OT: Amaranthine Books' edition of The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
DiscussionsGeorge Macy devotees
Rejoignez LibraryThing pour poster.
1NYCFaddict
Hi all,
For those who have not seen my post on Folio Society Devotees, I came out of fatherhood-related hibernation to write a review of the "Hyde edition" of The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Amaranthine Books. You can see excellent photos of the sister editions here:
www.amaranthinebooks.com/gallery/
The FSD thread on this new publication is
www.librarything.com/topic/287660#6399743
Here I will adapt the review with the LEC, rather than the FS, as the point of reference.
First, the slipcase. Its sturdiness makes it closer to a Limited Edition Club one than a Folio one. A ding to the Amaranthine slipcase is very, very unlikely to affect the book, so they have selected a high-quality boxmaker. The slipcase is the wittiest I have ever seen (after removing the book, look inside). The book is a very good fit for the box, so they have measured as well as humanly possible. Basically, the slipcase could not be improved. Forty years from now this is NOT an item you are going to see listed on eBay as "Slipcase torn." A+, without a doubt.
Now for the Hyde edition. First off, the format is an excellent reading size. Second, there is the white text on the black page – although some might dismiss this as a novelty, I absolutely love it (I knew I would, which is why I opted for this edition). I don’t have anything like it in my collection. Thirdly, the illustrator is extremely talented, and I look forward to seeing more such work in Amaranthine’s future projects. As a start-up, Amaranthine is probably not in a position to commission a Folio Society-style big-name introduction, but it is hardly a work that needs its importance explained anew. There is, however, an Afterword that has a similar function to an LEC ML. Illustrator and designer signatures would enhance the production, but it is possible that a limited edition is planned (I have no problem with a publisher releasing both). The quality fills me with hope that Amaranthine’s follow up will be equally as good.
I could go on gushing, but my advice is to buy one or both of the editions now. It is possible that the price will go up once Amaranthine has tested the market (I have written to them to say they should advertise this wonder in Fine Books and Collections, and/or try and get featured in it). Certainly Folio would charge more for a book with these production features. The attention to detail bodes well for the future of Amaranthine, and I love the fact that there is a new fine book publisher on the scene at this price point. I think it is important that the collector community supports these labor-of-love undertakings, because if we don’t back such ventures the number of fine presses will eventually dwindle to near zero. (We all know the fate of the LEC.) It makes me happy to think that in addition to FS, there will be at least one publisher of affordable fine books that should still be going when my son starts building his collection.
Delivery is by DHL from Zagreb, Croatia - the cost is eminently reasonable. The book was bubblewrapped with care, I assume by the makers of the book (not handled by warehouse staff, because the Amaranthine Books operation cannot be that big yet).
For those who have not seen my post on Folio Society Devotees, I came out of fatherhood-related hibernation to write a review of the "Hyde edition" of The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Amaranthine Books. You can see excellent photos of the sister editions here:
www.amaranthinebooks.com/gallery/
The FSD thread on this new publication is
www.librarything.com/topic/287660#6399743
Here I will adapt the review with the LEC, rather than the FS, as the point of reference.
First, the slipcase. Its sturdiness makes it closer to a Limited Edition Club one than a Folio one. A ding to the Amaranthine slipcase is very, very unlikely to affect the book, so they have selected a high-quality boxmaker. The slipcase is the wittiest I have ever seen (after removing the book, look inside). The book is a very good fit for the box, so they have measured as well as humanly possible. Basically, the slipcase could not be improved. Forty years from now this is NOT an item you are going to see listed on eBay as "Slipcase torn." A+, without a doubt.
Now for the Hyde edition. First off, the format is an excellent reading size. Second, there is the white text on the black page – although some might dismiss this as a novelty, I absolutely love it (I knew I would, which is why I opted for this edition). I don’t have anything like it in my collection. Thirdly, the illustrator is extremely talented, and I look forward to seeing more such work in Amaranthine’s future projects. As a start-up, Amaranthine is probably not in a position to commission a Folio Society-style big-name introduction, but it is hardly a work that needs its importance explained anew. There is, however, an Afterword that has a similar function to an LEC ML. Illustrator and designer signatures would enhance the production, but it is possible that a limited edition is planned (I have no problem with a publisher releasing both). The quality fills me with hope that Amaranthine’s follow up will be equally as good.
I could go on gushing, but my advice is to buy one or both of the editions now. It is possible that the price will go up once Amaranthine has tested the market (I have written to them to say they should advertise this wonder in Fine Books and Collections, and/or try and get featured in it). Certainly Folio would charge more for a book with these production features. The attention to detail bodes well for the future of Amaranthine, and I love the fact that there is a new fine book publisher on the scene at this price point. I think it is important that the collector community supports these labor-of-love undertakings, because if we don’t back such ventures the number of fine presses will eventually dwindle to near zero. (We all know the fate of the LEC.) It makes me happy to think that in addition to FS, there will be at least one publisher of affordable fine books that should still be going when my son starts building his collection.
Delivery is by DHL from Zagreb, Croatia - the cost is eminently reasonable. The book was bubblewrapped with care, I assume by the makers of the book (not handled by warehouse staff, because the Amaranthine Books operation cannot be that big yet).
2Django6924
I wonder why they did not use the authorized title? As the LEC Monthly Letter explains, the title given by Stevenson was "Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," (without the definite article).
3NYCFaddict
Perhaps because to 21st-century ears it sounds odd without the definite article? Penguin, Dover, Barnes and Noble etc all add the "The".
4kdweber
>1 NYCFaddict: I would not rate the slipcase quite so highly. The black "Hyde" edition does fit perfectly but the white "Jekyll" book is thinner while the slipcase is the same thickness; thus, this version of the book is too loose in the slipcase and might easily fall out accidentally.
I was amazed to see my books arrive only two days after ordering (from Zagreb to California).
Very good support from Ameranthine Books. There was a security issue with the website when I first went to order, so I gave up. I was surprised to quickly get an email asking what the problem was. After a few email exchanges, they were able to fix the problem. Wow, impressively fast service.
I was amazed to see my books arrive only two days after ordering (from Zagreb to California).
Very good support from Ameranthine Books. There was a security issue with the website when I first went to order, so I gave up. I was surprised to quickly get an email asking what the problem was. After a few email exchanges, they were able to fix the problem. Wow, impressively fast service.
5featherwate
>2 Django6924:
>3 NYCFaddict:
The 'The' title was used at least as early as 1896 when British publisher Longmans, Green issued The Strange Case Of Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde With Other Fables, having earlier omitted the The. Two years later in the USA, copyright pirate Frank Munsey added the The when he published the book in his Red Seal Library of Standard Books ('Issued Weekly, Two cents a Copy, One Dollar a Year'). A more upmarket 'The' edition was published in New York circa 1900 by the John W. Lovell Company, and at the top end of the scale, 'The' appeared on an attractive 1904 limited edition excellently laid out and printed, and evocatively illustrated by Charles Raymond Macauley. It was copyrighted 1903 by the Scott-Thaw Company of New York (so still no royalties for Fanny Stevenson), which had a link to London's prestigious Chiswick Press (hence perhaps the fine presswork). In 1924, four English publishers combined to issue the Skerryvore Edition of RLS's works, of which Volume IV contained Prince Otto and a 'The Strange Case'.
At the same time, The-less editions were also being widely published. It looks as if the The variant began to overtake its rival as the century proceeded, although another variant has also become popular: simply calling the book Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde not merely as a short title on the spine but on the title page itself. I'm pretty sure my (lost) 1948 Folio Society edition illustrated by Mervyn Peake is one example of this; I haven't seen the title page of the FS 2006 special edition with Grahame Baker Smith's illustrations. Of my (not yet lost) copies, the Hand and Eye Press 2010 limited edition goes with a The, but I can't muster up any unenthusiasm about that: the sheer quality of its production and Angela Barrett's wonderfully sinister illustrations outweigh its 'wrong' title.
At the same time, full marks to George Macy for honouring the original title. Returning to source (as he did with, for example, the text of Gulliver's Travels and the William Blake watercolours for The Pilgrim's Progress) is one of his most endearing traits.
>3 NYCFaddict:
The 'The' title was used at least as early as 1896 when British publisher Longmans, Green issued The Strange Case Of Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde With Other Fables, having earlier omitted the The. Two years later in the USA, copyright pirate Frank Munsey added the The when he published the book in his Red Seal Library of Standard Books ('Issued Weekly, Two cents a Copy, One Dollar a Year'). A more upmarket 'The' edition was published in New York circa 1900 by the John W. Lovell Company, and at the top end of the scale, 'The' appeared on an attractive 1904 limited edition excellently laid out and printed, and evocatively illustrated by Charles Raymond Macauley. It was copyrighted 1903 by the Scott-Thaw Company of New York (so still no royalties for Fanny Stevenson), which had a link to London's prestigious Chiswick Press (hence perhaps the fine presswork). In 1924, four English publishers combined to issue the Skerryvore Edition of RLS's works, of which Volume IV contained Prince Otto and a 'The Strange Case'.
At the same time, The-less editions were also being widely published. It looks as if the The variant began to overtake its rival as the century proceeded, although another variant has also become popular: simply calling the book Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde not merely as a short title on the spine but on the title page itself. I'm pretty sure my (lost) 1948 Folio Society edition illustrated by Mervyn Peake is one example of this; I haven't seen the title page of the FS 2006 special edition with Grahame Baker Smith's illustrations. Of my (not yet lost) copies, the Hand and Eye Press 2010 limited edition goes with a The, but I can't muster up any unenthusiasm about that: the sheer quality of its production and Angela Barrett's wonderfully sinister illustrations outweigh its 'wrong' title.
At the same time, full marks to George Macy for honouring the original title. Returning to source (as he did with, for example, the text of Gulliver's Travels and the William Blake watercolours for The Pilgrim's Progress) is one of his most endearing traits.
6Django6924
>5 featherwate: "Returning to source (as he did with, for example, the text of Gulliver's Travels and the William Blake watercolours for The Pilgrim's Progress) is one of his most endearing traits"
Indeed, Jack, while many fine-press publishers were cavalier about such matters, Macy had a desire to print "the best available editions, translations, and those added elements which increased the scholarly value of the works"--such as the Piozzi marginalia in Boswell's The Life of Samuel Johnson and the Casanova Society annotations in Casanova's Memoirs.
Indeed, Jack, while many fine-press publishers were cavalier about such matters, Macy had a desire to print "the best available editions, translations, and those added elements which increased the scholarly value of the works"--such as the Piozzi marginalia in Boswell's The Life of Samuel Johnson and the Casanova Society annotations in Casanova's Memoirs.
7ironjaw
Can someone be so inclined to explain when and when not to use the definite article “the” to a non-English native speaker?
And how it affects the title "Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde”. I would’ve imagined that “A” Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde would’ve sounded better, but I know very little about grammar (still on my list to learn more about)
And how it affects the title "Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde”. I would’ve imagined that “A” Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde would’ve sounded better, but I know very little about grammar (still on my list to learn more about)
8terebinth
>7 ironjaw:
"The strange case..." certainly sounds much the most natural title to me. Without going far into the grammar, not least because I couldn't, the definite article, "the", signifies something singular. "A strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" would only be used if the case being referred to were one among many: and the world isn't aware of any other cases of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. So "A strange case for the Metropolitan Police", even "A strange case for Sherlock Holmes", would be fine because the Metropolitan Police, and Sherlock Holmes, have each investigated many cases, some of them stranger than others. "A strange case of fraud", similarly, or "A strange case of mistaken identity", because fraud and mistaken identity have both occurred a good many times.
"The President of the United States", then, or "the Queen of England", because at any given time there's only one of each. "A congressman" or "a physicist" because there are numerous examples of each.
If that's as clear as mud, someone please do better...
"The strange case..." certainly sounds much the most natural title to me. Without going far into the grammar, not least because I couldn't, the definite article, "the", signifies something singular. "A strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" would only be used if the case being referred to were one among many: and the world isn't aware of any other cases of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. So "A strange case for the Metropolitan Police", even "A strange case for Sherlock Holmes", would be fine because the Metropolitan Police, and Sherlock Holmes, have each investigated many cases, some of them stranger than others. "A strange case of fraud", similarly, or "A strange case of mistaken identity", because fraud and mistaken identity have both occurred a good many times.
"The President of the United States", then, or "the Queen of England", because at any given time there's only one of each. "A congressman" or "a physicist" because there are numerous examples of each.
If that's as clear as mud, someone please do better...
9Jan7Smith
>8 terebinth: Your grammar lesson is very helpful.
10featherwate
>8 terebinth:
More helpful than any grammar lesson I ever had at school!
Of course, such is the flexibility (or complexity) of the English language you can make the misleading "A strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" meaningful by reversing it to "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: a strange case". (If you google the phrase, the first hit that comes up is "Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde: A Strange Case of 5-Ethynyl-2'-deoxyuridine and 5-ethynyl-2'-deoxycytidine"!)
I was puzzled by the story's original title, the abrupt "Strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde". When I first started reading Stevenson I decided it must be an example of Scotch wordthrift because I noticed he'd also written a book called Weir of Hermiston. Surely an English author would have called it The Weir of Hermiston? Only when I opened it did I realize that while Hermiston was a place, Weir was a lad called Archie Weir, not a riverine interruption like The Mill on the Floss.
Now I wonder if RLS (if the title was his, not his wife's or his publishers) was deliberately reflecting the editoral style of professional journals (medical, veterinary or legal), in which articles have un-articled headings such as
thus adding a touch of authenticity to his record of events.
More helpful than any grammar lesson I ever had at school!
Of course, such is the flexibility (or complexity) of the English language you can make the misleading "A strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" meaningful by reversing it to "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: a strange case". (If you google the phrase, the first hit that comes up is "Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde: A Strange Case of 5-Ethynyl-2'-deoxyuridine and 5-ethynyl-2'-deoxycytidine"!)
I was puzzled by the story's original title, the abrupt "Strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde". When I first started reading Stevenson I decided it must be an example of Scotch wordthrift because I noticed he'd also written a book called Weir of Hermiston. Surely an English author would have called it The Weir of Hermiston? Only when I opened it did I realize that while Hermiston was a place, Weir was a lad called Archie Weir, not a riverine interruption like The Mill on the Floss.
Now I wonder if RLS (if the title was his, not his wife's or his publishers) was deliberately reflecting the editoral style of professional journals (medical, veterinary or legal), in which articles have un-articled headings such as
Unusual occurrence on a tropical island of multiple sclerosis
or
Rare Outbreak of Fowl Cholera in Waterfowls in Dal Lake Area of Kashmir
thus adding a touch of authenticity to his record of events.
11Django6924
>10 featherwate: "Now I wonder if RLS (if the title was his, not his wife's or his publishers) was deliberately reflecting the editoral style of professional journals (medical, veterinary or legal), in which articles have un-articled headings..."
Jack, I think you are absolutely correct. There was some discussion in the Monthly Letter as I remember, about the proper title not using the definite article, but I can't remember it and, even worse, can't find the ML!
The following (from the British Library website) seems to indicate Stevenson was given to reading such journals:
Stevenson’s wife, Fanny, in her 1905 preface to Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, states that the Deacon Brodie story, (an Edinburgh city councillor who maintained a double life as a burglar until he was hanged), together with ‘a paper Stevenson read in a French scientific journal on sub-consciousness’, provided ‘the germ of the idea that afterwards developed into the play’, and later the short story Markheim, and the novel Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde.
(Edited to include this from a footnote in a Cornell University Journal re who was responsible for the title)
Though subsequent editions have often inserted the word “The” before “Strange” in titling this work, Stevenson in fact wrote the title out for his publisher exactly as it appears here, presumably wanting its abruptness to heighten the sense of strangeness surrounding his “strange case.” Additionally, “Dr” and “Mr” appeared in the original title without punctuation.
Although the statement that Stevenson himself wanted to use this title corresponds with what I remember from the ML, I think the sub-sub-librarian who wrote the above presumes too much, and that Jack's perceptive remark about the editorial style of professional journals is much more likely to be the case.
Jack, I think you are absolutely correct. There was some discussion in the Monthly Letter as I remember, about the proper title not using the definite article, but I can't remember it and, even worse, can't find the ML!
The following (from the British Library website) seems to indicate Stevenson was given to reading such journals:
Stevenson’s wife, Fanny, in her 1905 preface to Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, states that the Deacon Brodie story, (an Edinburgh city councillor who maintained a double life as a burglar until he was hanged), together with ‘a paper Stevenson read in a French scientific journal on sub-consciousness’, provided ‘the germ of the idea that afterwards developed into the play’, and later the short story Markheim, and the novel Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde.
(Edited to include this from a footnote in a Cornell University Journal re who was responsible for the title)
Though subsequent editions have often inserted the word “The” before “Strange” in titling this work, Stevenson in fact wrote the title out for his publisher exactly as it appears here, presumably wanting its abruptness to heighten the sense of strangeness surrounding his “strange case.” Additionally, “Dr” and “Mr” appeared in the original title without punctuation.
Although the statement that Stevenson himself wanted to use this title corresponds with what I remember from the ML, I think the sub-sub-librarian who wrote the above presumes too much, and that Jack's perceptive remark about the editorial style of professional journals is much more likely to be the case.
12featherwate
>11 Django6924:
That's very interesting, Robert. Thanks for following it up!
The Sandglass for Dr. J. and Mr. H. says only that pedants, bibliophiles, members of this Club are reminded of {this fact}: that the title is Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, not The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. There is no discussion of why. But there could be more in the ML.
That's very interesting, Robert. Thanks for following it up!
The Sandglass for Dr. J. and Mr. H. says only that pedants, bibliophiles, members of this Club are reminded of {this fact}: that the title is Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, not The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. There is no discussion of why. But there could be more in the ML.
13BuzzBuzzard
Speaking of titles I find Demons to be more accurate than The Possessed but alas we will have to live with the latter.
14laotzu225
The Heritage Club edition (from Norwalk CT) was one of the first I received from the "Club", then owned by MBI I think, several decades ago. I loved the red and black marbled-look covers (and the Wilson illustrations, the Hyde-related ones in reddish tones). While I disposed (by sale or donation) of a number of Heritage Books in preparation for a move across country, this is one I kept. Since then, I've gotten LEC counterparts for many of the old HC books but I've never had the urge, at least until now, to do so.
While I am not intending to buy the Amaranthine book(s), I'm glad to know of the maker and will follow future efforts.
While I am not intending to buy the Amaranthine book(s), I'm glad to know of the maker and will follow future efforts.
15Django6924
>14 laotzu225:
The Wilson illustrations are by far my favorite of all the ones for this work, the only ones being close are the very similar ones Angela Barrett did for the recent (and beautifully produced) Hand and Eye Press edition of this work. The idea of the dual perspective illustrations in the Amaranthine book is a very clever idea with a nice association theme to the story, but, like the ones in my Folio Society edition illustrated by Graham Baker Smith, the color bothers me. Personal taste I'm sure, but illustrations in monochrome seems more atmospheric and creepier.
I also have the 1929 Random House limited edition of Jekyll and Hyde , and although the book is really attractive and compact, and beautifully designed by Dwiggins (as might be expected), I never cared for Dwiggins as an illustrator, and his are very lacking in atmosphere. A splendid touch in this edition, however, is a tipped-in facsimile page of the original manuscript in RLS's handwriting.
The Wilson illustrations are by far my favorite of all the ones for this work, the only ones being close are the very similar ones Angela Barrett did for the recent (and beautifully produced) Hand and Eye Press edition of this work. The idea of the dual perspective illustrations in the Amaranthine book is a very clever idea with a nice association theme to the story, but, like the ones in my Folio Society edition illustrated by Graham Baker Smith, the color bothers me. Personal taste I'm sure, but illustrations in monochrome seems more atmospheric and creepier.
I also have the 1929 Random House limited edition of Jekyll and Hyde , and although the book is really attractive and compact, and beautifully designed by Dwiggins (as might be expected), I never cared for Dwiggins as an illustrator, and his are very lacking in atmosphere. A splendid touch in this edition, however, is a tipped-in facsimile page of the original manuscript in RLS's handwriting.
16wcarter
My copy arrived today - only 5 days from Croatia to Australia.
I got the Hyde edition.
This is a REALLY nice book.
Equivalent to a FS fine edition, but at a better price.
Highly recommended.
Better picture at https://www.flickr.com/photos/warwick_carter/39730486015/in/dateposted-public/
I got the Hyde edition.
This is a REALLY nice book.
Equivalent to a FS fine edition, but at a better price.
Highly recommended.
Better picture at https://www.flickr.com/photos/warwick_carter/39730486015/in/dateposted-public/
17MobyRichard
Sounds like a great publisher, but I"ll wait for something more to my taste. Jekyll and Hyde is my least
favorite R. L. Stevenson story.
favorite R. L. Stevenson story.
18ultrarightist
To add some levity to the definite article discussion, I'll give you Truman Capote's thoughts on the matter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znS3gXjGCiU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znS3gXjGCiU
19featherwate
>18 ultrarightist:
Haha! I saw the film, and quite enjoyed it but can't remember much about it now, except wondering what life must have been like for the director trying to keep the peace on set with a cast of scene-stealers like Capote, Sellers, Niven, Guinness, Elsa Lanchester and Estelle Winwood. Today I'd have had to add Maggie Smith, but I'm not sure how far she'd begun to move into her grande dame persona back in the mid-70s.
PS Just checked with IMDb that I'd got the cast right (which I hadn't - I'd forgotten Niven and Winwood, but had thought Herbert Lom and Peter Ustinov were in it). At the bottom of the cast list IMDb adds the names of uncredited performers. In this case the last of these reads:
Fay Wray....................Screaming Door Bell (archive sound)
Priceless.
Haha! I saw the film, and quite enjoyed it but can't remember much about it now, except wondering what life must have been like for the director trying to keep the peace on set with a cast of scene-stealers like Capote, Sellers, Niven, Guinness, Elsa Lanchester and Estelle Winwood. Today I'd have had to add Maggie Smith, but I'm not sure how far she'd begun to move into her grande dame persona back in the mid-70s.
PS Just checked with IMDb that I'd got the cast right (which I hadn't - I'd forgotten Niven and Winwood, but had thought Herbert Lom and Peter Ustinov were in it). At the bottom of the cast list IMDb adds the names of uncredited performers. In this case the last of these reads:
Fay Wray....................Screaming Door Bell (archive sound)
Priceless.
20ultrarightist
>19 featherwate: I enjoyed it, too. Saw it years ago in the early VHS days, and need to re-watch. Great cast. Very amusing casting credit vignette.
21Django6924
>19 featherwate:
Jack, "Murder by Death" is the cinematic equivalent of potato chips. I enjoyed it also, but had completely forgotten about it until ultra rightist posted it here.
Jack, "Murder by Death" is the cinematic equivalent of potato chips. I enjoyed it also, but had completely forgotten about it until ultra rightist posted it here.
22elladan0891
>7 ironjaw:
Just to add more mud to >8 terebinth: The definite article "the" can and must be used when non-unique things become identifiable, which basically happens as soon as you mention them once:
"Looking through my papers, I stumbled upon a strange case (indefinite article). The case was particularly interesting because blah-blah-blah... (switching to the definite article from now on while talking about this particular case)"
>10 featherwate:
Interesting thought!
>1 NYCFaddict:
David, what are your thoughts on paper? Is it thick? Textured or smooth?
Just to add more mud to >8 terebinth: The definite article "the" can and must be used when non-unique things become identifiable, which basically happens as soon as you mention them once:
"Looking through my papers, I stumbled upon a strange case (indefinite article). The case was particularly interesting because blah-blah-blah... (switching to the definite article from now on while talking about this particular case)"
>10 featherwate:
Interesting thought!
>1 NYCFaddict:
David, what are your thoughts on paper? Is it thick? Textured or smooth?
23NYCFaddict
I like it a lot. The paper is thick. The pages with illustrations feel smooth, whereas the pages with text feel textured (and look textured when you hold them up really close).
I think it should have been released as a signed limited edition with a high limitation (2500?). Given that there are only so many collectors in the world, even standard editions of fine books are effectively "limited" (high four figures for some FS books, I think).
I think it should have been released as a signed limited edition with a high limitation (2500?). Given that there are only so many collectors in the world, even standard editions of fine books are effectively "limited" (high four figures for some FS books, I think).
24wcarter
>23 NYCFaddict:
The highest li9mitation FS books were the early Letterpress Shakespeare editions (eg. Hamlet, Macbeth) when 3750 were printed.
The vast majority of FS LEs are around the 1000 copies mark, but some as low as 500.
Specially bound editions in early years were limited to only 100, with a handful even lower than this.
Full details on the FSD wiki at:-
https://wiki.librarything.com/index.php/Groups:Folio_Society_Devotees#Folio_Soci...
The highest li9mitation FS books were the early Letterpress Shakespeare editions (eg. Hamlet, Macbeth) when 3750 were printed.
The vast majority of FS LEs are around the 1000 copies mark, but some as low as 500.
Specially bound editions in early years were limited to only 100, with a handful even lower than this.
Full details on the FSD wiki at:-
https://wiki.librarything.com/index.php/Groups:Folio_Society_Devotees#Folio_Soci...
25NYCFaddict
Warwick, what I meant to say was that FS prints only a finite number of copies of its standard editions (except for those that are reissued) -- and that finite number is probably in the high thousands or low tens of thousands. We simply don't know what the print runs of standard FS editions are, though we have this piece of evidence that I noted after it was mentioned on FSD:
Myths of the Near East 'File Copy' of the 1st ed has some details written in pencil within:
Aug 2003
Print 10,000
Selling £42.50
Unit £12.20
Now that the FS warehouse is smaller and the number of new releases higher, I think it is safe to assume that many titles have print runs below 10,000 (the new Japanese Tales, for example).
Myths of the Near East 'File Copy' of the 1st ed has some details written in pencil within:
Aug 2003
Print 10,000
Selling £42.50
Unit £12.20
Now that the FS warehouse is smaller and the number of new releases higher, I think it is safe to assume that many titles have print runs below 10,000 (the new Japanese Tales, for example).
26NYCFaddict
By the way, I haven't contributed to FSD for a while now because I have been disheartened by "contributions" that verge on trolling -- as some of us have not only noticed but commented on. GMD is still a haven of civility, but FSD has slightly lost that status for me, I am sad to say.
28bacchus.
I recently received the Hyde flavour and I'm impressed. I sent an email to praise Amaranthine's early efforts and Marco assured me there's more easter eggs in the book (other than the sticker inside the slipcase which NYCFaddict already mentioned). The illustrations are beautiful and merge nicely with the black pages. Overall meticulously done. Even the bubblewrap was black. I'm a fan and will follow Amaranthine closely.
29BionicJim
I didn’t find Strange Case ML on the drive. Anyone have it to upload? Thanks in advance.
I just ordered the Hyde edition of this and am looking forward to it, but would love to compare notes with the LEC Edition that I don’t own.
I just ordered the Hyde edition of this and am looking forward to it, but would love to compare notes with the LEC Edition that I don’t own.
30BuzzBuzzard
>29 BionicJim: Hi Jim. Please look for it in the LEC ML Upload folder.
31BionicJim
>30 BuzzBuzzard: Many thanks and, per usual there is a surprise: “Jekyll is pronounced as Jeek'll.” Really?
This story has become so well-known that I never felt the need to read it until recently when a friend asked if I’d discuss it over coffee. My experience wasn’t unexpected at first, it seemed like it trudged along and there was no real mystery for me. Then the last chapter hit me with such power that it is obvious why it is a classic - not simply due to the twist ending that everyone already knows. I’d heard this may have been a response to “Crime and Punishment” and, if so, RLS did in about 100 pages where Dostoyevsky used 600 plus- both with tremendous effect.
This story has become so well-known that I never felt the need to read it until recently when a friend asked if I’d discuss it over coffee. My experience wasn’t unexpected at first, it seemed like it trudged along and there was no real mystery for me. Then the last chapter hit me with such power that it is obvious why it is a classic - not simply due to the twist ending that everyone already knows. I’d heard this may have been a response to “Crime and Punishment” and, if so, RLS did in about 100 pages where Dostoyevsky used 600 plus- both with tremendous effect.
Devenir membre pour poster.
