Handle with care

[rolanni]

I'm reading Till We Have Faces, which I borrowed from the library last week. This copy is a 1956 paperback sewn between boards. The pages are very thin and many of them are torn -- age, I think; not malice. I'll bring this to the attention of the librarian when I return the book, though I hate to think that I might be the last person who'll read it.

Comments

[keristor.livejournal.com]

This is the C.S. Lewis book? I've never seen a paperback copy published before the late 70s, I didn't know there was one (my copy is hardcover from the 70s). Very probably age is the problem, the few paperbacks I have from that time are also on thin paper and have become very brittle to the point where they are now 'collectable' rather than reading copies (I don't dare open them).

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

I'm assuming mass market because of the size and the binding. Equally possible it was an undersized hard cover that lost its original boards. Hmmm...

Printed in Great Britain by Wyman & Sons Ltd Fakenham for the publishers Geoffrey Bles Ltd 52 Doughty Street London W. C. I.

First published 1956

[keristor.livejournal.com]

A search on AbeBooks seems to indicate that the edition was hardcover, cloth-bound (over the boards) with a paper dust jacket, and gives the size as octavo. This size was actually a range, and could mean anything from about 7.5"x5" up to 10"x7", but the smaller one is not far off modern mass market paperback size.

I wondered because you said that it was stitched; while there were some early stitched paperbacks (I have one) it wasn't very common, some kind of glue being more usual (a precursor to modern so-called "perfect binding"). I've come across a number of book dealers who didn't believe that any paperbacks were stitched.

[readinggeek451]

The problem isn't (usually) the thin-ness of the paper but the acid content. Acidic paper (i.e., most of the 20th-century stuff) breaks down over time.

[seabat4.livejournal.com]

If the library has devoted shelf space to keep it this long, why discard it now?

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

...um. Because it's falling apart?

[roseaponi.livejournal.com]

I'd mail you my '76 ninth printing paperback if you promised to mail it back - but you'll probably be done reading by the time it got to you.

The copyright page of mine says it was copyrighted in 1956, so you have a very early edition, maybe even first. Poor thing's been well-loved since it was new. The library will probably invest in a new copy. Depending on their policy, they might just throw out that one.

[amm-me.livejournal.com]

If you like a book, make a point of checking it out every year, even if you don't yet need to re-read it. With their computerized catalogs, the librarians can see which books are never checked out, and off they go to the book sale!

[bemused-leftist.livejournal.com]

There have been quite a few editions, different bindings. There are a couple of pretty sturdy trade pb's.

One strategy (tactic?) might be to donate them a more sturdy copy, saying you lost the flimsy one. If they tried to charge you something outrageous, you could 'find' the flimsy.

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

One strategy (tactic?) might be to donate them a more sturdy copy

I might, in less lean times, donate a newer, sturdier copy. Alas, I have no budget for buying books this year. Which is why I was in the library, borrowing old friends and books I'd somehow missed.