I never realized before that this practice was so widespread. I can understand the impulse to provide additional illustrations for books and it certainly doesn't seem any worse that writing comments into books, which many collectors defend. Perhaps making a book into a more interactive object is adding value to it.
"Con: “The extra-illustrator is a merciless and wanton killer who perpetrated the mutilation of countless books to create an illustrated set;” “the Grangerite who has slaughtered books for a few pictures is pitiless —just as an epicure has had a sheep killed for the sweetbread;” “as the aigrette of my lady’s hat cost the life of a heron, so the deed of the Grangerite destroys the life of the book;” it is "a contagious and delirious mania.""
Summary: very silly. I can totally see how doing it might derange a given book pretty badly but then we're talking about whether or the process is done badly. Everyone has always done this and much worse (repurposing scrolls of greek classics as prayer books and the like). You could only justify all that if you were talking about extremely rare books.
My husband recently bought me a “grangerized” version of the sorcerers stone. Of course it was done on purpose by the publisher but I personally think the historical precedent is fascinating.
I never realized before that this practice was so widespread. I can understand the impulse to provide additional illustrations for books and it certainly doesn't seem any worse that writing comments into books, which many collectors defend. Perhaps making a book into a more interactive object is adding value to it.
"Con: “The extra-illustrator is a merciless and wanton killer who perpetrated the mutilation of countless books to create an illustrated set;” “the Grangerite who has slaughtered books for a few pictures is pitiless —just as an epicure has had a sheep killed for the sweetbread;” “as the aigrette of my lady’s hat cost the life of a heron, so the deed of the Grangerite destroys the life of the book;” it is "a contagious and delirious mania.""
Summary: very silly. I can totally see how doing it might derange a given book pretty badly but then we're talking about whether or the process is done badly. Everyone has always done this and much worse (repurposing scrolls of greek classics as prayer books and the like). You could only justify all that if you were talking about extremely rare books.
elm
that's the 19th century for you
My husband recently bought me a “grangerized” version of the sorcerers stone. Of course it was done on purpose by the publisher but I personally think the historical precedent is fascinating.