend, recycle, and resurrect their popularity for a long time to come (not unlike 19th century writers like Austen, Poe, Dickens, Shelley, Dumas, Stevenson, Verne, Wells, etc. -- film adaptations of their work continue to keep them in the public consciousness.)

>172 PartTimeBookAddict:
Sixty years ago the Pulitzer Prize went to Shirley Ann Grau for "The Keepers of the House". Has anyone here read it? I haven't, yet.
I have - excellent read. Classic material IMO.

The population of readers of serious lit has always been very, very small, estimated at about 20k in US, (see https://leighstein.substack.com/p/20000-readers-of-literary-fiction). So Ms Omnichannel knows the only way to expand the bottom line is to move beyond that group, the original FS customer, to capture the collector of books as decor and supplement to fandom.

Having been reading here the various perspectives of what Folio is churning out, and this has really been a conversation that has been going on for a good few years, ebbing and flowing as more releases becoming known, I'm fairly confident in saying that the genuinely authentic good old days aligned to the Charles Ede vision will not be returning to Folio ever, and what we have is a company which has only one direction and that is growth at all costs. A fork in the road that once ventured, heralds an irreparable rupture of no return.

I tend to think that in the West there is a presuppositional bias in assessing a company such as this, wholly weighted towards economic considerations only, and forgetting that companies can indeed survive and thrive in a small way, with a niche following, without a drive to always to be always pushing for 'growth'. Small to medium sized niche businesses can indeed survive quite well for generations without taking on 'the market'. Staying within your means, cutting one's cloth to suit, endeavour, efficiency, and producing quality to a specific and limited market, are not fanciful tropes. They work at every level: from the home to the corporation.

Given what we have seen over the past few years, Folio obviously have decided to plump for the default model of modern western economics, and so we end up with a company that has slipped its moorings and has decided to be reactive to the fads of the population. Fair enough.

Evidence of course has been well debated on here: a change of catalogue at odds with Ede's mission statement, the combined reduction in quality (and QC) combined with the increases in price, the glamming of books to the point of cloy, some absurd illustrations which can only be described as a melange of the infantile and the dissonant, etc cetera.

So whilst I don't think that discussing the pros and cons of these things are redundant, I'm certainly of the opinion that nothing will change other than a few purchasing decisions by some what were once regular customers.

As far as Folio are concerned, they have bet everything on the house with their decision to move in this direction. I expect they hope to be bought out at some point by the proverbial -F.O.X. - 'Fox Books', as often that is the boardroom-investor end game.

>180 LesMiserables: I think you make some good points, although I would contend your point about FS following the 'growth at all costs' model. It's not like they're raking in squillions even now, and that follows years of posting small profits and losses. I imagine, especially given global/UK economic circumstances, they are building something of a future fund for themselves. I can't imagine any book company these days will rule the world...it will always be a relatively niche market and based on a luxury item. It's a terribly fine line; I don't envy those making such decisions.

They may continue to tweak and adapt their business model and publishing decisions as this 'faddist' approach becomes less effective. We know the old model wasn't working and they were spiralling to bankruptcy. They may indeed sell the business once their annual profits are consistent enough for a potential buyer, who could then purchase FS to be part of their stable.

I hear you though re: a values-based business model that can survive and thrive. Difficult to pull off in these times, maybe always.

>181 Jeremy53: Thanks for your thoughts. One thing which has been a constant assumption, or as I said earlier, a presupposition commonly held in my opinion, was that back then, before the crossroads, the Folio Society had no alternative but which to embark on its present course. I am not of this opinion, as I do think that they might have scaled back their operations, adopting major efficiencies of practice, and doubling down on their membership model with renovated praxis. In essence a much smaller operation and concentrating on their core objective: to produce “editions of the world’s great literature, in a format worthy of the contents, at a price within the reach of everyman". They have been really good at this in the past.

But then they decided to go global: have a physical presence in other continents. The rest is history and we find ourselves now with comic books, no society, and quality issues that boggle. That need not have been the direction, but they went for it.

>182 LesMiserables: that’s fair. They certainly went mainstream to the max!

>182 LesMiserables: The Folio Society is now an employee-owned business that donates 1% of its net profit to charity, not some sinister hedge fund ploy. The changes reflect a younger management team that are committed to diversifying their readership across age, gender and race, to which I think they've been mostly successful. Not all of the ideas are winners, but so it goes when you're trying to mix things up. I do agree with you on the QC issues - they are relying too heavily on their printers and fulfillment company for that and need to inject more controls into the process, imo.

>184 HonorWulf: Appreciate your comments. The ownership model doesn't make any difference to me, just their catalogue.
Things change, that's life.
I do wish nevertheless that they would rename themselves to something which didn't include 'Society'. I feel they are hanging their coat on a peg, which belonged to a different entity and vision.

>185 LesMiserables: That's fair enough, but looking at the past year or so, they've still managed to publish works by Darwin, Poe, Peake, Orwell, Collins, Shakespeare, Dunsany and Cicero, which are very much in the old Folio wheelhouse. And many of the more contemporary fictions that they are publishing are Nobel and Pulitzer winners, not to mention a dozen non-fiction books a year that don't necessarily scream sales. Yes, there's some headscratchers, but when you dig into the catalog, I think there's more value in there than not.

>180 LesMiserables: I honestly don't think Folio would have found itself surviving as a niche business with a scaled back operation. I think there would be no society whatsoever if they had doubled down on that course. However, I'm willing to broaden my perspective when I see the finances of true fine presses (so many popping up lately!) and see whether they are sustainable businesses. Having their readers finance them by preselling everything surely does help.

Neuromancer standard edition: https://www.foliosociety.com/neuromancer-william-gibson.html
Launching 22 April

>188 David_Mauduit: Read this last week in anticipation of a SE release after last year's LE. I'm glad I read it before just buying it blind. I did not enjoy it enough to justify a premium copy. I appreciate what it did for the genre and the ideas it put forth, but it was a bit of a fever dream and I can't say the writing makes up for whatever faults it has. Enjoyable enough but thankfully an easy pass for me.

In other news, I also finished A Canticle for Leibowitz this week, also in anticipation of a SE release. I'm quite jazzed for that one!

>180 LesMiserables:

This is sound thought and without an 'irritating' plug on economics and inevitable attachment to the politics, I'd say as good as one can put it. Whatever has been done with a strong small business mentality seems to be lost on the general 'West'.

Thanks.

>187 dyhtstriyk:

I did some research long ago in a thread and found that the most profitable years seemed mostly to relate to when FS produced a reasonable number of books without being overzealous. It never seemed that the move from the membership model had to happen, other than to make the folks that didn't want to be members feel as though they didn't have to be a member. Because you didn't have to be a member to buy books. Perhaps ditching the term member and making it a Society Club, er something in that vain for an additional discount on something yearly would have satisfied the 'idea'. I dunno.

>182 LesMiserables: ''The rest is history and we find ourselves now with comic books, no society, and quality issues that boggle."

I'm curious, what ever made it a "society"? It's clever marketing to call it a "society," but even at its peak, wasn't FS really just a subscription book publisher, like the Science Fiction Book Club or (when talking about vinyl records instead of books), the Columbia House Records subscription program of the 1980s? I suppose FS in its heyday published attractive classics at an affordable price, but it seems a bit grandiose for FS ever to have called itself a Society based on those criteria. Is Black Letter Press a Society because it publishes attractive books that are occult-oriented? It seems to me that Folio Society was always just a niche-oriented (i.e., "classics-readers") book publishing business.

>192 Betelgeuse: Good question. I believe from 1947 to 2011 the Folio Society required members to commit to purchasing a certain number of books per year. This voluntary commitment manifested a society of like minded readers who as a whole formed the basis of the business model.

>193 LesMiserables: Yes, that was the model of Columbia House Records in the US way back when. Well, slightly different: You could buy ten records for five cents (or something like that), provided you purchased a certain number of additional records at full price within the year. I guess I don't see the "Societal" aspect of that arrangement. It's a commercial contract. No one enters into a commercial contract without sharing "like-minded" interest in the products being offered.

If we feel FS has lost the "Society" aspect, I sense it's due to one of three things:

(1) We think by broadening its reach to include genre-literature, FS has watered down the like-minded focus on classics that made it a Society; or,
(2) FS is no longer true to Charles Ede's original mission statement from 80 years ago; or,
(3) FS no longer requires a minimum number of purchases.

With regard to # 1, reading for pleasure nowadays is so rare that the mere act of reading anything could be construed as an unusual, "like-minded" pursuit today -- in which case Folio Society could still rightly claim to be a "Society." In fact, Society at large has changed more than the Folio Society, by moving further away from reading altogether.

With regard to # 2, I'm not sure the act of having a mission statement or vision, by itself, constitutes a "Society." Almost every corporation, including Sainsbury's grocery stores, has a mission statement. Sainsbury's is "to make good food joyful, accessible and affordable for everyone, every day." Sound familiar?

With regard to # 3, requiring a minimum number of purchases per year in order to retain membership sounds more like a Fruit of the Month Club than a Society.

Sorry, I'm having a little fun with the term "Society," which in the case of FS I always found a bit humorous and lofty. But I do love the books, I respect your point of view, and I agree with a lot of what you say. Cheers.

I see we’re back to this nonsense, again.

I'm more of the mind that Folio is - and always has been - a publisher amongst a sea of publishers. The requirements for purchasing have changed a little, but fundamentally it always was just a for-profit company that publishes stuff. What they publish inevitably changes over time. Frankly it needs to, as the "classics" have been published and re-published so many times by so many publishers that there will inevitably be diminishing returns with those. Also tastes change and a publisher needs to move with the times. The fact that most Folio editions are pretty much worthless on the used market is an indicator that much of the older material simply isn't in demand any more (of course with the non-fiction, much is outdated).

I think the main issue I have with Folio (and it is also a problem with other publishers) is the continuing degradation of the price/quality ratio. This is especially obvious with the LEs. I believe that a large part of the sales on those is to people who will "buy it because it is there", rather than "buy it because it is actually good". Seems like a risky and fickle market to pursue to aggressively (but equally, if people will pay a lot for expensive, half-arsed editions, you can't blame them for taking the money).

Right now books are trendy. Folio is milking it. At some point they won't be trendy again, and Folio will likely need to pivot their model once more to remain relevant. This whole subject is probably more frustrating for people that consider themselves "Folio collectors" than people like myself who are more into specific titles, subjects and authors, without really being too bothered about the specific publisher, so long as the product is good.

>197 johnny1991: Agreed. I merely suggest that if that's the definition, there is no reason to believe (as was stated in Post 182) that we now find ourselves with no Society. Either there never was a Society, only customers -- or what passed for a Society then (a club formed for a particular purpose or activity) continues to exist today. It's a reason to look on the bright side.

>200 johnny1991: I lean toward thinking there never really was a "Society," but rather, a Club. Someone else said it, the word Society is used because it sounds nice. It's rather like the Royal Arms Apartments, which are apartments but not really Royal. The use of the word Society is meant to make you feel like you're part of an exclusive, elite organization. But the minute the minimum purchase order requirement is removed and the offerings are expanded beyond classics, the illusion of exclusivity is removed. I think that's what we're really feeling. Or, it was a Society in the past (if we use it as a synonym for Club) and still is today. Few people read nice books, so there are still shared interests with this club -- reading nice books. The shared interest may have changed a little in its focus (more genres), but to use your analogy of countries, any country more than 80 years old has amended its constitution and evolved over time. That doesn't mean it's no longer a society. But by now I'm belaboring the point and have annoyed Noel in 195, so I'll drop it. I do love FS books, I was merely suggesting that all is not lost. But to each his own.

>194 Betelgeuse: Yes, as nebulous as it is in defining, I do still think that society in the micro sense (ie not at large across the populous) entails a coming together of folk, and that act requires some kind of commitment. And of course I agree with you it is synonymous with club in this sense. What I can definitively say, although defining is slippery, is that Folio have indeed lost that element, and if they were a new-start, branding themselves as The Folio Society would be odd.

I proudly stand with the likes of wcarter that my FS book collection has become a big part of my identity. Is there a way I can get an FS passport?

I think we also have to remember that Lord Gavron (of the more recent “good old days”) ran the Folio Society almost as a hobby, requiring it only to break even or make a modest profit. Once the cocoon of the family fortune ended, the Society found itself in the real world . . . .

The “Society” ruse, I fancy, was designed to offer an aura of exclusivity and perhaps some “guilty” pleasure to an aspirational and educated readership who looked back fondly to the private press editions of the inter-war years which they couldn’t quite afford - all in the context of a somewhat drab British post-war era where rationing was still widespread.

There were also precedents for the model. Look at the mission statement of The Medici Society (1908), in the business of bringing art prints to a wider public “for the lowest price possible”:

https://www.medici.co.uk/pg/52/Company-History?srsltid=AfmBOooZjIZjmbMzTaOzQIQ7o...

In later years, the Folio “Society” was still aiming at an aspirational market, this time largely made up of Sunday Supplement readers. The wonder is that it was able to sustain this archaic model for as long as it did before the gloves came off and accountants replaced the bibliophiles.

Over on Instagram, the following survey link appeared in a story:



https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/9YFQX7D?fbclid=PAZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAaYDcQIIFOY5jBoS...

>180 LesMiserables: I expect they hope to be bought out at some point by the proverbial -F.O.X. - 'Fox Books', as often that is the boardroom-investor end game.

I find your conclusion reasonable and intuitive. I would not be surprised if that 'fox' turned out to be Reader's Digest, given Ms. Omnichannel's history.

>205 FitzJames: Nice! I've read half and would buy all of them :)

>205 FitzJames:

Thank you for the link.

I'm surprised about Uprooted in that list. I remembered it as fantasy.

I do wish they'd let you tick more than one title. There are several I would buy.

>207 HonorWulf:

Not wishing to dampen anyone's enthusiasm but I responded to the survey saying, truthfully, I've heard of none of the authors or their works and I'm fed up with the continuing reliance on SF to sell Folio Society books.

>207 HonorWulf: >208 SF-72: Most welcome!

>208 SF-72: Which titles did you wish to see and which did you select? I can submit the other if there are only two, but I grant that it seems odd you can't select several.

>209 folio_books: That's fair. In truth, none are in my wheelhouse either tho' I have heard of most of the listed authors. A very Anderida Books-type list

>208 SF-72: How was "Uprooted"? My library has it and the description does sound like high fantasy. What fantasy would it be comparable to?

From the list I’ve read Ancillary Justice, Three-Body Problem trilogy, Annihilation trilogy and seen the Martian movie. None of those were really that interesting.

I remember liking Stephenson’s "Cryptonomicon" quite a bit. Maybe I’ll give Snow Crash a try.

Interesting that it's for a limited edition and yet so many of the options are the start of a series. I'm honestly not that thrilled at the prospect of having a mismatching LE/standard editions, glancing at the Dune LE on my shelf with the standard edition set next to it is annoying enough as it is.

>205 FitzJames: A significant number of those options are part of series. I’m surprised they would consider them for LE treatment, unless they’d do the whole set (which would be prohibitive for The Expanse I’d think).

>209 folio_books: Fair enough, and that's certainly been true of the Limited Editions over the past year. But if you look at Standard Editions, they've only been publishing 2-4 sci-fi books per year going back the past five years. Fantasy has by far been the more dominant genre, among others.

The problem I have with SF as an expensive LE is that I associate SF with paperbacks (probably from reading them growing up) and that’s the format I’d rather consume them in. I enjoyed Leviathan Wakes, but I can’t see what extra I’d personally get from a very expensive edition. For me an LE should use premium and traditional materials, which perhaps don’t suit SF quite so well.

>209 folio_books: I wholeheartedly agree. I understand there are a lot of sci fi fans out there, and I’ve bought a few classic tomes from Folio, but I’m weary with the move toward eyeball chasing on social media. It seems to be all they care about these days and the publication list has suffered accordingly.

Well. I've read The Martian, the Annihilation series, and The Three-Body Problem series. One at a time.

The Martian - an excellent book, made into an excellent movie (that rarely happens). Not up there with The Classics we've seen discussed heavily in this thread and about three dozen other threads, but on par with other recent publications.

Annihilation - you really should read all three. I saw the movie, and thought it paled next to the books. I just might buy them, if they published all three in SE form - I still won't buy LE's.

The Three-Body Problem - started well, but by the end I was tired of it and thought the quality of the ideas had tapered off noticeably. Edited to add: I also got tired of stoppages in the story, while a character or news report gave a long history lesson in whatever was relevant at that part of the book.

>216 stubedoo: Ironically, I think that's why premium sci-fi editions are doing so well these days across a wide number of publishers -- it was historically an underserved market with a lot of pent up demand.

>210 FitzJames:

Thank you for your offer, that's very kind. In the end, I selected the Corey, but would have been tempted by Uprooted (it would have been my choice if I didn't already have a very nice Grim Oak Press edition of it) and I would have suggested Rosewater by Tade Thompson, which sounds fascinating and something different in that it is Nigerian science fiction. A friend recommended it to me and would love a nice edition of it.

I don't really get it, it would make so much more sense to give people more than one choice since they would certainly not just buy the one they'd be most interested in. It was the same for said friend, by the way, so it's not just something to do with my PC or something.

>211 PartTimeBookAddict:

I really enjoyed Uprooted, a beautiful book, and if you can lend it from your library, I would definitely say go for it. It's not classical high fantasy, in my opinion, but I find it hard to categorise it. There is a background in folklore (Polish, from what I read), and it felt like a really good mix between folklore, fairytale, and fantasy. It's very atmospheric, the magic well developed, and I really enjoyed the world building and characters. It reminded me a bit of Robin McKinley, if you know her. I hope that helps. Spinning Silver by the same author is also great, there the references are clearly to fairytales. Grim Oak Press made beautiful edition of both books, which I really treasure.

>220 SF-72: Thanks. I don't know Robin McKinley either. I've put a hold on Uprooted and should get to it soon.

>209 folio_books:

You will not be surprised to know that I agree with you, Glenn.

I looked at my own statistics, to see what the change has been over the last ten years. By way of background I should explain I hardly ever read sf, fantasy or children’s literature but otherwise have catholic interests. There are no budget issues involved in the figures below - my budget is probably healthier than ever, and I can’t recall passing on a FS title on grounds of price alone. I am well disposed to the FS, and own over a thousand titles. I buy many books other than FS.

In 2013, I bought 21 recently issued books, nine sale titles, and three LEs, from the FS (no second hand purchases in these figures).
In 2014, 21 recent, 16 sale, and 2 LEs
In 2015, 20 recent, 13 sale, and 3 LEs

Ten years on, the picture is rather different:
In 2023, 10 recent, four sale, and two LEs
In 2024, three recent, no sale, and three LEs
In 2025, to date, one recent, one sale, and one LE.

I should say I have no problem at all with the quality of the books I have recently bought - in general the quality is as high as it’s been for the last twenty years or so, and a good deal better than it was long ago. It is only the range of titles that restricts my buying.

Edited to amend recent LE data

>219 HonorWulf:

Yeah, that certainly makes sense -- and there is absolutely no denying the market for it. I think we all have our foibles based on our own histories. For instance, I collect Tolkien (SO many Hobbits!), but I initially read The Lord of the Rings as the 1981 three-volume Unwin Paperbacks. Even though I have many much nicer editions, I struggle to get the same feeling evoked from it with any other copies. I have a perfect fine set of those and a beater set for reading!

Younger readers have different personal histories and will want different products. I think sometimes the posters on here tend to forget that. At some point, even Easton Press will have to stop printing gaudy editions of out-of-copyright material and face the reality that the world moves on, both stylistically and in terms of the content that is interesting to people.

>205 FitzJames: Thanks for this survey.

>209 folio_books: I second and commend your response.

>213 LT79: I was looking forward to CTP's Snow Crash and would probably choose their version over the FS, if they did a FS version. Easton Press also has their own version of Snow Crash.

>216 stubedoo: Suntup's H.G. Wells Time Machine, War of the Worlds, and Invisible Man were very well done as Leather Editions. I found the Island of Dr. Moreau they did a little gimmicky as a Lettered Edition, though I did get the Artist. I found out about Suntup after their initial Wells trilogy and I am so sorry I didn't get to purchase them.

I'm going to put down Uprooted. I've heard really good things about it. Snow Crash I plan to get from CTP. Annihilation is more like a novella. I could see if they did all three books as one volume. I think Subterranean Press did that. I saw The Martian movie and, though I've heard good things about the book, the movie didn't persuade me that revisiting the story as a book would be particularly edifying or interesting. Hard sci-fi is great, but a little too into the minutiae and it can get tedious. I wish they would do Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. They only did Stranger in a Strange Land and Starship Troopers. So did Suntup. Anybody aware of why The Moon is a Harsh Mistress seems to missing as an offering?

>209 folio_books: Ditto.

>224 billburden:

Same here for The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, I really hope for a nice edition at some point. I don't have the slightest clue why neither FS nor Suntup did this one - it's one of Heinlein's best.

As for The Martian, I thought that the book was a lot better than the film. I watched that first, liked it, but was astonished when I then read the book and re-watched the film. I really didn't expect that it would be so much better.

I'm of the newer generation of FS buyers, having purchased my first FS in ~2021. It's interesting to see the old-timers yearning for the days of old. I could certainly understand it and don't have a terribly strong opinion either way. I enjoy both classic literature, as well as genre fiction in pretty equal amounts. I will say though, it does seem to me that illustrated book editions lend themselves particularly well to genre fiction. I'm surprised they held out this long to get to this point to be quite honest. Classic literature is often just about ordinary people living their lives (in very interesting and well-written ways...). I certainly enjoy premium book editions - the bindings, materials, feel of the books - all great - but what drew me to FS was the illustrations. It's wonderful seeing my books come to life and I think that's even more true when it comes to some of the science fiction / fantasy / horror greats from over the years. It's more interesting to me to see some of the insane visuals from Gene Wolfe's The Book of the New Sun versus Levin sitting at a ballroom table contemplating how to approach Kitty (Tolstoy's Anna Karenina). I've got both books and love them both dearly, but FS leaning into genre fiction feels like a good move for them to make from a business standpoint. I dearly hope they continue publishing plenty of non-fiction and classic literature but I feel like there's plenty of room for genre fiction as well.

>221 PartTimeBookAddict:

I hope you'll enjoy it. This one and Spinning Silver have impressed me so much that I started collecting her books. If you enjoy it enough to get your own copy at some point, I can recommend the editions by Grim Oak Press, which are illustrated by Donato Giancolla. They are out of print, but might be available on the secondary market.

Robin McKinley is an award-winning author who has written a wide range of book, some of her best were young adult or novels inspired by old fairytales. I just bought a copy of Deerskin to gift to a friend. That's a mix between an old fairytale and fantasy.

I like the sound of a lot of those titles but I put down Peter F Hamilton because I love his books and there haven't been any nicer versions of them of made as far as I can tell.

>222 affle: You will not be surprised to know that I agree with you, Glenn.

And you will not be surprised to learn that our buying habits over the last fifteen years are scarily similar, Alan. In 2025 so far I've bought 2 from the Spring Collection, nothing from the sale. From the start of 2024 I've bought two LEs. These numbers represent a very small fraction of my purchases in previous years and it's entirely down to their reduced range of titles. It makes me sad.

Interestingly no Hyperion on the survey. I do have the Curious King edition, so no big deal here.

I have read more than half of the survey books but I picked the Expanse one (even though I have the first two in SubPress editions). Maybe just because I wanted something fun. Two big ones missing from my reading there are Snow Crash and Revelation Space.

Uprooted is in strange company there. I liked that one too and missed on buying the Grim Oak Press edition. I dallied too long.

Snow Crash, although I think Folio could make a go of The Baroque Cycle (although not as an LE). Neal Stephenson is an excellent writer, and would have wide appeal.

>234 red_guy: Voted for Snow Crash as well. Big Neal Stephenson fan... It's less acclaimed, but would love to see Seveneves as well.

>235 HonorWulf: I haven't read that one yet, but I'm sure I will get round to it. As they go, it does seem quite daunting ...

>222 affle: I think this is mainly by-design. If you look at their catalog over the past couple of years, it's evident that they are no longer relying on a single demographic or two to buy a high volume of books. Instead, they are targeting at least half a dozen different demographics to buy a smaller volume of books. Personally, I'm buying 2-3 books per quarter and could easily double that number if they targeted my tastes more. But I think this is a healthier model for them since it scales better and is less vulnerable to changing tastes.

>237 HonorWulf: It's also less vulnerable to members of that single demographic or two losing their jobs, divorcing, dying, or other things which reduce income. Similarly, with incomes not rising with inflation and COL, each specific customer probably can't be relied on for the same amount of purchases anyway.

>230 johnny1991:

OK, I'll bite. Sigh.

The person you are replying to is clearly stating that "ordinary life" isn't necessarily material for particularly interesting illustrations. It seems you have - again - deliberately misinterpreted what someone wrote, just to be weirdly and confusingly snarky.

The Moonstone is a great example. Nice enough illustrations of people sitting in chairs - A Victorian drawing room just doesn't give that much scope for artistic creativity. If art is a drawcard, then some genres will have more scope for interesting artistic interpretation than others.

>239 stubedoo: I appreciate that stubedoo. That was precisely my point and you put it very nicely.

>238 Watry: Agreed, and I think we saw a bit of that before the management shift.

>239 stubedoo: >240 rubix_cubin:

Appreciated, however I can't really see why >230 johnny1991: has been flagged multiple times. I just fail to see a violation of TOS. An opinion perhaps, delivered in a manner that irritates some folks on here, or perhaps flagged because the poster is now seen as persona non grata.

It's worth remembering that flagging for the latter is a TOS violation.

As many have said before, if one thinks another is trolling then best practice is to send to Coventry.

I'd hate to see FSD become overzealous in its informal self governance.

I have counter-flagged accordingly.

>242 LesMiserables: I didn't flag anybody. They're welcome to their opinion.

>243 rubix_cubin: Hi, and thanks. I didn't mean to infer that you did in my comment, merely tagging you as your post was the basis for the discussion. Cheers.

>244 LesMiserables: No worries at all! I didn't mean to come off as terse as I did.

>242 LesMiserables: "Appreciated, however I can't really see why johnny1991: has been flagged multiple times."

Yeah, flagging is probably a bit much, and FWIW, I didn't personally flag him. I did feel like the comment was designed to irritate the person he was replying to and that seems like a pointlessly unkind behaviour that doesn't benefit anyone. I suspect the flagging was more down to the repeat snarky behaviour, rather than the specific post.

>246 stubedoo: No problem, and likewise I perhaps should have been more explicit in that I wasn't saying either of you were flaggers in this case.

LibraryThing is quite explicit on what constitutes a violation:

personal attacks
commercial solicitation
spam

I don't think it's reasonable to flag >230 johnny1991: and to do so is to diminish this group.

For anyone unfamiliar with the TOS it's worth reviewing these:

- One violation of the Terms of Service will not be considered to justify another one.
-Reasonable people can disagree about what constitutes abuse, but flagging is not a weapon.
-Clear misuse of the flagging feature—either to flag or counter-flag—is itself a manipulation of the system and a violation of the Terms.

All the best.

>222 affle:
Similar profile for me. Up to 2015 I was buying on average over 20 volumes per year (peaking at c40), mostly full price, including 1-2 LEs. The last few years, no LEs:
2019: 8 books
2020: 4
2021: 6 (Inc Man on the Moon, and the Shackleton set counting as one)
2022: 1
2023: 1
2024: 2 in sale
2025: 0
Yes, prices have gone up, but the main reason is that there's just very little of interest to me. I would have bought several LE titles if they'd been published as SEs, as I prefer nice editions to read rather than look at nowadays, but FS hasn't done that for titles I'm interested in.
Should add these are titles from FS. I have bought a fair number of older volumes on the secondary market during the same period.

>227 rubix_cubin: This is an interesting opinion on the nature of illustration. I've always pondered whether the advent of photography left the only thing for illustration to do really was to imagine things that couldn't possibly be captured in photos. I've always really appreciated seeing how certain SF works are interpreted by some illustrators and how they're different than mine.

I do think one can make the argument that bindings, letterpress, etc., aside, one could make an argument that illustrated books are some of the last refuge for illustration. I'm not a player at all in the art market as my wall space to collect paintings is considerably more than the storage space for books. (Not that I'm not guilty of buying too many books for my space.)

This is OT from the discussion on illustration. But, recently, I've considered buying physical books as a hedge against mindless censorship or bowdlerizations as society's taste change. With e-books it's too easy for somebody to just erase a passage and then claim it wasn't there at all. I remember a while back I read an opinion piece in an online newspaper and the original opinion article contained some offensive insinuations. The paper then "corrected" the article and made notice of the "correction", but the original wording seems unretrievable. I thought that was unfortunate as it wasn't really a "correction" but rather somebody retracting something offensively said. That person could have apologized for saying something offensive, but to "correct" it and pretend it was never thought at all seemed disturbing. I thought the same could happen to ebooks. I think books are a product of their time and instructive in that sense. I think it was Roald Dahl's estate or maybe Ian Flemming's that was considering to "correcting" racist or misogynistic language on the basis that the artistic message to be timeless. I couldn't disagree more. The remedy is totally in opposition to art, I believe.

This is a later edit: I just did some research and it seems that Ian Flemming's estate was the one that considered the future changes. Or so Wikipedia says.

>250 johnny1991: "Finally, I think your argument is frankly a little bit grasping because I don't think illustrations are that important in FS books."

Their entire business was set up around providing illustrated versions of books. Their LEs are usually up-priced due to artist signatures. Like it or not, that has always been their model. That said, personally, I much prefer unillustrated books unless it is something very much out of the scope of reality or the art is just beautiful in its own right. I read the words and it tells me what I'm "looking at".

"I'm just looking around my house at the beautiful paintings and artwork I've acquired, almost all of it is depicting real life!"

Good for you. I personally have (almost) no need for art depicting real life (certainly not in any realistic manner). I have real life for that. I look out of the window at mountains, I can wander down to the lake. I don't need pictures of those kinds of things.

Over on Folio's Tiktok, a teaser heralds the arrival of Miller's Circe on 6th May.

>251 stubedoo:, >252 johnny1991:

Folio’s ‘mission statement’ has been quoted here so many times before that I imagine many of us can recite it off by heart but I don’t recall anybody quoting the paragraph that follows it in the 1947 Prospectus (which may be found on the FSD wiki):

‘Wherever the subject allows, our books will be illustrated by contemporary artists. We shall sometimes employ young and hitherto unknown artists in whose work we believe.’

And the eight publications listed in that prospectus were, indeed, all illustrated, if not by contemporary artists.

Turning to Folio 75, looking at the first eleven years of Folio releases, some 110-plus volumes, the only one I can find with no illustrations at all (there are one or two where there appears to be only a frontispiece rather than multiple illustrations) is #52, The Book of Psalms. It is, however, reproduced from a hand-calligraphed manuscript (see this ebay listing for some images: https://www.ebay.com/itm/297007681940), which fits another aim from the 1947 Prospectus: 'an accent on design and craftsmanship.’

Folio clearly stated that they would focus strongly on illustration at the very beginning of the society and then did so in practice. And have continued to do so.

A forthcoming title: Zevin's Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow.

Source:
https://www.thebookseller.com/trade-interviews/cover-girl-how-ceo-joanna-reynold...

>255 FitzJames:
Very interesting article. Thanks for the link.
Should be read by all FSD members.

>256 wcarter: Most welcome!

>255 FitzJames:

Interesting article, but partly not quite correct, I would say. I didn't become a member in September, supposedly the only month one could join according to her, but in November. And members often bought (in my case considerably) more than the obligatory four books a year. Those were just the minimum requirement, and a limited edition could count as more than one book, too, so you could get away with fewer if you bought something expensive.

It's also the first time I heard that FS was supposedly in retail but nobody noticed it. To my knowledge, they only ever sold their books elsewhere through a few museum shops and a wine shop, which was definitely just a small side business and a nice idea if the book fits the museum. In some cases, they worked directly with the museum in question to create a title, so why on earth not.

She makes it sound like everything before her was complete nonsense, but twists facts at least in places where someone who has been around for a while would notice, but not people who haven't.

Don't get me wrong, I know changes were needed and some of them clearly worked very well for the company. (Others have led to a loss of sales, especially when it comes to inflated prices in some areas of the world compared to the UK.) I just think that she exaggerates some things or doesn't give the full picture, which leads to distortions.

>258 SF-72: I actually stumbled over this quite by chance on Instagram in a post tagged for the Folio Society by one Catherine Taylor who also had... reservations. I can offer no comment as I came to Folio too late for its membership era.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DJJc-SIoE-r/

>255 FitzJames: Glad they are researching a US-based operation. If they can offer the books with reduced mark-up and shipping, I imagine that's a huge growth opportunity.

"the data was"

*sigh*

>259 FitzJames: It’s interesting to the hear the mechanics behind the change over from the previous regime to the current one. Some interesting points. She is still completely dismissive of what went before, what was produced and who bought the books, although it can’t be denied that FS were in big trouble at the point where she came on board. It’s nice to see FS continuing to do well but the self congratulatory PR she gives herself in these articles is grating.

>255 FitzJames: “On signing, we paid 40% of the evaluation out of cash in the business, and now we’ve paid off 80% and we’re hoping to sign off fully next spring. Unusually, we own the business equally and share the profits equally."
They had a pretty amazing turnaround on the finances and the Employee Owned Trust model seems very interesting for the future.

"But one of the things I started asking myself six months ago, when I thought Trump would get in, was: ‘Do we get a separate US entity over there?’ We’re having discussions about that now"
Also very interesting for the US and Europe supply lines if they're aiming for growth, could cut down on those pesky ROW numbers.
Great article. Thanks for linking it.

>259 FitzJames:

Thank you for that link. It's interesting to read what Taylor as a former FS publisher has to say about Reynolds' derogatory (and at times contradictory-to-facts) way of talking about what was achieved before her and by her. Suffice it to say, as a member from 2012 and having read a lot about FS on here, I assume that there are some vague truths in there, but a lot of it is meant to make FS before her look almost entirely bad and herself remarkably good. I would certainly prefer a more factual tone. It was a company that made fantastic books under a model that wasn't geared at profit at the time. Again, I know things had to change, but Reynolds needn't be that arrogant and derogatory.

>262 assemblyman: That was the very word I was searching for - "grating". She comes across as determined to trash the history of the Folio Society. I'm on the brink of giving up altogether.

Aside from the tone of the remarks, what I find interesting is that now that it's being run essentially as a co-op it's in the black, while when it was under Gavron's patronage it bled money.

>266 dyhtstriyk:

Gavron took it on and ran it as a hobby and a break-even business. It obviously couldn't continue like that in the real world after his death. We certainly need arts and letters to make a society, but the metamorphosis, according to Ms Reynolds, has been the book equivalent of nasty, brutish, and short - to quote from a Folio publication of the Dark Age era.

I currently have three FS books, all bought secondhand: Dickens’ London (1977), Is He Popenjoy? (1998), The Gunpowder Plot (2005). I love their edition of Trollope’s works from the 1990s. Personally, if I were to purchase any books directly from FS, there are only six books that hold my interest, maybe less. I think the best FS books are found secondhand.

>255 FitzJames: Just read the article. Typical verbiage from Mrs Omnichannel: the company was in a mess, then I, I, I, I, just I, I, I...

JR: And the non-fiction is a lot more exciting, a lot of it is winning prizes; the growth in that drove a lot of change.”)

Okay, well that about does it for me.

>255 FitzJames: I'll not respond to the article - others have covered that ground.

But Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow is a book I read a while back, and I found it quite good. As has been the case with many FS books lately, it's not something I need a high-quality copy of, though.

I find the tone of the article completely obnoxious. If one were to take it at face value, she did everything. I, I, I, I, My, etc. I assume I can hold her responsible for 4 defective LEs in a row, given the current state of the company is all down to her. What an awful self-promoting woman.

The truth is Folio rode the post Covid wave, which has seen people read more books and spend more money collecting stuff.

>261 InVitrio:

If only the data were correct . . .

Insufferable tone. Painful reading. Very sad.

>273 drasvola:

Indeed. I've worked with some good CEOs and they all say “we", not "I". She is clearly very tone-deaf on a lot of fronts.

Wow I had a totally different reaction to a few of you when reading this article.

I think the decisions she outlines were fascinating. And took a lot of bravery and creativity.

I think back to my FS buying habits at that time, and I was absolutely abusing the sales pattern, which made me wait till big discounts which happened 3-4 times a year! I mean, we all talked about how incredible those sales were.

Anyway, I do have reservations about some recent publishing decisions, and pricing. But it’ll be interesting to see how the next 10 years unfolds for them - can they keep evolving and appealing to a big enough customer base?

I just also read the Taylor’s Insta article in response. She makes some good points, and yes her achievements should certainly not be dismissed at all. Some amazing work.

But the business model was floundering badly. And there was a gap of 3-4 years from when Taylor left and the new CEO joined. Things may have gone adrift in that time, I think. From a downward trajectory to ‘free fall’ as she says. Sounds very possible.

>275 Jeremy53: I think again people have a hard time grappling with change. The Folio of old was not sustainable and if change wasn’t made we likely would not even have it today. The days of running a business to break even are a long time behind us and the end of the day Folio must make a profit. It’s not a charity and Reynolds isn’t running it as such.

This article was very informative. I've been with FS since the membership era and also do not think being totally dismissive of what was before is the right thing to do. She's very dismissive of it being a "book club". But she seems to miss that a big part of the business is a group of people who want to collect books. What I mean is, this isn't just any business. You'd be completely delusional to think that you could grow it to the size of Apple or something. And that kind of worries me. I think a private company needs to make a profit, but I think a lot of people forget that sometimes you should appreciate your company for its size and not try to become Apple or Meta, because that's not who you are. I hope FS doesn't think that it'd be awesome if they change the business model to mirror Penguin Random House or HarperCollins. FS publishes books, and Penguin Random House, etc., are close analogues, but not quite. Extra distribution centers on different continents would be nice for customers. So would a free Ferrari with a purchase of four books. I just don't exactly know if extra distributions centers is good allocation of money given FS relatively small number of books that they actually distribute. To be dismissive of the past seems to misunderstand the past and not be in tune with what the present is.

I just read the portion of that interview. Oy Vey!

Ok. I just read the whole article. Still, Oy Vey! The only thing that intrigued me was the question raised of FS having an operation in the USA due to the fairly large market. That’s actually a good idea and it reminded me of another favorite publisher, which, is smaller, I believe, than FS.

Ever heard of the Banner of Truth Trust? They’re a small publisher of Christian books from the reformed/Puritan branch of Christianity with the headquarters in Edinburgh. In 1955, the Banner of Truth Trust was formed. In 1966, a deal was made with a company in Pennsylvania to distribute Banner of Truth titles. In 1973, the Banner of Truth took over the operation fully and have maintained a heavy US presence ever since. In fact, they print a ton of their books in the USA.

All this is to say that if a small publisher like the Banner of Truth, which, definitely caters to a niche market, can be successful with a US branch, why can’t the Folio Society give it a try?

As to the types of books FS is now publishing, personally, I think they have over corrected on the publishing of modern books. They say that they aren’t ignoring the classics, but, their publishing of a few, including limited editions, feels like a token effort just to say that they still publish classic works. If they are looking for new challenges, publish a complete edition of Sir Walter Scott’s writings. They did with Anthony Trollope in the 1980s-1990s (it is now my goal to assemble the 48 volume set. I already have 1, so, it’s a start!)

>277 billburden: agreed.

I seem to recall a US folio distribution center in Pennsylvania back in the day that eventually closed down for cost reasons.

Google research shows that the former US distribution center closed in 2016. From Google’s AI summary:

The Folio Society closed its US distribution center in 2016 due to cost-cutting measures, aiming to streamline operations and reduce expenses. The decision was part of a broader strategic realignment, as the company decided to concentrate its distribution efforts from its London headquarters. This move resulted in longer shipping times and higher postage costs for customers in the US, as orders were handled from London instead of being fulfilled locally.

>272 pse1:, >261 InVitrio:

If I might add my own 'insufferable tone' (grateful thanks to >273 drasvola:), I do like a bit of pedantry so I went to my very, very old student dictionary*:

'data ... (often treated as n.sing.)'

Which suggests that, forty years ago, that was already an accepted usage.

* Chambers Pocket 20th Century Dictionary (1984)

>282 Cat_of_Ulthar: Quite so. We should shift our focus to the incorrect use of 'decimate'.

Mrs. Reynolds (christened by the devotees as Mrs. Omnichannel) gave an interview for Monocle on Saturday podcast.

She doesn’t say anything significatively different to the printed interview, but I found a couple interesting tidbits:

- She says most of Folio’s customers were over 60 ten years ago and now the main demographic is 25-35, with as many readers over 60 as under 25. And she says the total number of customers over 60 has grown too, as the customer base has expanded.
- She considers the membership model to have made the society lazy.

Below link to the interview (Mrs. Reynolds comes in at the 22nd minute).

https://monocle.com/player/?uuid=e6127ab7-b81e-456b-893c-a8d600215365%2C44d42cf3...

>258 SF-72:

Back in the day (2000 or 2001-ish, my first order from them, it was around September, actually), I was told off by FS (politely) for ordering more than four books. I didn't get the impression it was a major transgression but it wasn't the done thing then. Sort of a rule, you know?

I got the Times Atlas of the World (in those days they were flogging books by other publishers on a pretty regular basis.)

>284 dyhtstriyk: Thanks for sharing.

JR.... "...back in the day, people used to buy Folio books to stick on their shelves as they look lovely, BUT WE WANT PEOPLE TO ENJOY THEM, TO READ THEM, TO HOLD THEM, TO LOVE THEM, TO GET INVOLVED WITH THEM....BUT IT'S NOT JUST A COLLECTION THING, IT'S AN EMOTIONAL THING...

I honestly cannot abide the nonsense that comes of from this person. Absolute disdain for the company and customers who came before her.

Later on in her interview she smugly tells us that she has more under 25 customers than over 60s (She mentions that she hasn't lost her over 60s customers. Ha! Watch this space. ). That she has moved the company from publishing books that were 90% out of copyright to 95% in copyright. She sees the money in Sci-Fi, Fantasy, Women's, Non-fiction, Children's. Her focus is on the US market.

A very risky strategy. The last 20 years have seen exceptional first world economic prosperity that the youth are enjoying. I imagine that when the economic proverbial hits the fan, and it will at some stage, then discretionary spending on Folio books in that age bracket (20-34) will plummet.

To sum, if you are a man who likes classic literature, and are in your later 30s or over: you are not the priority of the Folio Society.

>284 dyhtstriyk: I wonder how much of the hate this lady experiences on this forum is because of her gender.

The "risky strategy" has paid off well so far. We'll see how things go in the future, but the willingness to shift focus is, in this world, a good thing. Yes, I love the classics, but I already have a Dickens set, and an Austen set, and Tolkien, and as many of the Hardy books as I thought worthwhile. Getting young people to enjoy high-quality books is a win, as far as I'm concerned.

PS - I joined the Folio Society, in the membership era, in 1988. Before the new buyers were even born.

>288 coynedj:
I agree.
I joined the FS in 1990, shortly after you, and I am quite happy with their present book offerings. Far better than the bland offerings in the 1970s.
Just realised that after some purchases of some older titles.at a book fair yesterday, I now own exactly 1100 FS books.

>287 What_What: Ha ha. What a joke.

>283 red_guy: nah, unfortunately I think that one’s long gone.

But I’m still fighting ‘laconic’. As in: “he’s such a laconic, lazy footballer”

>286 LesMiserables:
>287 What_What:

For me, gender doesn't come into it. It's not who or what she is but what she does and what she stands for, by way of the direction of travel and her attitude to certain customers. It's her methods and methodology that grate.

Don't click to see. The kind of fare that first drew me to Folio when I was a teenager and in my twenties and has continued to attract me for the best part of a lifetime has been minimised in favour of a plethora of omnichannelled, profit-chasing, blink-and-you-miss-them, gold-flaking, price-inflated blockbusters and comic books (I refrain from being more explicit).

Phew!! That was a close one! I nearly inserted the rantings of a boring, narrow-minded, inflexible, superannuated, snobbish and curmudgeonly old f--t, who refuses to acknowledge that the world has moved on, but I stopped myself just in time, thanks to the advanced editing techniques on here. Bad karma.

In calmer moments, I do enjoy a certain amount of Agatha Christie and other crime fiction, classic fantasy like Tolkien and thought-provoking sci-fi, in good quality editions and at reasonable prices, and I'm grateful for the Wolf Hall trilogy and the recent Shakespeare, not to mention genteelly excited by the prospect of a Laura-Ashley-bound Jane Austen set. But there seems little prospect now of facsimiles like Night Thoughts, the Kelmscott Chaucer, Johnson's Dictionary, and Birds Drawn for John Gould by Edward Lear; or the bold thinking that led to the publication of the Horrid Novels, the Compleet Molesworth, Arabia Deserta, Poetic Gems Selected From The Works of William McGonagall Poet and Tragedian, Parade's End, and Year Round Things to Do (with the original Shirley Hughes illustrations). And while I'm sorry about that, at least I'm able to divert the funds I might have spent to other things.

>292 boldface: Splendid. oops! Old white man vernacular there.

Fab! Groovy! Sick!

A step away from nonagenarian status, I cringe from my classification by Folio's COO as likely customer. That said, as faithful, erstwhile member, and collector of more than five hundred Folio books, my current opinion is that gimmicky releases don't threaten my purse. Blatant market techniques and flashy bindings likewise. Plus, Brexit (not Folio's fault, I admit) doesn't help. So I repeat: very sad.

>287 What_What: " I wonder how much of the hate this lady experiences on this forum is because of her gender."

I really do think it is just her words. The last CEO I reported to was female and was/is bloody excellent (though I didn't always agree with her on every decision) - I don't think gender really enters into the subject of whether someone comes across well or is a great leader. To my mind, she just doesn't seem to think very carefully before speaking. She could say the same basic things without coming across as a jerk. She should keep her mouth closed more often than flapping it, if what she is saying isn't helpful.

I don't have a real issue with Folio's book choice. I don't think there is a market to just keep churning out the same old stuff. The recent price/quality issues are definitely a problem for me, though, especially with the expensive and nasty LEs (though perhaps Gatsby signals a change of direction on that front as it seems to have been high quality and well-priced).

>286 LesMiserables: in what way is focusing on a broader consumer base controversial? This is really very simple. The business was dying. It was either change the folio society to appeal to a broader group of consumers or don’t and die. It isn’t a risky strategy. It’s just good business.

>295 stubedoo: Perhaps Gatsby signals a change of direction on that front as it seems to have been high quality and well-priced.

I really hope so. I've only purchased a few LEs in the last year and (with the exception of The Moonstone at 50% off - bargain!) they've mostly disappointed on the cost/value side. I like them all, certainly, but I've been very conscious that they were overpriced compared to players in the fine press space. Neuromancer, especially since the SE came out, is the perfect example.

Gasby is my first where I'd say Folio was actually price competitive with the fine presses, other than the lack of letterpress. Long may it continue!

>296 Geo135: Who told you the business was dying? You fell for the spin did you? Over bloated nonsense spouted by an over inflated ego who can't stop talking about tailspins and every metric. A load of crap.

I think that we can broadly agree that the old business model did not work. The website was indeed a mess. I nearly missed the first run of the Heaney Beuwulf as the marketing was non-existent and I did frequent Eagle St very regularly at that time. My point being, if I could miss things and was actively looking, then what hope for new customers? Remember when LE’s could be put on interest-free payments over 10 months? One explicitly-stated reason that it was stopped was that as so many subscribers were literally dying before they were paid off, we were told. I’m not at all happy with the change of quality with ever-higher prices since the post-Gavron changes and see this as antithetical to the company I once enjoyed, and this was a the real issue I have these days that has certainly alienated me from the current management. Broadening the customer base was necessary, but it’s the quality of the books themselves that matters most.
One wonders what the intended demographic was in 1947; we know it was the aspirational middle classes, but how old were the subscribers then?

I must admit I find the level of negativity in this thread surprising. I didn’t find anything in the article so egregious - her job is to generate profits (which are admirably shared with employees) which she is doing. I can’t help but think this disdain primarily comes from a majority of forum users being “older” men who don’t appreciate not being the current focus of the company. I don’t think this forum has very much representation from younger readers, which is fine, but perhaps creates a lack of perspective.

As book collectors, we benefit from the hard work of other people managing, designing, publishing, and creating books. Not every company’s direction resonates with me, but perhaps more importantly I don’t buy every book from a particular company. I pick and choose what appeals to my taste and my sense of monetary value. I don’t find EVERYTHING the Folio Society publishes to be a winner whether it comes down to cost, title selection, or quality of illustrations/design. But I still find a handful of their publications to be exciting and desirable. I find some other publishers (CTP) for example to be more consistently to my taste, but I still don’t buy every book they publish.

In short, I’m not sure why folks feel such personal offense at the decisions of a business. We are giving them money, and if we don’t like their products then simply do not make the purchase. I understand mourning the loss of a company that used to be more to your liking, but things change. Just because things aren’t the way you would prefer doesn’t mean other people aren’t enjoying it. Companies are not managed democratically (and even if they were, this forum may not represent the majority opinion), but we get to choose how to spend our money.

>300 PJ-Reads: Agreed. But do remember - for those who like to shout at the moon it always works, it disappears eventually.

>300 PJ-Reads: I can’t help but think this disdain primarily comes from a majority of forum users being “older” men

Evidence? Please provide names, ages and sex.

Thought so.

>298 LesMiserables:
I've not read them but according to posts in many various threads in the past from our very own FSD members who are Finance literate, Folio's own quarterly reports said so. They were bleeding money so fast that dying was the only appropriate single-word description of the situation. No spin. Just numbers. Untenable. If the closure of Eagle St. wasn't a red flag, I don't know what is. Don't give credit to your nemesis on a successful spin if she didn't earn it.

Given the lack of focus on being profitable and running a sustainable business model, I'm convinced that virtually any new business leadership brought in with any change in direction in mind would've yielded some sort of improvement to the bottom line. In other words, there's nothing special or unique about directional change brought on by the current leadership...anyone could've done it. Yes, perhaps the variety we see could be better...but it could've been a lot worse. Frankly, I think the variety has been pretty good for the entire last decade - I'm always discovering things I wouldn't otherwise have, old and new. We'll see another change in leadership sooner or later, the flavor of the books will change again, and so on and so on. Better a living company that isn't quite one's ideal than a dead one.

>302 LesMiserables: I’m not sure I understand the singular focus on this one point. I suppose you have data showing that this forum is made up of a broad and diverse population?

>304 PJ-Reads:

Hi! I see you're fairly new, while I'm a longtime lurker and some-time poster in this group. I hate gaslighting, whether it's done to me or other people, so allow me to cut to the chase: your intuition is correct, this group is overwhelmingly male, white, and older -- at least, based on people who actually post.

There is in fact somewhere a thread where we posted our ages, and other info became more or less apparent through the years.

Happy book-buying and reading!

This is the thread: https://www.librarything.com/topic/119419

And this post included some analysis: https://www.librarything.com/topic/119419#5122228

It's not very up-to-date, though. Is there enough interest to start a new one?

>306 Cat_of_Ulthar:

Thanks, cat. There is the link to the even older thread at your first link:

https://www.librarything.com/topic/40317

Edited to add: this first thread ran from July 2008 to September 2009.

“It’s terrible to criticize and oppose someone based on demographics; fortunately, I’ve identified the precise and exclusive demographic that does this.”

>308 St._Troy: I don’t believe any demographic has been criticized, in fact I said “which is fine”, but simply tried to present a different perspective. I don’t see a lot of supportive messages for younger folks when FS is accused of pandering to the younger social media degenerates
Edit: I realize the quote can be interpreted in different ways but I will leave my points

>305 LolaWalser: thank you and in your words, I will return to “Happy book-buying and reading” :)

>308 St._Troy:

I don't see anything "terrible" about it per se; context is everything. It is disingenuous to claim all demographic groups or however we slice and dice humanity, have equal power, effect, influence etc.

>309 PJ-Reads:

Thank you. :)

This old white guy says "I can't wait for the summer collection to come out, so we can go back to talking about the actual books".

>300 PJ-Reads: Before you go furnishing anymore balanced opinions I'm going to have to ask you to tell us everyone's age, height, mother's maiden name, favourite colour and their Desert Island Disc selections. Only THEN will you be able to speak. Got it, PJ?

Seriously though, the article compares the under 25 bracket to the over 60, but I do wonder what the largest overall bracket is.

Also, "Tomorrow, and Tomorrow and Tomorrow" is a pretty lazy one-note book. I'd recommend giving it a read first before investing in an FS copy. A much better book that looks at the creative process over a long period of time is Chabon's "Kavalier & Clay".

>312 PartTimeBookAddict: LOL noted, next time I will do substantially more research before speaking

>288 coynedj: >311 coynedj: I appreciate this message and I agree, let’s get back to the books

>298 LesMiserables: Who told us the business was dying?

The financial reports: https://www.librarything.com/topic/359453

>285 Cat_of_Ulthar:

That's interesting. When I joined in 2012, I bought the obligatory four books so I could become a member, got some very generous welcome gifts or discounts (The Wind in the Willows was free, and I paid something like 20 Pounds for the complete Beatrix Potter box sets), and went on buying lots more books once my account was confirmed. Nobody complained about my buying habit, quite the contrary. I was encouraged to continue series by discounts when further volumes were published, as well as vouchers for more limited editions after I'd bought some.

>298 LesMiserables: There has been much discussion about the years of consecutive losses they sustained until they started changing direction.

>302 LesMiserables: You can tell from the way it is.

>312 PartTimeBookAddict: to give a different opinion on “Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow”, I found it a wonderful read, neither lazy nor one-note. It has memorable characters, the writing is flowing, and several sections were really moving. I might be the target audience – I’m a lifelong gamer, and of the same generation as the main characters, so I really appreciated the author’s capturing the sense of magic video games can elicit, especially (though not only) when you’re a kid or a teenager. I haven’t read “Kavalier & Clay” so can’t compare directly.

>317 BorisG: I'm glad you liked it. That is the most important thing. If it moved you then it was successful as a novel.

My criticisms would be that I've played games all through the eras of the novel and thought it easily could have been a book about almost any creative subject and that Video Games was a skin overlaid on a story. A general reader doesn't really need to know anything about Video Games to "get" the book.

It also hit too many cheap, gut-punch subjects throughout. (Very minor spoilers: dead parents, childhood illness, mass shootings, sexual abuse, LGBT bigotry.) Not that these things don't happen in real life, but it seemed they were crowbarred in to soup up a flagging story. It felt saccharine to me. And the dragged-out end twist was obvious for so long to anyone who's seen a certain Tom Hanks/Meg Ryan movie.

Again, I'm glad you liked it. It didn't work for me. But, everyone's tastes are different. I hope you give “Kavalier & Clay” a try, and maybe "Wonder Boys" too. Hopefully you'll like them as well.

A small note with regards to the upcoming Piranesi, the paper is Abbey Pure and it has t.e.g., as confirmed by the Collectible Book Vault on Instagram.

>319 FitzJames: I read the article but couldn't find if they confirmed the binding to be cloth. It looks like it (and it would be rare for an Abbey Pure printed book not to be clothbound). Anyway, it's an instant buy for me.

>320 dyhtstriyk: The Summer collection launches May 6 at 4 pm UK time, so not long to find out :)

Also, here's a lengthy interview with FS, the illustrator and Susanna Clarke on Piranesi. Of note is that there will be 100 books signed by Clarke, for those who are into that sort of thing :)

>322 A.Nobody:

Thank you for this link.

>320 dyhtstriyk: would have been my question as well…I hope it is clothbound.

>324 woodstock8786: Seeing in detail the post from collectible book vault, it seems all but settled. Looks clearly cloth, especially the first picture.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DJO5FJfx_bG/?img_index=1

>324 woodstock8786: We'll find out tomorrow. No recent publication has sparked my interest as much as Piranesi - while I thought that Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell dragged on a bit, Piranesi is a compact and wonderful concoction.

>325 dyhtstriyk: yes, it does!
Oh this is great…I will need to order this.

>326 coynedj: absolutely agree. Something I was really looking forward to! 😃

>320 dyhtstriyk: "Bound in printed and blocked textured paper"

Perpetua…

>330 treereader: Type wit?

>330 treereader:

Is that good or bad?

>332 folio_books:

The most recent FS book I have in Perpetua, Glenn, is Atonement, and before that, Lolita.

>329 FitzJames: "bound in paper" plus the unimaginative illustrations plus the awkward and ineffectual die-cut slipcase... I can't believe it, but I think they actually unsold me on one of the titles I've been most wanting a nicer edition of during the past few years.

I do like the blue and gold color scheme, and suspect the TEG will look splendid in person, but a binding alone is never enough for me if the materials and illustrations don't back it up.

>332 folio_books: Perpetua is a fine choice on the aesthetics, but from a larger view this is also a missed opportunity for some allusive typography (either a Roman or Venetian typeface would be most appropriate).

>329 FitzJames: very sad. I'll not order it with expedited. snail mail will be.

I don't own any paper-bound books; what is the issue? Looks/feels cheap? Not durable? Just wondering.

>336 St._Troy: unless they are laminated, paper bindings tend to scuff with repeated use, especially around the corners.

Thanks

>336 St._Troy: My FS paper bindings have been fine so far, but to be fair I’ve only read them once each so far. I don’t anticipate having any issues though (my trade books typically look fine too)

Really thought they had cloth with that sneaky texturing. They also made Blood Meridian paper out of sequence with the rest of them, which annoyed me a lot. No problem with longevity so far but I'm pretty careful, like >339 BooksFriendsNotFood: said my regular paper books look fine. That said I've seen a lot of scuffing on some of the older paperbound FS books I've picked up vs clothbound which nearly universally look fine.

>332 folio_books:

I've not read the book but from all the excitement and conversation it has generated, it sounds as if the story emits a bit of perpetualness. If that's true, Folio is back at its amusing font selection game again. I thought it might be amusing.

>331 FitzJames:

I think so, yes. Someone who's read the story should weigh in on the potential humor.

I was ready to buy Piranesi. I was having a sleepless night, so looked just as it came online and... Bound in textured paper. I noped right out. I won't pay £75 (ROW) + Shipping for a paper-bound book.

>341 treereader: "I've not read the book"

I hadn't read the book previously, so I read an eBook of it at the weekend after lots of positive talk on the Folio groups. I really enjoyed it, and read it in a single day (it isn't a very long work at all). I was thinking about it this morning after deciding the paper binding put me off this new edition, that actually I don't want an illustrated edition of this. My mind's eye feels much more appropriate a place to envision the story's location without being constrained by someone else's ideas. For most books, I don't think that (though I can generally take or leave illustrations).

>279 Bibliophile-I: "All this is to say that if a small publisher like the Banner of Truth, which, definitely caters to a niche market, can be successful with a US branch, why can’t the Folio Society give it a try?"

I suspect that the market the Banner of Truth is catering for is a little less niche in the USA than it is in the UK, which is why having a US branch works for them.

From the Folio magazine —

COMING JULY 2025
Marvel: Fantastic Four

They saved the universe, rewrote reality — and still found time to argue. Marvel: Fantastic Four gathers their greatest adventures, hand-picked and introduced by novelist Jonathan Lethem.

-----

It looks like they're continuing the Marvel books in the style (design and material-wise) of Marvel: Unforgettable Stories.

Groan...

I haven't gotten Unforgettable Stories (yet) but I may indulge in Fantastic Four if the story selection is different enough from the Fantastic Four title from the Penguin Marvel Classics collection.

>347 LesMiserables: Titus Groan?

>349 dyhtstriyk:

Is that a medical condition? ;-)

Nah, just hate this line Folio have gone down.

>344 stubedoo:
I know what you mean about the mind's eye when reading a book, and I really do struggle to get excited about any book's illustrations (and won't pay more just to have them or to have some versus others). History books with actual photographs, I suppose, would be the exception, albeit a small one.

Someone from the FS Facebook group shared this! Maybe there are multiple different magazines because I'd be shocked if I just passed over this lol.

I appreciate I'm in danger of harping on a topic that has died down over the past few days, but I couldn't resist commenting on these from members whose opinions I have long respected, as they are at the heart of why I'm not much of an FS-direct buyer any more.

>288 coynedj:
Yes, I love the classics, but I already have a Dickens set, and an Austen set, and Tolkien, and as many of the Hardy books as I thought worthwhile. Getting young people to enjoy high-quality books is a win, as far as I'm concerned.
I would disagree that FS is much about 'getting young people to enjoy high-quality books' - it's generally about getting people to buy up-market editions of books that they have already read (True, some people buy on spec, as evidenced on threads here, but I would suggest that this is a minority activity - seems awfully expensive and wasteful to me, but that's just IMO).
I too already have those sets (along with a complete run of Hardy!) - and that was part of the appeal of FS, that they would deep dive an author, be adventurous, and even publish complete oeuvres, usually where such sets weren't otherwise easily available. As it is, they are hopelessly unreliable on producing a full run, and appear to prefer cherry-picking individual 'best seller' volumes, which is not what I'm interested in.

>289 wcarter:
I joined the FS in 1990, shortly after you, and I am quite happy with their present book offerings. Far better than the bland offerings in the 1970s.
I joined around the same time too. However unlike you, I find the current offering is what is bland, increasingly best seller titles which, if I'm interested in, I've already got a decent edition of. Thus, in the most recent collection, I already have, or have had, trade hardbacks of Life of Pi, Piranesi (vastly overrated IMO), and Children of Ash and Elm, and a Library of America edition containing Giovanni's Room. None of the volumes come close to making me want to spend another £60+ on them.

I do find Joanna Reynolds' claim that FS's non-fiction range is exciting to be hyperbole at best (and what a self-serving interview that was - ghastly). They do occasionally publish something of that ilk - I couldn't resist Man on the Moon or Syria, but generally I have found it increasingly scrappy and incoherent as a collection, and nowadays a disappointingly small proportion of their output.

None of this, BTW, is by way of complaint, merely observation. Something needed to be done about FS, and whilst I am obviously disappointed the way FS has gone (there was potential for a more 'middle way' I suspect), it has freed my wallet up to explore other more exciting and in-depth avenues, whilst providing others with something to get excited about. And maybe, just maybe, FS will at some stage come up with the odd pleasant surprise (the last being Syria). I still enjoy exploring that bland back-list though!

>353 Willoyd:

"As it is, they are hopelessly unreliable on producing a full run, and appear to prefer cherry-picking individual 'best seller' volumes, which is not what I'm interested in."

That's a serious problem for me, and after having been burnt a few times, I rarely take the risk of starting something where I can't be sure that they do plan on continuing it.

>354 SF-72: That indeed is a serious issue. The fear/expectation of FS giving up before completing a series has held me back from buying initial volumes. Iain Banks' Culture series is a good example of this, though it is heartening to see them continuing it so far.

>353 Willoyd: Much was said in the interview about the shift to a younger cohort of buyers. Even this old guy buys many books that I've already read, and I'm sure that a lot of the young buyers are of course doing that as well - it's nothing new. And, I must say, I think it's Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell that's overrated; I loved Piranesi. But, I never claimed to have good taste.

>352 BooksFriendsNotFood: Goodness gracious me, that typography is ugly.

>354 SF-72:, I definitely understand that feeling. I wrote them expressing hope that they would, eventually, publish all of Georgette Heyer’s works. With the popularity of the Regency Romance, I’d hope that the creator* of these books would get her bibliography published in a high quality edition! I’m hoping for two complete sets from FS one day: Georgette Heyer and Sir Walter Scott.

*Despite what many think, Jane Austen is not a Regency Romance author, nor, is she the creator, as, she was writing about society contemporary to her.

>357 Bibliophile-I:

I just talked to a friend about their Georgette Heyer's, and we would definitely appreciate it if they did more titles.

>353 Willoyd:

I absolutely agree with the points you make.

>356 cronshaw: "Goodness gracious me, that typography is ugly."

It is very, very similar to Beowulf (same artist). Tbh, the slightly random words on the art are my least favourite thing about that edition. It will be interesting if he has adorned the art similarly in these (I hope not).

>355 coynedj:
I'd agree with you about Jonathan Strange. Started well, but went on for ever. Admittedly I'm probably not the best person to comment, being a bit of a cross-genre reader here: not much into fantasy (with exceptions!), but generally thoroughly enjoy magical realism.

>361 Willoyd:

Same here. I'm still fighting through the audio book - Jonathan Strange really drags on, while I quite enjoyed Piranesi.

>361 Willoyd: What are your fantasy exceptions? I’m not much of a fantasy reader either, so I’m interested to know which books have earned a place on your shelves.

Just to add my two cents to the "decadence of new Folio" topic....

I joined in 1988, primarily purchasing what some would call "serious" literature. I've never bought a Limited Edition, and the hundred or so Standard Editions I've bought and kept were always financially a bit of a strain. Nevertheless I've never lost the thrill of receiving (and continuing to marvel over), say, the three-volume Chaucer set, Clarissa, Principia Mathematica, Seven Pillars of Wisdom, Walden, Momsen's History of Rome, Finnegans Wake. Those days seem to be gone.

But two other points are important. I also came to love Folio, not just for the heavy hitters, but for the eccentric and whimsical books that were always in the mix: Belloc's Cautionary Tales, The Diary of a Nobody, A Visit to Don Ottavio, 1066 and All That. Those, too, seem to be disappearing--but in no way was it all Dostoevsky.

Second, though I understand some frustration with the proliferation of science fiction, I have my doubts about whether this undeniably sound business decision rests on an appeal to young readers. I am approaching my seventieth year, but when I was in Junior High and High School, in the late sixties and early seventies, I devoured those books: The Martian Chronicles, the Foundation Trilogy, Stranger in a Strange Land, Childhood's End, Starship Troupers and many others. I read them in cheap editions whose paper was probably starting to yellow before I finished them, and I had almost forgotten they existed until Folio started putting them out in fine editions. And I wonder how many of those books are now being purchased, not by "younger readers," but by baby boomers like myself consumed with nostalgia for the "trashy" reads of our youth. (I also went through about a third of the James Bond series in High School.)

So part of me finds it a shame that Folio has moved from the types of line-up it featured when I joined up. But, admittedly, if I won a lottery or two, I'd probably have most of the sci fi/fantasy on my shelves as well.

>364 RickartAllen: nice thoughts. You know, now that you mention it, if I won the lottery, I’d also buy their current catalogue of sci-fi/ fantasy!

It was generally always a financial strain for me too, which is why the regular, heavy discounts were so great.

>364 RickartAllen: I agree with all this.

I also think many of the fantasy titles (such as the Earthsea set), while often still popular with younger readers, are probably purchased more by middle aged and older customers.

The titles aimed at younger customers are probably those that have been more recently popular, such as The Song of Achilles, Circe, Piranesi, The Night Circus, the Pullman titles, etc.

I'm skimming over the available titles now and if I had to make an educated guess I'd say most were probably marketed toward Boomer and Gen X readers.

Lots of cross appeal also, like Tolkien, Shirley Jackson, Murakami, McCarthy.

If there's any clear bias or focus, it looks to me like titles originally published during the mid to late 20th century make up the bulk of the currently available catalog. That would be some interesting data to collate exactly.

>356 cronshaw: .. a proper match for the illustrations.

>356 cronshaw: >367 bacchus.: I actually really like the typography and what I've seen of the illustrations so far! I liked it in Beowulf too — the only thing that drew me off was the yellow binding in that huge size. With the yellow & blue color combo, I would've preferred the book to be a handheld size.

>368 BooksFriendsNotFood: It’s definitely my personal take on the style. I don’t like Dave McKean’s art either - just feels off-kilter. Then again, I came to love the illustrations of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest - possibly one the most hated in this forum, and universally ugly - so you are probably better off disagreeing with me on aesthetics :)

>369 bacchus.: Fair enough, and honestly, sometimes artwork grows on you! I looked at Rob Roy every year and went bleurgh along with everyone else, and suddenly at the beginning of this year it caught my fancy.

I just looked up the FS artwork for One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and I definitely chuckled haha. I love that you came to admire it though!

>370 BooksFriendsNotFood: Stockholm syndrome?

>371 LesMiserables: I think just a new perspective lol. And of course I forgot to mention in my previous comment: some art you just hate for life and that's cool too XD

>371 LesMiserables: "If you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you." ― Friedrich Nietzsche

>373 mr.philistine:

I don't believe the abyss has anything on Rob Roy.

>374 stubedoo: You saying, you want a piece of me?

>375 mr.philistine:

I stared into the Rob Roy illustrations and they stared vaguely off to the side.

>376 stubedoo: I think they are a product of our age of madness.

I spent way too long trying to find this quote again but it was the below description of June Carey's work that made me more appreciative of her art for Rob Roy (although after a few years, I did find several of the pieces aesthetically pleasing even before looking into the artist further; in addition, I find that the cover looks stunning in person). I personally found the illustrations very fitting as I read through Rob Roy for the first time.

"My images always centre around a solitary human being, who is unable to speak. I therefore have to convey his/her thoughts using a symbolic language. This sometimes takes the form of written words and images on the body. I try to make thoughts visible, which are of course, invisible."

Source: https://edinburghprintmakers.co.uk/artists/177-june-carey/

>363 GardenOfForkingPaths:
Sorry for delay in replying - been away.

I suppose it depends where you draw the line on what is and what is not fantasy. Going down some lists of 'best fantasy' there are several books/series which I wouldn't have classified as 'fantasy' per se, but, yes, on contemplation they are of course (Alice in Wonderland, books based on Greek myths etc).

So, excepting some of those, and concentrating on books read or reread this century, the ones that jump to mind are:
Lord of the Rings - a longstanding favourite
The Gormenghast trilogy
The Dark is Rising sequence (with the eponymous title the best, and fine as a standalone)
The Northern Lights trilogy
Dune - scifi or fantasy? Brilliant whatever. Later ones never grabbed me.
and as a bit of fun, really enjoyed the earlier Rivers of London books, although I tailed off with them. Enjoyed them more from the 'London' aspect though.
I'm sure there are others which are marginally fantasy (David Mitchell for instance, Connie Willis's time travel, Michael Moorcock's Mother London?) but these are the main ones.

I'd also add that I enjoyed a fair amount of fantasy until my teens. Just never really transferred to my adult reading, although enjoyed reading them to and with my own son (including, not read as a child of course, Harry Potter!).

>379 Willoyd: Thank you, that’s a great list. I have the FS Gormenghast (Peter Harding illustrations) to read, and I’ll need to take a look at The Dark is Rising. It’s a shame that the FS edition has become so expensive.

>380 GardenOfForkingPaths: Not a huge fantasy fan, either. However, Folio has managed to tickle my sweet spot with the LOTR, Gormenghast, ASOIAF and Earthsea series, as well as a couple of stand-alones like The Buried Giant and the recent King of Elfland's Daughter. Would splurge on some Michael Moorcock if they ever get around to it.

>381 HonorWulf: I really like the Earthsea series too. To my shame, I’ve never read LOTR and will make a point to do so this year. I’m on the fence between an older FS set or the recent Harper Collins.

What are your thoughts on the artwork for King of Elfland’s Daughter? Do you feel the style works well with the tone of the book?

>382 GardenOfForkingPaths: Yes! The King of Elfland's Daughter is an inspired package. Just finished reading the SE and loved the artwork.

>382 GardenOfForkingPaths:
I have the cream 'elephant-hide' bound edition with the Ingehild Grathmar (Margrethe Ii) illustrations, and it's one of my favourite FS editions, an example of what FS used to do so well: simple, elegant and eminently readable, sitting comfortably in the hands.

I was lucky with Dark is Rising, and bought them as they came out - in the days when they (and FS generally) were affordable. Silly money now.

On that latter front, In was chatting to a book dealer yesterday who told me that the bottom was dropping out of the FS market here in the UK, as sales to the US, where the real money is and prices drive the market, are very difficult (post-Trump apparently).

>384 Willoyd: It's certainly a nice looking set that appears to have held up well over the years, and I'm quite drawn to the Ingahild Grathmar/Eric Fraser illustrations. It seems like an old FS edition, like the the elephant-hide set, is a good choice given all the issues that have been noted with more recent printings, though I would hope those might have been resolved by now.

>384 Willoyd:

I can’t imagine a 10% tariff makes a great deal of difference on anything of non-trivial value, if someone particularly wants it.

It’s not the 10% on a single item that’s the real problem. It is the 10% or much higher across a broad spectrum of essentials, coupled with stagnant wages and job losses for many, with unpredictability for everyone else, that is the problem.

>384 Willoyd: I just purchased a set from ebay for $150 USD. The paper scares me a bit, but I like the look of the books better than any other of the FS versions of LOTR. I know I am in a minority.

I don’t know if this will be released in 2025 (Instagram just says “coming soon”), but it looks like The Prototype Press will be doing a chapbook of Casey at the Bat, which I am excited to see

>388 Cardboard_killer:
Elephant-hide paper is much thicker, stronger and more scuff-resistant than ordinary heavy paper. My edition remains immaculate - looks and feels pretty much new.

If you're in a minority, then so am I!