A content of a book is more important than the book itself. If the contents are preserved then what's the need of collecting the rare original copies other than cultural or heritage reasons?
Differences between print editions can be important scholarly material. Did a printing error in the third run end up getting reproduced in later runs? Did an editor change this word at some point after the original publication, which wound up migrating into later editions of the work? Was that in agreement with the author, or done on their own? Was there originally a chapter break here to accomodate an illustration? What was the typeface like? What kind of ink was used - is the green tint on the chapter headings intentional, or did it fade over time?
On a purely aesthetic media-nerd level it's also interesting. Books aren't just their plaintext. There is craftsmanship and artistry involved in how a work is intended to be presented, and without examples of the original prints this context can be lost.
On a similar note, old movies are notoriously eclectic about different cuts and editions with scenes missing or added or lost to time. Having and preserving original reels is invaluable (especially because they're much more fragile in storage than books).
Imagine watching Buster Keaton while a guy is actually playing live music and breaking out slide whistles while the crowd cheers and smokes and waves their hats - it's an experience that's closer to going to a club and seeing a comedy act, than streaming movies on the couch. That particular experience is largely inaccessible to us today because we don't have pristine fully staffed 1920s cinemas that we can walk into. But if you have an original printing of a book, you can in fact just 'walk in' and see what it was supposed to be like. :)
"Cambrian Chronicles" is a great example of this on Youtube - the channel is primarily about Welsh History, but often ends up as an academic exercise of starting with a reference on Youtube, and following through sources, often back to some Victorian scholar who mistranslated or misspelt something (or sometimes just plain made things up), which was then copied by someone else and so on - essentially a game of academic Chinese whispers.
Its 2024, we can trivially preserve 100% of the original form of any book digitally, with all original intentions, bugs in creation etc. The actual physical book itself becomes just a curiosity (or investment), nothing fundamentally necessary.
With such discussions we often move from facts to emotions of specific individuals/groups. Some people feel strong emotions about absolute preservation of such items. Others, not so much, priorities in our lives lie elsewhere.
It entirely depends on the book. For most modern paperbacks, I'd agree with you - the book is often just a means of transmission of the text. Even with modern books though, there are plenty of examples where it's intended to be a physical object that affects you in some way, not just as a sequence of words that happens to be on a page. You'll see some books that chose weird sizes or paper finishes or even variations in font size through the book, because that's as much a part of it as the text itself.
In the early days of books, especially before the printing press, they were primarily considered works of art. You'd have ornate flourishes at the start of a chapter because it took so long to copy manually, adding something visually appealing wouldn't have made it take much longer to create in the grand scheme of things. There might be beautiful illustrations with vibrant colours competing for attention as much as the textual content.
Even with much newer books, you can tell the difference. One I remember from my childhood is A. A. Milne's Winnie the Pooh with its illustrations by E. H. Sheppard. To most readers, the illustrations are as much a part of the book as the text, and yet there are cheap versions that contain the text only which are probably interesting if you've never seen the original but just feel incomplete and disappointing if you have.
With Victorian printing, you'd sometimes have outlines of illustrations printed in black and white and then someone would colour them in by hand with watercolour prior to sale. Every book would be slightly unique. I've only seen one such book when I was very young, something my mum had rescued from her grandfather's collection as a child.
Whilst new books are also great (there's nothing quite like opening a new hardbook, having a smell of it and settling down to read), old books are also wonderful, not just for the contents because also the look and feel of them that transports you back to another time. I've got a few (probably not valuable) old books that are over 100 years old, and in those days people would usually add a handwritten note on the first page saying who was buying it for who and what the occasion was, and often in beautiful old-fashioned handwriting that itself is art now. This is just a glimpse into the history of the book and the world as it was at the time this book was new, that just add richness to the book itself.
Reading a book isn't just about the contents, as there's so much more to sense when handling something physical, especially old books that aren't perfect in some way and so have their own story that's different to every other copy.
In 1986 "the book is more than just the text" is a sound justification for why a significant proportion of library stock can't "just" be digitised.
But we're long past that, we can digitise the images, paper texture, layout choices, almost everything if we choose. There are a handful of things we might justify keeping anyway, but on the whole the digitisation is just a marked improvement.
Sometimes it's a form of research (a rare copy may have unique inscriptions or other details) but often it's a form of art collection.
If you live anywhere near an antiquarian book fair (NY or CA are the ones I know) I'd highly encourage you to check it out. The books on display are absolutely stunning in both their physical beauty and the way they connect us to the past.
You have that book? That's an incredible artifact, but I get nervous about any older paper material that is privately owned. How do you have it stored? I see people buy books and other ephemera and keep them in their homes and they just don't last :(
do you collect anything? if so, why do you collect it?
there is a market for collectible books. i have a signed first edition of book that retails for $1250. people pay that much for this particularly copy. that might seem crazy to you, and that's fine, but that doesn't stop me from trying to sell it to people who care about that.
physical copies of books are a perfect invention that hasn't changed since it was originally invented. you don't need electricity to read them. you just need sunlight. not to mention the physical beauty of some books.
most physical copies of books are near worthless, though.
kombookcha|1 year ago
On a purely aesthetic media-nerd level it's also interesting. Books aren't just their plaintext. There is craftsmanship and artistry involved in how a work is intended to be presented, and without examples of the original prints this context can be lost.
On a similar note, old movies are notoriously eclectic about different cuts and editions with scenes missing or added or lost to time. Having and preserving original reels is invaluable (especially because they're much more fragile in storage than books).
Imagine watching Buster Keaton while a guy is actually playing live music and breaking out slide whistles while the crowd cheers and smokes and waves their hats - it's an experience that's closer to going to a club and seeing a comedy act, than streaming movies on the couch. That particular experience is largely inaccessible to us today because we don't have pristine fully staffed 1920s cinemas that we can walk into. But if you have an original printing of a book, you can in fact just 'walk in' and see what it was supposed to be like. :)
elthran|1 year ago
jajko|1 year ago
With such discussions we often move from facts to emotions of specific individuals/groups. Some people feel strong emotions about absolute preservation of such items. Others, not so much, priorities in our lives lie elsewhere.
ralferoo|1 year ago
In the early days of books, especially before the printing press, they were primarily considered works of art. You'd have ornate flourishes at the start of a chapter because it took so long to copy manually, adding something visually appealing wouldn't have made it take much longer to create in the grand scheme of things. There might be beautiful illustrations with vibrant colours competing for attention as much as the textual content.
Even with much newer books, you can tell the difference. One I remember from my childhood is A. A. Milne's Winnie the Pooh with its illustrations by E. H. Sheppard. To most readers, the illustrations are as much a part of the book as the text, and yet there are cheap versions that contain the text only which are probably interesting if you've never seen the original but just feel incomplete and disappointing if you have.
With Victorian printing, you'd sometimes have outlines of illustrations printed in black and white and then someone would colour them in by hand with watercolour prior to sale. Every book would be slightly unique. I've only seen one such book when I was very young, something my mum had rescued from her grandfather's collection as a child.
Whilst new books are also great (there's nothing quite like opening a new hardbook, having a smell of it and settling down to read), old books are also wonderful, not just for the contents because also the look and feel of them that transports you back to another time. I've got a few (probably not valuable) old books that are over 100 years old, and in those days people would usually add a handwritten note on the first page saying who was buying it for who and what the occasion was, and often in beautiful old-fashioned handwriting that itself is art now. This is just a glimpse into the history of the book and the world as it was at the time this book was new, that just add richness to the book itself.
Reading a book isn't just about the contents, as there's so much more to sense when handling something physical, especially old books that aren't perfect in some way and so have their own story that's different to every other copy.
tialaramex|1 year ago
But we're long past that, we can digitise the images, paper texture, layout choices, almost everything if we choose. There are a handful of things we might justify keeping anyway, but on the whole the digitisation is just a marked improvement.
habosa|1 year ago
If you live anywhere near an antiquarian book fair (NY or CA are the ones I know) I'd highly encourage you to check it out. The books on display are absolutely stunning in both their physical beauty and the way they connect us to the past.
https://www.nyantiquarianbookfair.com/
RyJones|1 year ago
[0]: https://wicker.com
[1]: https://www.prphbooks.com/blog/marcolini
qingcharles|1 year ago
greenie_beans|1 year ago
there is a market for collectible books. i have a signed first edition of book that retails for $1250. people pay that much for this particularly copy. that might seem crazy to you, and that's fine, but that doesn't stop me from trying to sell it to people who care about that.
physical copies of books are a perfect invention that hasn't changed since it was originally invented. you don't need electricity to read them. you just need sunlight. not to mention the physical beauty of some books.
most physical copies of books are near worthless, though.
miroljub|1 year ago
[deleted]