Friday, October 27, 2006

Set up.

What began as part of another story has taken on a life of its own. I can’t believe it’s happened again.

There are few things I love more than a good collection. Gathering, sorting and arranging a related set of objects together is one of life’s great pleasures. Be it general collections, like books and CDs, or more specific ones, like Boba Fett action figures (currently 21), different editions of my favourite novel, Catch-22 (18), or alternate versions of Duke Ellington’s jazz standard, Caravan (40), I find the urge to collect compulsive.

And it isn’t just things of value that I find it satisfying to draw together; any old crap will do: expired Metlink tickets, old bank statements, and even empty toilet roll tubes. Which leads me to wonder if perhaps the collecting is more important than the collection? Because I can think of no other way to explain the appeal of collecting cardboard cylinders. You know when you finish a roll, and instead of throwing it away, you place it on a shelf or on the window sill? First one, then two, and before you know it there’s a teetering tower of toilet rolls blocking out the light. All it takes are two tubes sitting there for me to catch the vision. Two tubes to make me look forward to the end of the next roll so that my tower can grow…

Oh dear. That’s unfortunate. And, I guess, revealing? Who would have known there’d be some sort of phallic resonance behind my compulsion; some instinctive need to build something larger than myself, to create a sense of significance through the construction of a… what do psychologists call it, an extension of myself?

Well, whatever, let’s not dwell on it.

No, let’s get back to the simple pleasure of gathering a collection. And the most satisfying sort of collection is the set: a collection with a starting point, an end point and a bunch of boxes to tick off in between. The set allows for the greatest sense of satisfaction because you know when you’re done and when you can rest; when you can ease your chair back onto its hind legs, and gaze with satisfaction on the completeness of what you’ve brought to be.

The only thing I dislike in a set is inconsistency; when common or repeating elements don’t match up. Titles change size or position, the logos move around and don’t line up, or, ye gods, the style changes altogether! I love variation, but variation within a theme.


Somewhat like a family of superheroes, where each member has their own distinct character and attributes, while still belonging to a larger, unified whole. Or a jazz performance where each player’s solo is a unique take on the same signature tune. I enjoy seeing how a style adapts and flows across a series (of books, CDs, DVDs or whatever), be it through colour, typeface, style of imagery, or the like. I like to see that the designer has thought ahead and considered the possibilities, and hasn’t just treated each new item as an all but blank canvas. Not that the designer’s always responsible, of course, as many inconsistencies result from bumps along the road of production, and most such issues are more niggles than throat-stompers. The real problem comes when the bean-counters get too involved, as bean-counters care only for their beans...


First up, there was Harry Potter. Disbelieve me if you will, but my choosing the adult covers (or ‘senior reader’ covers, if you prefer) over the original kiddie covers, had nothing to do with shame or embarrassment. It was simply that the kiddie covers were so absolutely awful, and I had the option to choose. Actually, the adult ones aren’t great either, but they’re restrained and don’t look like they’ve been drawn by a colour-blind hedgehog in a bag (to nick a favourite Blackadder expression). So I bought in, and guess what? When the fifth book of seven was released the publishers dumped the existing adult style and re-released the entire series in a completely different one. What’s an anal perfectionist to do? There’s no way I’m having four spines on my bookshelf in one style and three in another that’s completely different. So I stopped buying and started borrowing. Sorry JK, that new wing on your castle will just have to wait.


And speaking of borrowing over buying, I wish I’d done that when it came to Robert Jordan’s ponderous Wheel of Time saga. For a while Jordan drew me along with a carrot of promise, but over time he started using it to just slap me in the face. Not only did he make me slog through 7125 pages (for real) featuring (roughly) the same number of surly and unlikeable characters, involved in an exponentially growing number of plots and sub-plots, but he (or rather, his publisher, but I’m not feeling generous enough to make the distinction) rebooted the series’ artwork after nine of his wretched house-bricks. Nine! Forget the faithful who’ve been on-board from the start! Let me tell you, Orbit Books: if sales figures are falling, the problem does not lie with the covers. And notice how not only does the publisher's logo change for book eight (annoying), but it then changes back to the original logo for book nine (even more annoying)!

And so, lesson (to pass onto our children’s children) learned: don’t buy into a series until it’s complete.

Only, that’s no help with a series already underway. Just when I thought it safe to go back into the bookshop, in sink the sharp, pointy teeth of Martin Gilbert’s three volume epic, ‘A History of the Twentieth Century’.


I bought Volumes 1 and 2 when they were released back in the late 90s, but I somehow missed number 3. I kept an eye out for it over the years, but it never crossed my path. As I just recently started on Volume 1, I finally decided to make a real effort to track the elusive book down. Though the hardcover is out of print in Australia, it is available on Amazon.com, but with different cover art to mine, which I assumed to be the US style. Confusingly though, the same style appears not only on the version available at Amazon.co.uk, but also in the listing on Martin Gilbert’s website. In fact, I could find no trace anywhere of Volume 3 featuring a style of cover that matched my two. Even eBay, Google, and peering through the entrails of a slaughtered Himalayan yak turned up nothing. Figuring that if anyone would know, the author would know, I sent Sir Martin an email through his website, asking if he was able to end the madness? This was his prompt reply:
Thank you so much for your most encouraging words.

Alas, there never was a uniform edition of volume three. I am sorry about this. I do not know what got into the publisher's heads.

With further thanks for writing as you do. You have made my day! Kind regards, Martin Gilbert
Not quite the, “It certainly does exist, and, here, I’ll send you one of the autographed copies I happen to have lying around,” that I was hoping for, but it’s good to have a definitive answer, at least. And bonus points for using 'alas'; one of my favourite words. What a friendly chap!

So, I’m left with five (equally unpleasant) options:
1. Buy Volume 3 in a non-matching style. (Does not compute);
2. Buy Volume 3 in a non-matching style and glue on a mocked-up spine in the original style. (No-one might know, but I would know);
3. Sell current volumes and buy all three in new style. (Possible, but alternate style is, imho, inferior);
4. Leave things as they are and not buy anything. (But if I don’t build it, they will not come); or
5. GEEEEETTT OVER IT! Seriously! (Hmmm. Sounds simple, but would in fact require complete rewiring of personality).

So! What a pit to be stuck in. Though, at least, some consolation, I haven’t fallen into the larger (possibly bottomless) pit of Star Wars. That, however, is a whole other post….

12 comments:

  1. 3. Sell current volumes and buy all three in new style. (Possible, but alternate style is, imho, inferior);

    I can't help buit observe - without having observed the alternate style - that it must be pretty bad to be inferior to something that doesn't even exist.

    We'll just take it as read, that my preferred solution is the 'Get Over It' one. However, an alternative idea does present itself...

    Would it be possible to buy Volume 3 and then shelve it lengthwise behind Volumes 1 and 2? That way, the aesthetics of your bookshelf are preserved, but Volume 3 is still available for reference exactly where one would expect to find it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. And, while I'm nitpicking; the options are not equally unpleasant. Two are worse (in my opinion, of course)...

    Option #2 is beyond the pale. Defacing a book is always unacceptable. (Yes, any book; even Mein Kampf).

    Option #4 is also wrong; books are not decorations, and decisions about purchasing and reading books should not be based on such aesthetic criteria. (Decisions about displaying them are a different matter, of course.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I understand your pain... honestly do and in a perfect world I would also love it all to be matched up.

    What is more frustrating for me is different sizes!

    More frustrating however is not having the set. See I could not do it. If there are two of one jacket, and a third is released with a different cover, you just have to suck it up. If it is good enough to read, then it is good enough to suck it up and bight the bullet for a purchase.

    I go through similarities with my bike...

    Blue frame, yellow bars, seat, bottle cage and tyres... till the tyres I like are no longer made in yellow! do I go the new color... pick up new bar tape, chnage seats etc... or just find a brand which has yellow tyres... I think I have made my point that I am also a bit you know... mad!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Would it be possible to buy Volume 3 and then shelve it lengthwise behind Volumes 1 and 2?

    Look, that's as good a solution as any. The niggle though is with the dates on the spines: 1900-1933, 1933-1951... and? THERE'S A HUGE, SCREAMING GULF! Sure, Volume 3 will be there, but the 'picture' will not be complete.

    Defacing a book is always unacceptable. (Yes, any book; even Mein Kampf).

    What do you call "defacing"? I know CK thinks you shouldn't write inside a Bible, but I happily scribble all over the margins of mine. What if I was to scrawl inside Mein Kampf that I'm unable to finish reading it because Hitler keeps bringing himself into the dicussion, thus fulfilling Godwin's Law, and therefore I have to stop?

    Surely option two is refacing, if anything?

    Option #4 is also wrong; books are not decorations, and decisions about purchasing and reading books should not be based on such aesthetic criteria. (Decisions about displaying them are a different matter, of course.)

    I don't quite get your meaning. My point with four was that a set remains incomplete, and that is intolerable. Anyway, books most certainly are decoration. A friend of my Dad has books shelved on every wall of every room throughout his house, and it's the most wondrous wallpaper you'll ever see.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bomber! I can't believe I've known you for 18 years and I've never known you were afflicted, er, blessed with the same condition as me!

    Yes, different sizes certainly are a killer. Unlike certain freakshows who are happy to mix hardcovers and paperbacks within the same series, I can't bring myself to do it.

    Thanks for your advice. It certainly is a cracker of a read. And thanks for telling me of your struggles. You've convinced me to never buy a bike; look where it could so easily lead! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Would it be possible to buy Volume 3 and then shelve it lengthwise behind Volumes 1 and 2?

    Look, that's as good a solution as any. The niggle though is with the dates on the spines: 1900-1933, 1933-1951... and? THERE'S A HUGE, SCREAMING GULF!

    There's no 'gulf'. A 'gulf' would be if you had 1900-1933 and 1951-2000.

    Incidentally, didn't the Twentieth Century start in 1901?

    Sure, Volume 3 will be there, but the 'picture' will not be complete.

    The problem here is that you have several criteria that cannot all be satisfied with the books as published. I feel good about having proposed a solution that addresses the two I consider the most important. (Which are: being able to find the book you want; and the shelf not looking like an eyesore.)

    Especially since I had to channel my inner Apostropher to do so. :-)

    What do you call "defacing"?

    My personal, extremely subjective and quite possibly loony opinion: Any alterations to a book; be they with pen, pencil, sticky tape or whatnot.

    I can barely tolerate people who mark passages or write intelligent comments in the margins of their own books.

    Preferably in pencil. Lightly. And let's face it, since 3M invented the Post-It Note, there's no excuse even for that.

    Exception: Inscriptions (including autographs). Does CK also share this exception? If not, I can show him my Bible I got from my Nana for my Confirmation, complete with inscription.

    I don't quite get your meaning. My point with four was that a set remains incomplete, and that is intolerable.

    My point was that it was intolerable for the set to remain incomplete for a purely aesthetic reason.

    Books - especially nonfiction books - are first and foremost repositories of knowledge. If the only copies of The Bible or The Complete Works of Shakespeare available to me had lime-green covers with the title in a shiny metallic font, I would grit my teeth and buy the damn things.

    (I would then take them home, keep them in a drawer, and remove them only when I wanted to read them, but I would buy them.)

    Anyway, books most certainly are decoration.

    True, but what I said is also true. While books can be used to decorate, they are not decorations. (That one 's' on the end of 'decoration' makes all the difference.)

    ReplyDelete
  7. And bloody CD's... I have issues owning one CD of an artist knowing they have a back catalog, even if itis crapola... This I have so many CD's, many are not listened to, but the collection in many cases are complete... although I still think Pearl Jam is crap these days... 'I like you old stuff better than your new stuff', sing it with me...

    ReplyDelete
  8. There's no 'gulf'. A 'gulf' would be if you had 1900-1933 and 1951-2000.

    There's a substantial space between a defined start and end point. That's a gulf to me. Even if only a conceptual one.

    Incidentally, didn't the Twentieth Century start in 1901?

    It does in my books. If only it did in Martin Gilbert's as well. I wonder if it was an issue for him? I should email him and ask! Now that we're best buddies, and all.

    The problem here is that you have several criteria that cannot all be satisfied with the books as published.

    Yes, that's the whole issue. Deep down I won't be satisfied until I have the complete set in my preferred style of cover art. This will never happen, and so I'm destined to trudge through life with a large rectangular-shaped hole in my heart. This is a character flaw and must be fixed... just not today. Maybe tomorrow.

    I feel good about having proposed a solution...

    I'm glad to have been able to provide the opportunity for you to feel good!! And to channel an inner-Apostropher! I like that idea! :-)

    I can barely tolerate people who mark passages or write intelligent comments in the margins of their own books.

    Glory; avert thine eyes from the inside of many books on my shelves. I get that trait from my Mum who once (among many other instances) got out a blue pen and altered a title page from 'You Gotta Keep Dancin' to 'You've Got To Keep Dancing'. I think she's even used Liquid Paper on covers as well! Hilarious. Also, you're right that books are repositories of knowledge, but that knowledge is no good if you can't find it again when you need to. Marking paragraphs and jotting notes and references aids me in finding that bit I want to double-check. Post-It Notes get in the way, or lose their stickiness and fall off.

    (Apologies to CK for the length of this comment.)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oh, hey look: you can buy the book and deface it, too! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  10. BOMBER! You keep knocking down my bottles! Or something. I had no idea you had such CD issues?! We should head down to the pub for a beer and get to know each other. You do drink beer, don’t you? Apparently these last 18 years have been a waste! :-) How has this never come up? Must be because your CD collection looks like you’re living in a student share house! Funny how you’re particular about having all of a band’s albums, but then you cram them into that cabinet wherever they’ll fit. You need some order! Want me to come over one Saturday night and get your sorted? :-)

    And funny you should mention Pearl Jam. They’re one of my thorn bands. I stopped buying after Vitalogy, and have felt conflicted ever since; like I dropped the ball. I quite like No Code, but I've never bought it because I know there’s no future in it. Chili Peppers are another problem band. I’ve always been a buy-all-or-nothing-type person with bands, and I don’t like seeing other people’s collections where they have Nevermind, Morning Glory and OK Computer, and that’s it. (For those three bands, at least.) People like that are fickle mush-heads; too easily swayed by the winds of fashion and whatever’s so hot right now. They’re picking apples without stepping back to appreciate the tree.

    The real problem though is what to do when a favourite artist has just shy of two hundred recordings

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oh, and how good are Audioslave? When you order their three albums chronologically, they're also ordered alphabetically! Nice when you bring up their albums on my iPod. 'Audioslave', 'Out of Exile' and 'Revelations'. Eight letters to choose from for album title #4, boys. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dude, snce moving in with Olivia, I have an Ikea Billy book shelf which sorts all that.

    The thing with Monty was that the CD's were all accounted for and in order that I could find. Don't get me mixed up with Max's collection. I tried to sort that once but gave up.

    A prime example of my pain is that I am missing one Garbage CD, not the first, not the last, one in the middle. Very frustrating. It is a good one also, I have heard it many times, but just never got around to picking it up. Time to correct that.

    ReplyDelete