Login

Or
Register Now


Already have an account?
Username:

Password:

Remember me

Lost Your Password?
Main Menu
Collector's Guide Table of Contents
Recent Visitors

Trotter
1 hour 8 minutes ago

Stu
1 hour 9 minutes ago

wellinghall
1 hour 21 minutes ago

Deagol
1 hour 30 minutes ago

laurel
7 hours 29 minutes ago

remy
7 hours 43 minutes ago

Khamûl
8 hours 3 minutes ago

Jlong
8 hours 31 minutes ago


« 1 ... 1787 1788 1789 (1790) 1791 1792 1793 ... 2072 »


Re: We have pleasure in sending the accompanying book for review...
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/11/24 11:12
Group:
Shirefolk
Fellowship
Posts: 640
Offline
My wife's grandmother was a book reviewer. We have her review copies of LotR. As far as I can tell, these are identical to the normal first edition / first impression (although I have never done a detailed, point-by-point comparison).

Posted on: 2008/6/16 5:17


Re: We have pleasure in sending the accompanying book for review...
Thain
Joined:
2006/5/26 20:36
From California, USA
Group:
Thain
Shirefolk
Fellowship
Posts: 1202
Offline
I've seen all sorts of "review copies" out of HarperCollins and Houghton Mifflin over the years. In my mind an Advance Reading Copy (ARC) is the first edition gatherings perfect bound (glued into paper wraps) rather than case-bound into the hardcover form. In modern terms (the digital age), there is no difficulty in changing the text in the few weeks or perhaps months between when the ARC is sent out for comment and when the first edition is printed, so it is not unusual to have changes between the two. It used to be (back in the day of setting type in blocks for printing) that there was no difference at all between the review copy and the first edition, as there was not time to reset anything between the two.

The above is just my opinion, though. There is no hard-and-fast definition for ARC. It can mean either a proof or galley copy sent out for comment, or a first edition sent out early to allow the book to be read and reviewed by the time the book becomes publicly available. I have seen ARCs that specifically state on the wraps that they are not the final text to be published.

ABC for Book Collectors by John Carter and Nicolas Barker, now in 8th edition, is an excellent resource for terminology such as this. It says for Advance Copy: "...are normally either final proofs or the first sheets to be gathered of the main run...." So it doesn't call one out as preferred over the other either.

It does say that a Review Copy is usually a first edition copy with a slip laid in or some other marking on it (no mention of proof's being sent as a Review Copy.)

It also says for Proofs that "Whereas the bibliographical distinction between wrappered final proofs and Advance Copies is significant, the physical differences are often slight, or non-existent."

ABC is a great reference (and even a great read, as there are a lot of tongue-in-cheek references or in-jokes scattered throughout), and significant portions of the book are self-referential - for example, the Paste-Down Endpaper is labeled as such, so you know exactly what one is.

Posted on: 2008/6/15 20:53
_________________
- Jeremy


Re: We have pleasure in sending the accompanying book for review...
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/6/6 5:20
Group:
Shirefolk
Fellowship
Posts: 194
Offline

For the review copies (Advance Reading Copies or ARCs for short) that I have seen for the HOME series, they are mostly non-finished text bound in simple paper wrappers - clearly sent out much further in advance than the Silmarillion copy I saw.


Hi Rowns,

I presume technically speaking, that these would really be Uncorrected Proof Copies as opposed to Review Copies.

I do not know the strict definitions, and although a 'Proof' copy may be sent out for review, I would consider a 'Review' copy to be identical to the regular trade edition, whereas a 'Proof' copy may be bound differently and have many textual differences - and be an earlier state of the edition?

But I would think it important to distinguish between a 'Review' and 'Proof' Copy.

Have I got this right or are there circumstances whereby an ARC would have textual differences to the First Trade Printing?

Remy.

Posted on: 2008/6/15 15:27


Re: We have pleasure in sending the accompanying book for review...
Thain
Joined:
2006/5/26 20:36
From California, USA
Group:
Thain
Shirefolk
Fellowship
Posts: 1202
Offline
I dug up my notes on the US Silmarillion.

The book and letter were sent out August 10, 1977. The book appeared to be identical to the trade 1st edition in all regards, but I don't have it in hand to verify 100% any more. Given the size of the print run, there is essentially no chance whatsoever that they were still making changes to the text at this late date.

For the review copies (Advance Reading Copies or ARCs for short) that I have seen for the HOME series, they are mostly non-finished text bound in simple paper wrappers - clearly sent out much further in advance than the Silmarillion copy I saw. I did have a review copy of The Book of Lost Tales Part I that was just one of the trade 1st edition copies (printed in Great Britain) with an ink stamp on the top of the page block that said "not for resale".

Douglas Anderson in The Annotated Hobbit (p. 15 Revised and Expanded edition, 2002) states that the book was printed in June, but withheld from release until the fall in order to let review copies be sent out and to target the Christmas market.

Posted on: 2008/6/15 12:46
_________________
- Jeremy


Re: We have pleasure in sending the accompanying book for review...
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/6/6 5:20
Group:
Shirefolk
Fellowship
Posts: 194
Offline
Hi Khamul,

In reply to your first post. I don't think I have review copies from any of the earlier editions, but have a few from more recent publications (all with review slips):

1992 Tolkien Family Album
1998 Silmarillion, illustrated by Ted Namsmith
2002 History of Middle Earth - 3 Vols Large Print
2007 Hobbit 50th Anniversary
2007 Children of Hurin (US Edition).

And of lesser interest, review copies of various books of Tolkien Criticism.

In reply to your second question, I always assumed (though am not absolutely 100% certain) that review copies were just part of the First Print Run and as such no different from a regular first print and just sent out for review prior to the actual publication date.

Remy.

Posted on: 2008/6/15 9:22



 Top
« 1 ... 1787 1788 1789 (1790) 1791 1792 1793 ... 2072 »