Editor's Foreword - March 2018

It was reported in January that ‘a rare first edition of Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone worth £40 000 (approx. $70 000 AUD) has been stolen during a burglary of a Norfolk bookshop.’

The thieves obviously knew well what they were stealing, as they also nabbed a long list of coveted books worth a pretty penny each. Their haul included a hardcover signed first edition of The Colour of Magic by Terry Pratchett worth around £9000, a set of four first editions of Winnie the Pooh worth £5000, a hardcover first edition of The Hobbit from 1937 worth £7000, a first impression of The Great Gatsby from 1925 worth £2000, a paperback copy of A Brief History of Time from 1983 with a thumbprint signature by Stephen Hawking and two first editions of The Gunslinger by Stephen King worth £2000 each. Quite a line-up for a book-loving thief or thieves. Not that I imagine whoever stole these books will be proudly adding them to their library. But rather I imagine they will be sold to fund whatever lifestyle they are in need of funding.

It’s amazing that there are such high values placed on first editions. I have to say I’ve never quite understood why. Although having said that, I do covet old books myself and am sure many of you are the same. It’s not the first edition that appeals but rather the beauty or the old ‘feel’ of a book. It’s the tactileness of the books that grabs me. Some of them I’ve never read, I just love the look, feel and even smell of them.

I have some limited editions in my library, although selling them has never been on my mind. I see limited editions as quite different to first editions in terms of value. Generally, limited editions are beautifully bound and special in some way. Colour plates, very high quality paper, gold embossed and so on. First editions can be plain little paperbacks with no special distinctions. You might find them mixed in a pile of reduced books outside a secondhand bookstore and probably worth 10 times as much to boot. What’s so special about them is that they were incredibly popular upon release or have become an immediate classic or a classic over time. Any first edition of any ‘Harry Potter’ book is always a fine example of demand gone wild. I wonder if Fire and Fury, Michael Woolfe’s book (further) exposing Donald Trump, will make the first edition popularity grade? It’s certainly sold its socks off.

If you read our letters-from-readers page this month you’ll find a letter about a man who steals books. He does it because he can’t help himself. He loves expensive old books. He spends his time in jail researching which books he could steal and plotting how to do it when he gets out. Inevitably he’s caught and put back in jail. Then the cycle starts all over again.

On a lighter note, this week I saw what I thought was the most ridiculous idea. It is a new design trend attempting to be established by some odd person somewhere in the world. Apparently the idea is to place your books spine in on your bookshelves. Really? What are they thinking? Is it some designer who thinks they can set a trend among book lovers? I have a feeling maybe this designer doesn’t read books a lot. I can’t imagine any book lover wanting to place the spines of the books inwards so their shelves are a stream of creamy-coloured rectangles of different heights and widths. There are so many problems with this I don’t know where to start.

To my mind books are to be looked at and remembered. You look at the book and recall the emotions and enjoyment you received when reading it. You might even be tempted to re-read it. And if you want to lend it to a friend or family member, how do you find it with the spine turned in? Not so bad if you only have one shelf of books, but I can imagine many of you have shelf after shelf packed with your books. I know some of you have even had to reinforce floors to cope with the weight of your hefty libraries. Clearly the designer who thought this idea up hasn’t met you.

Rowena

And Baxter, just so itchy!