That's the title of Michael Russem's article in the recent Caxtonian, the journal of The Caxton Club - a Chicago-area association of book collectors.
Update: Bookseller Michael Lieberman responds.
Michael is a fine printer and book maker, and his Kat Ran Press is one of my favorite fine presses. I believe fine presses are - or should be - important. That's why we have a Fine Presses column in every issue of Fine Books & Collections. In a recent column, Rollin Milroy of Heavenly Monkey press, said the fine-press movements acts as haute couture for publishing industry. That's an interesting perspective, and it is certainly the ideal: artisans experimenting with the book arts, pushing the boundaries, and thereby improving commercial book design.
However, the analogy seems more like wishful thinking. In our upcoming March/April issue, we have a feature story about teaching presses on college campuses. The men and women who run those presses also hope their students will go on to professional careers in book design, taking their experience setting type and printing letterpress with them.
But I tend to think the Michael Russem is right when he says, "I quickly gathered that nobody read the books over which we labored...On the whole, however, I made every effort to forget that we printers have this absurd and silent arrangement with our readers."
I suggest that anyone interested in the book arts should read his entire article and visit his blog.
I have been in a room full of people delighting in fine-press books with elaborate structures that act as clever and elaborate puzzles or games. They are a long way from the traditional books, but while they have text, virtually no one read them. Yet, for some reason, book collectors and librarians will buy them if they have words and can be called "books." After Michael realized that no one read his books (or those of any other fine printer), he made the mistake of printing a "number" book, with illustrations depicting the numbers between one and ten (if memory serves, it went to 10). It was very much like an ABC book in concept, and it had his same attention to the details of good printing, page design, paper, and binding. And no one bought it, because it didn't have any text for them not to read. It was a costly mistake and it pointed out the absurdity of the fine-press market.
In his Caxtonian essay, Michael wonders why no one reads fine-press books. Here's my take - because you can't read them. They are simply too fragile. Despite the quality of the materials, the average trade paperback (not mass market - I'm referring to the larger paperbacks used for quality fiction) is better made, sturdier, and will hold up better over time. I recently had a shipment of fine-press books sent here for examination. They came with complex re-packing instructions, padding, cardboard reinforcements, and drawings illustrating the proper position of each book in the box, so they wouldn't be damaged in shipping. The books themselves were beautiful, but so delicate and prone to fingerprints, I could hardly look at them for fear of ruining a $3,000 volume.
This has nothing to do with the fact the books are bound in leather and printed on a letterpress. Quite the contrary. Books designed and printed by masters like Aldus, Baskerville, and Bodoni hold up fine with centuries of use. They were made to be read in an era when all books were printed and bound by hand.
Most fine-press books are too precious to influence contemporary book design. Instead, publishers like McSweeney's and the magazine Esopus are pushing book design, using commercial printing technology.
Recent Comments