the "wisdom" of its choices

I've been buying Folio books since 10 years back when I decided to throw out cheap paperbacks and collect only hardbacks. Folio no doubt gives high quality production but the "wisdom" of its choices is often questionable, especially facsimile reproductions of medieval books and maps. They are good as exhibits in museums but serve little purpose in the homes of individuals (most of us can't read Latin). Would you want to spend a small fortune on a precise reproduction of Henry VIII's prayer book (makes a cute conversational piece, but nothing more)?

I have some volumes of Folio books which I am willing to give away provided someone pays for the shipping. They include 5 heavy volumes of Rudyard Kipling's Short Stories, and the 3 Italian Cities.

> 1 "Would you want to spend a small fortune on a precise reproduction of Henry VIII's prayer book"

Well you might not and I might not, but apparently quite a few others would, and indeed have:

http://www.librarything.com/topic/94299#2065786

#1 - I would be happy and grateful to accept your offer of Folio books Hsiaoshuang.

The facsimilies are not "my cup of tea", but they have proved popular and therefore a wise publishing choice for Folio. I also think it's good that there is a publisher willing to make this historic material available.

I would be happy to take you up on your offer for any books that BillBloggs doesn't want :)

Having received the Shakespeare First Folio Facsimile, I won't be bothering again with facsimilies.

Facsimilies are kind of like having first or signed editions for me; I would buy it if it's physical design is a good representation of the content, but don't particularly care that it has the property "facsimile" attached to it. I guess it's a slight blasphemy to bibliophilic doctrine, but I generally don't care much about the publishing history behind a book, only how such a book's design stands on its own.

After acquiring the FS facsimile of the Holkham Bible (a beautiful work), and realizing that reading it was out of the question (old style letters and a language I don't read), I decided not to invest in anything not published in a language I can read reasonably well. Otherwise, they are simply expensive works of art that end up hidden away because they are too difficult to display.

Os.

> 7, 8

I agree with you both. I'm more inclined to be appreciative of what stands on its own, independent of its history.

Expensive ornaments Os, yes.

Taking the 'Luttrell Psalter' as an example. The text is not only translated in the accompanying commentary, but any household that has a Bible, Psalmbook and/or a book of Common Prayer will already be familiar with the contents.

In saying that I believe the attraction of this book is primarily in the illustrations as works of Medieval Art and as the greatest surviving set of Medieval images of the work and play of the different strata of society in one place.

Even though these images can be aquired at less cost, like all Folio books (whatever they cost) part of the attraction is the quality of the materials used and the beauty of the finished product.

I have this book and I didn't buy it as an ornament. It is one of the most 'viewed' books in my collection, principally because of the images contained within it. The quality of reproduction is a bonus and is as close as someone like me will ever get to being able to browse the 'real thing'.

The unread books that I own will be the 'expensive ornaments' in my house until I get around to reading them (whatever they cost).

My books fall into at least one of the following categories:

1. I want to read them.

2. I have read them, loved them, and want a pretty (and durable) version of them.

3. I've read them, didn't like them much, but think that the library of an educated person should contain them for reference or future kiddies who may be forced to read them.

I'll buy books in the first two categories, and keep books (or accept them for free) in the last. Otherwise, I give them away or never get them in the first place!

All this to say that I don't buy beautiful books that I can't read. BUT I completely understand why people would.

Art is art, and beauty is beauty, and why not buy those things in book form? To say that something you're not interested in is nothing more than a cute conversation piece is to discount art through the ages. What is a painting or a sculpture?

.....or a woodcut, a lithograph, a linocut, a blocked cover, a drawing.................

> 11

I agree with all your reasons and would emphasize your last paragraph.

I would add one more category: books in different translations or annotated editions for reference purposes.

Besides "objets d'art" in themselves, books are tools.

>8 Ealhmund:

Was that though the intent behind the Holkham? A decorative rather than reading copy?

I have the Johnson facsimile, which is exactly what a facsimile should be - a work of art in itself, fascinating as an historical artifact and rewarding to dip into. OK, it's a bit large for constant use, but then again that's the difficulties the original purchasers would have had.

I have to agree with Osbaldistone and LesMis - having also bought the Shakespeare First Folio, I won't be bothering with facsimiles again, nor will I be buying books that aren't for 'proper' reading in a language I can read.

>14 InVitrio: I would think that a facsimile should be just what it says in a dictionary - 'an exact copy or reproduction'.

The Holkham Bible is , between the covers, excactly that.

An interesting theory about books such as the Holkham Bible, which has a huge number of illustrations which take up far more space than the Anglo-Norman text, is that they were produced in this way to get the stories from the Bible over to people who couldn't read the text.

I'm with celtic, gistak and drasvola on this one. As a student of history, I see it as a privilege to have access to historical texts/works of art that I can (hopefully!) afford, examine, learn from and enjoy in a way I could never do with the original, which in any case might well be totally inaccessible to the layman. These facsimiles illuminate (no pun intended) and complement an appreciation of my cultural heritage.

All right, that sounds very pompous, but if you're not that interested in art or history, I can quite see they would be an irrelevant extravagance.

Sadly, celtic, I missed out on the Luttrell Psalter, which came out too soon on the heels of other commitments. As you say, it is a tremendous resource for the depiction of medieval life, quite apart from being beautiful or (ir)religious.

I second >17 boldface:

A query for those who have commented on the First Folio: are your issues with the reproduction, or is it the text itself?

With regard to the Holkham Bible, I think it is extraordinarily beautiful and I would dearly love a copy - the language issue is moot, after all, who can't read pictures? There is another edition available that I believe (from a comparison conducted, not side by side but within about half an hour) uses the same printed sheets. This edition can be had for less than £40. The difference between the two editions being limitation (not in the least important to me) and the lovely binding on the FS edition. Is that worth an extra £200? Well having visited the Smith Settle website and seen how the bindings are hand made, it very well may be; although I haven't entirely made up my mind.

http://www.smithsettle.com/ (Under 'Gallery')

Edited for website info.

> 19

On the outside it looks great, authentic, classy.

On the inside it looks like pages of photographs of another book. (yes I know what a facsimile is, but this just looks naff)

>20 LesMiserables:

The Shakespeare 'First Folio' wasn't produced by the FS and I think it's fair to say that it is a very, very long way from the production standards of any of the FS facsimiles.

It basically is just photographs of original copies wrapped in a nice binding and the materials used don't compare to FS LE's.

It is still a useful tool for those that want convenient access to the text of the First Folio in it's original guise and the introductions provide a wealth of information about the history of this edition.

> 20 / 21 Thanks chaps - I think you've just saved me from quite an expensive mistake.

> 21

Thanks Celtic.

I don't recall the Folio Society mentioning that this wasn't a Folio production. Of course this is often a problem especially for newcomers when the FS are not explicit in flagging non Folio books for sale.

My advice is don't buy it.

I have looked at the First Folio in the Members Room and was never impressed with it. I have the same issue with many of the other facsimilies that I have examined - great bindings, but inside they feel and look like a book of photographed pages.

> 24 "inside they feel and look like a book of photographed pages."

Maybe that's because they are! Seriously, though, there seems to be a clear distinction here between those who appreciate reproductions of illuminated mss and those who are moved by reproductions of printed texts such as Johnson's Dictionary. As regards printed texts, as celtic says, the Norton First Folio is not representative of FS facsimiles. It is primarily a tool for students and scholars rather than bibliophiles. FS's Johnson's Dictionary is far and away a better production. Then again, take a look at Night Thoughts. To me, Blake's paint seems to have barely dried on the page. Today, we almost take high quality photography for granted, but in both my examples the texture and colour of the paper used is also crucial to a successful facsimile.

But at the end of the day, if you don't like the subject matter, you won't be moved to part with your cash. Fair enough!

>24 Quicksilver66:

"To me, Blake's paint seems to have barely dried on the page."

Couldn't agree more boldface - A 'complete' edition of Blakes watercolours for Night Thoughts was the big gap in his available works. It was an inspired decision to publish this if you are a Blake admirer and the quality of reproduction is truly breathtaking -as well as on a grand scale.

(The same could be said of the 'Roberts' facsimile)

>25 boldface: >26 celtic:
I do think the Night Thoughts volume's appeal would have been diminished were it printed on glossy white photo paper. On the paper they used, the illustrations look just like the original watercolors.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to stand up in favour of the First Folio.

Yes, it is basically a photographic reproduction of the original, but isn't that exactly what you expect a facsimile to be? It allows one to see precisely what the original looked like. It is written in English, so the language problems do not exist in this case (though I can see plenty of reasons for buying a non-English facsimile if you want a copy of the original).

No, the quality of the paper, etc, is not up to the normal standards of Folio Society publications, but it is by no means poor, and the binding seems very good. The overall aesthetic appeal remains.

I'm pleased that I acquired it.

(PS. I maybe ought to add that I got it free of charge, as part of one of the offers earlier in the year - I'm not sure that I would have paid full price for it.)

>28 RMMee:

I didn't mean to give you the impression that I was 'putting the First Folio facsimile down'.

It is well produced for what it is, but not in the same league as the FS LE's and they shouldn't be compared to it - it is not an FS production.

Making the First Folio facsimile available to Shakespeare enthusiasts and completists is an admirable achievement and as I said earlier it is a useful book for those that want access to Shakespeare as he was first published especially with the valuable accompanying essays.

> 28

Neither did I mean to denigrate the First Folio facsimile. I was merely pointing out that it is not a Folio edition in conception. I have it and am pleased to have it. Otherwise, my sentiments concur with celtic in >29 celtic:

I bought the original cloth Norton First Folio many years ago, and upgraded to the FS leather version in a recent sale - it's the same book really, but with a much nicer binding. Generally I find glossy photographic-style facsimiles a turn-off, but as this is the only publication available of its kind, and as I like the font, original spelling, the mistakes, the feel of the 1623 text, it's a must-have for me.

One bastard facsimile, that was not specifically offered as a facsimile, was the FS edition (both LE and ordinary) of Ulysses - it used the 1926 second edition with broken characters corrected and blemishes removed. You might say it was neither fish nor fowl - and personally I would have preferred an edition reset in a modern typeface. It's not apparent to me how preserving the original 1926 pagination and most of the type (but with blemishes removed) added to the pleasure of reading or ownership. But then YMMV...

I have both First Folio and Night Thoughts and do not regret either purchase. First Folio was bought at a greatly reduced price and I will admit that I probably would not have paid full price for it; not because of any problems with the book but I am on a limited budget and paying full price is something I try to avoid. The more money I didn’t spend on other books the sooner I was able to get Night Thoughts. I bought First Folio more as an historical article than a pleasure book. Like RMMee I enjoy seeing what Shakespeare’s work looked like back then and if I want to read the plays I’ve always got my eight-volume FS set, which is also a lot more comfortable to hold. For what it’s worth First Folio was the first FS book to really impress my sister. She even told my nephew when she first saw it that he was never to touch it (of course he was usual grubby little boy at the time). Not that it mattered-- he wouldn’t touch Shakespeare if you paid him.

Night Thoughts however is a whole different beast and can’t really be compared to other facsimiles. It isn’t actually a reproduction of an existing book as the FS website says this is the first time the entire collection has been put together. FS had to create the book rather than simply photograph one and rebind it.

As to the other facsimiles, especially the bibles and psalters, if I had unlimited funds (and unlimited space) I would buy them even if I didn’t understand a word of the language. But they would be bought simply for their illustrations, much as I would buy an art book. That said, if I ever did come into a great deal of money the first thing on my wish list would be the Roberts Egyptian set.

Hm, now after all the pro-First Folio messages I'm in a quandry again. I do really want the text - Shakespeare as it was written without centuries of the academic filtering - and, after all, it is one of the most important books in the English Language, so consequently I know I should have a copy in my library: but, having not seen a copy I am concerned as to what the pages actually look like (QS's description of photographed pages is not encouraging), and the quality of the paper (I'm not fond of glossy, but if it was like Alice Underground or the Holkham Bible then that would be fine). More cogitation required I fear.

Huxley, given your post, maybe I ought to clarify my 'anti-First Folio facsimile' post.

The FFF is fine for what it sets out to do - show readers exactly how Shakespeare appeared in the FF. I love the binding, but have to admit that I was a bit disappointed with the internals - basically each page shows a photo reproduction of a page with broad margins plus modern day line and page numbering. It wasn't quite how I expected a facsimile to be. However, if you want to read Shakespeare as close to original as you can, then this is the way to do it.

However, more importantly, I realised that I am unlikely ever to sit down and read this. It will sit on my bookshelves and (very) occasionally get taken out and either referred to or show to somebody. This is unlike my RSC Complete Shakespeare, which is taken out all the time and has been well read, although I realise I prefer single play volumes for reading. All in all, it is this which will stop me buying - I really can't see the point of all that money for a book that won't be read. I feel the same about other facsimiles that I haven't bought, including the Luttrell Psalter, various maps etc. Others may get a lot of pleasure out of them - fine, I'm really pleased for them - but I've realised that they just aren't for me.

BTW, I wouldn't describe the pages as glossy, but they do have a slight smooth sheen on them which I've seen on other books where pages have been photo reproduced. Can't say I'm over fond of it, but I don't find it offensive.

Huxley, the paper is smooth but not glossy and of archival standard. Each page of the First Folio appears as a good quality image within the book page. In other words there is no attempt to fool the eye into thinking it is looking at an actual copy of the First Folio. As I said above, the intention is to reproduce each page clearly and accurately, but primarily for the purposes of study. Page references/line numbers are newly printed around the outside of the image.

If you look on Amazon and click on the "Look Inside" feature you can get some idea and also read nearly all the editorial introductions, etc. But beware! The text pages shown are all "illustrations" from the appendices (look for the caption at the bottom of the page), not the facsimile itself. The facsimile pages are much cleaner. Several different copies in the Folger collection were used to ensure the cleanest pages for reproduction. See the Norton website for details.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/First-Folio-Shakespeare-Norton-Facsimile/dp/0393039854#n...

http://books.wwnorton.com/books/detail.aspx?ID=5088

Incidently, did anyone see the BBC film, "Stealing Shakespeare", about a First Folio stolen from Durham University Library. There are 4 days left to see it on iPlayer (although it doesn't seem to be working at the moment).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00t8nzx

I think I got my First Folio for 50 bucks or something like that. Worth it for that price, definitely not for the 300 or whatever it was advertised for

Huxley, the ideal solution is the 1939 LEC Shakespeare--letterpress, on archival rag paper, texts from the First Folio with original (not modernised) spelling and punctuation, each play a separate volume, lots of very nice illustrations.

:-)

Many thanks to everyone for their comments, particularly Willoyd and boldface. I'm still not entirely sure about what to do but I certainly have more to work with now.

> 37 - Yes, I've seen it - very interesting.

> 39 - Django, that set is one of the first things I'll buy when I win the lottery! Which reminds me, I'd better start doing the lottery...