At a local B&N yesterday, I saw a collection of HPL tales in fancy binding and shrink-wrapped perporting to be the "Complete Fiction." I suspect this is just a fancier edition of the earlier B&N collection with Joshi's comments, but, as it was shrink-wrapped, I couldn't get a list of the contents. Sells for $20.

As an aside, does the value of the object diminish if it is removed from the shrink-wrap? Mint toys outside of the original container seem to sell for less than if in the box, so, by exension, does this mean one can't read such a wrapped book without losing a big chunk of monetary value in a future collectible market?

JBP

I once made a horrible mistake: I bought a signed, tray-cased Underwood edition of a Jack Vance novel. I never touched it or, god forbid, read it or anything, but recently I saw a copy listed for sale with the proud proclamation "in original plastic bag." Only at this point did I realize that I should have taken more care to protect the plastic bag protecting the case protecting the book itself.

It is the old text, warts and all. Wait for the second printing which should be out this fall; there will be a "Thanks to Martin ANdersson" on the copyright page to distinguish it from the earlier printings.

Martinus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is the old text, warts and all. Wait for the
> second printing which should be out this fall;
> there will be a "Thanks to Martin ANdersson" on
> the copyright page to distinguish it from the
> earlier printings.

Oh no! Then there will need to be yet another edition that corrects the incorrect capitalization of the "n"!

But, if shrink wrapped, how sill we know what we are getting? Oh, the subtleties of collecting.

JBP

The trick is: buy what you want to read - don't collect and speculate, then you can't loose...

I've read elsewhere that the corrected text still won't appear until 2011/2012! So that'll be three edictions with no corrections over four years! Lazy! Very lazy!

I assume that Martinus or someone else here will announce the appearance of the corrected text when it is finally published. I am content to wait until then.

The English Assassin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The trick is: buy what you want to read - don't
> collect and speculate, then you can't lose...
>
Amen to that. A book may be flawlessly proofread, lavishly illustrated and beautifully bound; but if it is never opened and read, the pages might as well be blank. Arguably, a book is not truly a book until it is read.

Considering the number of books I own, I suppose I must be a collector. Yet I try not to be seduced by the fancy edition. To keep things in perspective, my first exposure to many of HPL's stories was in the collections Ballantine Books released in the mid 1970s--yes, the "grotesque face" editions. My copies of them are dogeared and yellowing; the pages are threatening to escape from the cracked binding. Yet I hold an affection for these cheap paperbacks which is hard to express, let alone justify.

Perhaps it is partly nostalgia--just the sight of the covers summons up memories of discussing Lovecraft and sundry other topics in the quad during lunch hour with my friends Leslie and Andy, fellow aficionados of the weird tale. But just as surely part of it stems from gratitude--for introducing me to a wider realm of fantasy. Gratitude towards a humble paperback!

I suppose I could part with them if I had to, but it would be a wrench to do so...

I just bought a very early edition of Lord Dunsany's Time and the Gods -- printed in 1917, I think, although no date is given -- and some of the pages haven't even been cut. I must admit it annoyed me a bit.

This ain't weird fiction, but still ... I bought a splendid edition of Prescott's historical works, 1880s or thereabouts, and I'm having to open the pages with a small serrated fruit-knife as I go along. Great writer, great books, 130 years old and nobody's ever read them (until now).

Prescott's History of the Conquest of Mexico & History of the Conquest of Peru is so incredible it seems like fantasy. But it's not. I read it 25 years ago while confined to bed with mononucleosis. The book transported me out of my sick bed.

BTW, I highly recommend Conquest: Cortes, Montezuma, and the Fall of Old Mexico by Hugh Thomas. It contains information and sources not found in the almost 150 year old Prescott. And it's written in a very easy to read style. I feel it supersedes Prescott.

To bring things somewhat back on topic, I don't know if it has been mentioned here before, but on the site below you can download the Complete Works of H.P. Lovecraft and put them on your various hand held devices, Nook, Kindle, Android etc. But I assume "It is the old text, warts and all." But it would come in handy on an airplane, etc.

[cthulhuchick.com]

Tantalus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> To bring things somewhat back on topic, I don't
> know if it has been mentioned here before, but on
> the site below you can download the Complete Works
> of H.P. Lovecraft and put them on your various
> hand held devices, Nook, Kindle, Android etc. But
> I assume "It is the old text, warts and all." But
> it would come in handy on an airplane, etc.

And it isn't complete either. I have pointed out to cthulhuchick that "complete" means "everything", not "everything except the stuff that I for arbitrary reasons don't want to include", but so far the wildly erroneous title hasn't been changed.

Ken K. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The English Assassin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----

> To keep things in
> perspective, my first exposure to many of HPL's
> stories was in the collections Ballantine Books
> released in the mid 1970s--yes, the "grotesque
> face" editions. My copies of them are dogeared
> and yellowing; the pages are threatening to escape
> from the cracked binding. Yet I hold an affection
> for these cheap paperbacks which is hard to
> express, let alone justify.
>

Same here, and almost verbatim. I also have the Beagle Books two-volume paperback of "Tales From The Cthulhu Mythos," with suitably weird covers (now scuffed and shelf-worn). And though I now have the Nightshade CAS hardcovers, I am loath to part with my Ballantine edition of "Xiccarph." I can still relive what a thrill it was to discover it, my first CAS collection. Nostalgia is a powerful drug.

It's nice to know that I'm not the only one to feel affection for old paperbacks. Nostalgia aside, I've always found them to be very convenient: they're lightweight, relatively inexpensive, portable and never need to be recharged. And I think many of the cover designs and illustrations for that era (the 70's) were very good. At least to my taste (I'm thinking of certain Ace and Ballantine covers). I must admit, most of today's covers leave me cold--digital art just doesn't do it for me. And don't get me started on the plagues of vampires and zombies...hopefully these trends will burn themselves out soon.

Ken K. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I think many of the cover designs
> and illustrations for that era (the 70's) were
> very good. At least to my taste (I'm thinking of
> certain Ace and Ballantine covers). I must admit,
> most of today's covers leave me cold--digital art
> just doesn't do it for me.

Again, I fully agree. Digital or not, the majority of today's covers have, to me, a generic feel, much like romance novels have always had -- stock characters and easily identifiable themes. Like you, I recall with admiration covers such as Gallardo's for the Ballantine HPL and CAS, as well as Bruce Pennington's work for the UK Pan/Ballantine editions. Publishers like Ballantine seemed to be going for art more than merchandising. Of course, I'm sure there were as many duds as delights among the covers back then, just as there are probably many worthy endeavors among the flat efforts of today. Nevertheless, I'll most likely hold on to my old paperbacks until they crumble as if touched by Quachil Uttaus.

For old paperbound book cover aficionados, here's a link to a nice site that has all the Ballantine Adult Fantasy series covers. I love these things, myself. Of course, they are pure kitsch, but, unlike the kitschy covers for the CAS complete tales volumes, they are kitsch done with panache and imagination, full bore.

Absquatch, thanks for posting that link! It was wonderful seeing some of those long-gone covers again, as well as many I had never encountered before.

About the word "kitsch"--my dictionary defines it as "artistic or literary material of low quality designed to appeal to current popular taste". If you accept this definition as true, than of course most book covers are "kitschy"--if they don't appeal to current popular taste, they won't be bought! Indeed, every book designer must have kitsch in mind if the book is to turn a profit!

Where I run into problems with the dictionary definition is, predictably, the part equating "low quality" with "current popular taste". As you point out, many of the Ballantine Adult Fantasy covers are quite wonderful (and redolent of the late 60's/early 70's era). If this style of cover art has fallen out of favor with the public, does that mean these covers can no longer be regarded as "kitsch"?

I am glad that you enjoyed the linked material. The Lovecraft covers, in particular, are mind boggling.

As to your question, it's a fairly complicated one. Since popular taste is often specific to its era, then I suppose kitsch is, as well, although I have no trouble using the label with that sort of relativity in mind.

I've been thinking about my dictionary's definition of "kitsch" and it seems to be implying that the word is equivalent to (or at least similar to) the term "hackwork"--that is, work produced by rigidly adhering to a set formula for the consumer's satisfaction and containing little in the way of originality or novelty. The work can be produced and consumed with little creative energy or thought. In short, hackwork is lazy. Perhaps this is where the "low quality" part of the original definition comes from.

A problem with fantasy, science fiction, and horror is that the genres are simply rife with symbols which have degenerated into cliches. I don't envy the cover artists who must deploy these cliches in a fresh way.

For a proper definition, ask your friendly neighborhood Rabbi -

Well, I don't really want to get into this whole debate. However, for an interesting gloss on the word kitsch and all its connotations, see here:

Kitsch

Of course, the whole business is subjective, and tastes will vary. For instance, some here obviously like Van Hollander's form of kitsch, and have taken offense at my criticism of it. No one, however, should mistake the force of a given argument in such realms, be it pro or con, for an assertion of objective truth.

Myself, I can enjoy the Ballantine covers because they are unpretentious, imaginative, in their own way, and often simply so bad that they are hilariously funny. Also, they are fitting for mass market paperbound books, and may even serve a legitimate purpose as eye-catchers in a competitive market. On the other hand, I dislike such covers for the same reason that I dislike the CAS covers: They do not do justice to the dignity of the works, themselves, and, indeed, even trivialize them, in some instances. Again, though, in a mass market setting, this is at least marginally excusable, but not, in my view, in expensive limited editions published by specialty presses that will be sold primarily via mail order.

Quote:

I don't envy the cover artists who must deploy these cliches in a fresh way.

Indeed, and part of what I find entertaining about the Ballantine covers is the game of spotting the quotations from the likes of Bosch, Bruegel, Magritte, and Dali.

I am not sure what you are talking about. The covers by Gervasio Gallardo are highly original, striking, and certainly nothing like the average paperback cover painting of the day. (Although it has to be said that the standards for paperback cover art were in general much higher in the late 1960s and early 70s than they are today. I miss the time when SF paperbacks could have paintings by Richard Powers on them.)

Quote:

I am not sure what you are talking about. The covers by Gervasio Gallardo are highly original [...]

Highly original? Maybe you're referring to this one? (Compare to this Salvador Dali painting). Or this one, which quotes directly from Bosch's Garden of Earthly Delights? Ah, no, you must mean this one--no, wait a minute, it couldn't be.

I am afraid I am the one isn't sure what you are talking about, apropos of Gallardo's originality. He shows good taste in his sources, though; that, I'll grant. He was hardly alone, though. Surrealism was practically "in the water", visually speaking, during the late '60's and well into the '70's.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 23 Apr 11 | 02:57PM by Absquatch.

No, I was not thinking of those, specifically. This one is an old favorite of mine, though. Now you will tell me it is a ripoff of Botticelli.

Yes, the central figure is probably a "borrowing" from Botticelli; but the rest of the painting is Gallardo's. Besides, if you can't make a classical allusion in the cover to a CAS collection, where can you? Gallardo was probably counting on the reader picking up on the reference.

I should add that covers like this and those on the British Panther editions are what attracted me to Clark Ashton Smith in the first place, so, for better or worse, they are inextricably linked in my mind.

Ken K. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, the central figure is probably a "borrowing"
> from Botticelli; but the rest of the painting is
> Gallardo's. Besides, if you can't make a
> classical allusion in the cover to a CAS
> collection, where can you? Gallardo was probably
> counting on the reader picking up on the
> reference.

Exactly - just as Magritte would have done, and Gallardo is very much in the tradition of Magritte.

Quote:

Now you will tell me it is a ripoff of Botticelli.

No, as before, I will simply tell you, and others, that it is evidence against calling Gallardo's work "original".

Allusions: Allusions rarely form the centerpiece of an entire work, as the Botticelli elements do on the Xiccarph cover. When they do form the centerpiece of a work, they are called "adaptations", "pastiches", or, less politely, plagiarism. To my mind, calling the Xiccarph cover an allusion is like saying that West Side Story "alludes" to Romeo and Juliet.

Anyway, as I mentioned, I get a kick out of this stuff, too; I just don't take it too seriously. Likewise, this discussion. I repeat that I am glad that others are enjoying the linked page.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 25 Apr 11 | 06:00AM by Absquatch.

An eminently sensible attitude. I'm enjoying the conversation in this thread as well; having to clarify my own positions is good mental exercise.

The function of a paperback book cover is fairly clear: it has to stand out from the competition at the bookstand. If it catches your eye and persuades you to pick the book up, note the author's name, read the back cover copy, and flip it open to the contents page--that's all a cover artist can reasonably hope for. The author's words have to do the rest.

The covers in the gallery to which Absquatch has so thoughtfully directed us fulfill their function, at least in my case. Seeing them en masse I was seized by a desire to reach through the screen and virtually turn them over to read the copy on the back!

Quote:

The function of a paperback book cover is fairly clear: it has to stand out from the competition at the bookstand.

I agree, and I indicated in a previous post that that is a legitimate function of such artwork. Gallardo's and others' quotations from Surrealist and other fantastic art not only serves this function, but also may be designed to attract a fantasy fan who recognizes the borrowing. I just wish that some of it were in better taste, but again, de gustibus.

This thread as veered off from "collecting" and on to cover art,etc. but I'd like to return it to
the subject of collecting for a brief moment to add my own comment.

I was a comic books & PB collector (mostly Ace PB's with the Frazetta and Krenkel covers) long ago.
I sold the better stuff 20 years back and just have a couple boxes left of the "so-so stuff". I also
have a half-brother who is/was a professional collector/dealer, mainly of baseball items. He has/had
multiple Ruth baseballs, Gherig balls - as well as many Presidential autographs and even some Marilyn
Monroe-iana. What he holds today I neither know nor care. To be honest I think Collecting is a Racket.

I feel sorry for the kids who get steered into BB cards by their nostalgic Dads & Grand Dads who would
vicariously re-live their childhood through their kids. What value is there in any mint condition
collection when there are hundreds or thousands like it out there? There really isn't any profit to it
in the long run. The reason those old cards and balls bring so much is their *rarity*, not just the
cache associated with the person/player they supposedly represent.

Early in this thread someone mentioned the shrink wrap issue; If you bought that for *your* collection
and pleasure - even just to be a Completist than enjoy! If you think it is an investment you're wasting
your time and money. Publishers offer these "Collector's Editions" to promote sales, not because they are
really collectable. When ALL the copies are sold and ALL the copies are kept in shrink-wrap and ALL are
preserved in pristine mint state then where is the collector's value? Nowhere, in my humble opinion.

I can tell you exactly where and when I was when I first saw that old-style revolving bookstand filled
with the latest from Ace: I still remember how reading ERB's stories was only half the pleasure compared
to those Frazetta covers and line drawings that did more to draw me into Fantasy than any author ever did.
Does anyone remember the Ace Doubles ? Two stories printed one upside down starting from the back cover
so when you finished the first you could flip the book over and start the second. Still got a few of those
too. Bottom line: Collect for pleasure, not for profit. Because most of what is supposed to be collectible
really isn't and if you don't have the coin to collect seriously pricey stuff you are most likely fooling
yourself that anything Joe Blow might afford would ever be worth the investment in terms of profit.

Cathexis

I think that keeping a book in shrink wrap is appalling. Same with "slabbing" a comic book. Keeping a toy in its original packaging strikes me as somehow pathetic also. What makes all this the more sad is that Cathexis is correct: most collecting is ultimately a fool's errand when profit is the motive.

To J. B. Post who started this thread,

Just wanted to share that if you go to E-Bay here:

HPL Complete via B&N off E-Bay

You can get what you saw for $21.99 US and free shipping.
This is nice compared to the other Vendors who are asking close to $50
for the same product. A table of contents is NOT on this E-bay offering
but a search for the book title will bring up the other vendors and some
of them list contents at the bottom of their garish ads. By the way, B&N
on Amazon.com only say the same version won't be available until *July*.
WTF!

B&N gave these product details:

Quote:

B&N said:
Pub. Date: March 2011
Publisher: Barnes & Noble
Format: Hardcover, 1098pp
Series: Barnes & Noble Leatherbound Classics Series
ISBN-13: 9781435122963
ISBN: 1435122968

No mention was made of the "Shrink Wrap", but with gas at $4.00 and climbing
I think the extra 2 bucks in cost would be a savings over the drive out to
the store. Now you must pay with Paypal and worse, you are charged Sales Tax
at check-out. For me in Virginia that comes to $1.10 which puts the total cost
at $23.09. However, by using my "Cash-Back" credit card I earn 1% back on this
purchase which comes to .23 cents or a final total of $22.86 - still better than
a drive out there I'd say. Such is the Calculus of Modern Consumerism. <grin>.


Cathexis

What a load! You can order it directly from B&N and it costs only $24.03 total, including P&H.

Not sure what you mean by a load, Gill -

But it's your $24.09 to spend anyway you want.

Cathexis

The price doesn't matter -- it is not worth it at the moment.

I getcha.
But what *is* worth it right now?

I mean, what is the best collection of HPL fiction out there?
I wouldn't ask without looking around myself first but I know
that there may be niche publishers well known to you that might
slip under my radar completely. Do you recommend any works out there?

TIA,

Cathexis

It depends. In order to get a complete collection you'd have to go for the Arkham House volumes, but you'd have to complement them with various other books (e.g., the Penguin The Dreams in the Witch House and Other Weird Stories to get the original Ms. versions of "Hypnos" and "The Shadow out of Time", and Eyes of the God to get the rare HPL/RHB collaborations "The Slaying of the Monster" and "The Hoard of the Wizard-Beast").

If you just want the good stuff, you could go for the Penguin collections.

Seems odd that of both HPL & CAS it is the lesser known
who has the more complete collection (for which I would
consider the five volumes from Mr. Conners, et al.).

Even if you have problems with those offerings they seem
way beyond the tangled thicket that HPL's works occupy.

Thanks for your response,

Cathexis

cathexis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Seems odd that of both HPL & CAS it is the lesser
> known
> who has the more complete collection (for which I
> would
> consider the five volumes from Mr. Conners, et
> al.).
>
> Even if you have problems with those offerings
> they seem
> way beyond the tangled thicket that HPL's works
> occupy.
>
> Thanks for your response,
>
> Cathexis

You're welcome.

Things should look better in a while, when the B&N book has been published in a corrected form, and the annotated revisions & ghostwritings have been published by Arcane Wisdom (alas, limited edition and not cheap.). Then you will have all of HPL's known fiction in three volumes.

Ack! All these new versions and revisions. I feel like tossing my 1st editions of Dagon, Dunwich Horror, and At The Mountains of Madness collections.

cathexis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Seems odd that of both HPL & CAS it is the lesser
> known
> who has the more complete collection (for which I
> would
> consider the five volumes from Mr. Conners, et
> al.).
>
>

There's a bit of apples and oranges in this: Ron and I were fortunate in that we could establish our own perimeters for how our edition of CAS would be organized. S. T., OTOH, was required to work within the constraints of the already existing Arkham House editions. I know from talking with him that, given his druthers, he'd have organized the HPL edition in a manner similar to how we did CAS; in fact, we actively sought out his input when we were deciding how to go.

Scott

I have books that theoretically are worth up into the $5,000.00 range if they had been kept in untouched, unread condition--but I am of the opinion that books are, indeed, intended to be read (even if you've read the HPL stories one hundred times). I take excellent care of my books; however, I also continue to lower their value by about 10% by placing my signature on their front free endpapers. They are my books, not s museum piece or something I ever intend to sell at a profit.

To me, "collectors" are not true bibliophiles. Then, again, that's just my opinion. . . .

I'm a collector in the sense that I never throw anything away---unless it's absolutely god-awful. Since I read what I buy, I guess I'm more of an accumulator rather than a collector.

Gill Avila Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm a collector in the sense that I never throw
> anything away---unless it's absolutely god-awful.
> Since I read what I buy, I guess I'm more of an
> accumulator rather than a collector.


"The Accumulator"--a great title for a CAS story? LOL