“But the people I work for don’t want books just as backdrop or theater, which they did 20 years ago. Now they want books they actually might read.”Not books that they want to read, mind, just books that, theoretically, they could read. This is so notable that it comes up twice in the article (the above quotation is the second occurrence; the first is "For this client was after more than pretty bindings: he wanted the option of being able to read his books."), and that it's presented as a mark of, what, increased sophistication of the clients as against their bygone counterparts? Increased literariness? (Well, why not; I guess the potentially literary are more literary, in a useless sense, than the illiterate.)
As it happens, the-book-as-relic was forecasted by marketers. Ann Mack, director of trend-spotting for JWT New York, the marketing and advertising agency, noted in her trend report for the coming year that “objectifying objects,” she said, “would be a trend to watch.”I remember, in the days of my youth—I was youthful only fifteen years ago—there would regularly be ads in the NYT Book Review for the same antiquarian bookseller. A full-page ad a week, practically, something I assume didn't come cheap, with notable or new acquisitions listed, with their descriptions and prices—though sometimes the price was only available on request. (The occasion of my learning the dictum: if you have to ask, you can't afford it.)
« Older The library of King Matthias I of Hungary, the Bib... | Blue Shield of California seek... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
(I've always appreciated the way a wide variety of books looks on a shelf. The books are themselves different, after all (unless you're in a law library). On my ideal bookshelf each book is unique and incomparable; why shouldn't their bindings reflect this? …Pay no attention to the foot after foot of pulp SF on my shelves.)
posted by hattifattener at 3:51 PM on January 6, 2011 [5 favorites]