Don’t get your hopes up, sonny
Alert Janeite Jessica Irene sent us a link to an article about a man who found an overdue library book in the floorboards of a house he was renovating. The book was due at the Alameda Free Library in 1919, and the book is Persuasion.
(Um, wasn’t that a movie plot?)
Inside the new library, near the reference desk on Dec. 27, 2006, Jane Austen’s Persuasion finally made it home to the Alameda Free Library. Chisaki thanked Schiess for returning the book — which could easily have sold as a rare book for no small amount. The book is a small, silken volume in very good condition published at the turn of the 20th century and purchased for the library in 1914. There are no pictures except for one line drawing at the frontispiece, featuring the scene where Anne Elliott walks on the seashore, just prior to Luisa Musgrove’s nearly fatal fall from the Cobb at Lyme Regis (Austen fans will recall the scene).
It’s a fun story, and neat that the library got the book back, but there’s more to it than a little feature story. Jed Clampett who found the book seems to think he’s struck Texas Tea or something, or perhaps the reporter Googled not wisely but too well.
A nearly complete set of Jane Austen’s works in 11 silk-bound, gilt-edged volumes, minus just one of her novels, is currently on sale on eBay for $1,500. The missing volume just happens to be Persuasion.
*coughoverpricedcough*
Listen, Gentle Readers: the Editrix has dabbled in collectible editions of Jane Austen, but she’s sitting back waiting for the eejits to clear out at this point. The prices have gotten completely out of control, led by greedy and unscrupulous (yes, unscrupulous) book dealers on eBay who overprice their “rare” books into the stratosphere, encouraged by unwary (or covetous) Janeites who pay their outrageous asking prices. We’ve seen sets from the 1990s selling for hundreds and hundreds of dollars–sets that one can purchase new at reputable bookshops for around fifty dollars. Don’t fall for it. Don’t pay those prices. Patience is the key, and knowing real value. You’ll be doing your fellow Janeites a disservice if you overpay.
January 10th, 2007 at 2:07 am
That looks like a 1901 edition published by Little, Brown & Co. (Boston). A quick search of on-line booksellers shows one for $100.
By way of reference, I didn’t pay that much for a 1909 edition of Persuasion, which has the complete set of 24 C.E. Brock watercolors.
January 10th, 2007 at 4:47 am
The news article doesn’t mention a publisher, so it could be any one of a number of editions. Since the United States didn’t join the rest of the world in effectively protecting intellectual property until 1917, several pirated editions of the late 19th century UK “Winchester” edition were were issued in the USA between 1890 and 1910. These can be had for $20 or less per volume in the trade.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
If the set on sale at Ebay is worth that without Persuasion, the guy who found the book could have got nice money from the seller. But that would have been both dishonest and greedy
January 10th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
I got a nice thick book of Jane Austen’s complete novels several years back on Amazon for less than $20. Of course this makes loaning it out somewhat saddening. I plan to also get copies of each book separately so that I can share the joy without missing my reads.
January 10th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Did you see the link at the bottom of this article: “Inspired Gifts for Jane Austen fans”
http://www.basbleu.com/stores/1/All_About_Jane_C164.cfm
I had no idea there was a Pride and Prejudice board game, where “marriage is the ultimate goal.” I don’t know whether to be impressed or horrified.
I found the link to the Alemeda Sun article by Julia Park in the Janeites Yahoo group board. By coincidence her favorite novel is Persuasion and she now wants to try to buy the book from the library sale! Let’s hope they offer it at a reasonable price. Here are other 1894-1910 Persuasions offered from $7.99 to $4194.20 (for a whole set) http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=Jane+Austen&tn=Persuasion&bsi=0&sortby=2&bx=off&ds=30&bi=0&y=14&yrl=1894&x=95&yrh=1910&prevpage=2
January 12th, 2007 at 10:38 am
I own the P&P game. I’ve played it with fellow Janeites, and we changed the rules somewhat to make it more difficult (OK, for a true obsessive, it will never be difficult, but we did our best) — the questions are all multiple choice, but we changed it so that each player had to come up with the answer on her own. Nuances are OK because, after all, we all know the story, don’t we?
As to marriage being the “ultimate goal,” why should you be horrified? Marriage was the “ultimate goal” back then.
January 12th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Okay, I rented The Lake House and, as much as I hate admit it, loved it. When Sandra Bullock asks her mom about her past, about a boy she loved but didn’t marry, and she responds “So that you could ask me this question one day.” I actually she a couple of tears. Silly me
January 12th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Horrified is perhaps too strong a word. Perplexed? Not at the “marriage as goal” part. Obviously from the novels and history that was the goal and a perfectly sound one at that; besides, what has changed since then, really? I am happily married, and while that was not my only choice, nor my “goal”, due to women now being financially independent, it certainly is not an unworthy prospect. I guess I was reacting a bit to the commercialization aspect. At first glance it seemed a bit mercenary, to make a game out of it. But another part of me really wanted to snap it up and play it all night long. Forgive my snobbery it actually sounds like you’ve had fun with it! I’d love to see how you’ve changed the rules, what you have added. I will bet you all have fun.
January 13th, 2007 at 8:52 am
I think the essential difference is in the times we live. In The House of Mirth, Lily Bart says to her (poor) suitor Lawrence Selden that a man can marry if chooses to; a woman must. House of Mirth is set on the early 20th century. In a hundred years, women’s position has improved a lot and no more a woman must to marry to maintain her status. But - honestly - aren’t unmarried women of certain age still frowned upon, as sad as it is? In that sense, a game that makes the marriage its ultimate goal is just a wee bit… controversial maybe? We always judge from where we stand.
January 13th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Yes, singledom gets a bad rap. I like the term “quirky alone” which I heard used to describe someone who chooses to live life as a single person and enjoy themselves fully!