Buying old novels for their illustrations

As a person who enjoys illustration, I sometimes buy old, damaged books simply to remove the plates.. Of course, I am only talking about the type of book you find at used bookdealers for a few dollars, at most, because the cover is such bad shape that most people won't even consider buying the book.

Primarily, I am referring to novels, because back around the beginning of the 20th century, and for the next couple of decades, novels often were illustrated. Many were illustrated by the best illustrators of the day, yet those are people it is very difficult to find books about, such as Harrison Fisher, Louis Loeb, Coles Phillips, Gordon Grant, Frederick Dorr Steele, and others. (I need to thank Walt Reed's THE ILLUSTRATOR IN AMERICA for even making me aware of most of the artists I refer to here. While that volume is wonderful, it also frustrates me somewhat, because it could only give a very small sample of the work of each illustrator included.) Since I have a special fondness for well-down ink drawings, a favorite illustrator of mine is Charles S. Chapman. Some of the drawings he did for rather vapid popular novels are stunning.

While some people refuse to break up a book on principles, there are couple of reasons I think my approach here is sound. In the first place, most of the illustraters I refer to were far better at what they did, and have proved far more enduring than the authors of the popular novels they illustrated.

Loeb, for instance, illustrated historical novels that most readers today would find to be soporific, at best. Yet for those who enjoy artistic visions of ancient scenes, Loeb's illustrations are as fascinating as many pictures on the same topic by the pre-Raphealites.

On the other hand, Harrison Fisher illustrated frothy, popular novels that strike most readers today as hopelessly boring, even for light reading, yet Fisher himself seems to have captured some timeless aspects of American popular culture.

While we are talking about breaking up damaged books for illustrations, we are not referring to literary classics, then. On top of that, I simply don't like to keep books with horrible- looking covers. I feel I have better uses for shelf space. As a result, removing and scrapbooking illustrations from books that fall into the above category seems wise. Anyone else do

(snip)

An owner of a small gallery I knew used to colour illustrations culled from books with watercolours. She did it in her office during idle time of which she had plenty, to supplement her income.

I presume the tarted up illustrations ended, cheaply framed, in some dentist's waiting room or similar establishments.

Jiri Borsky

That's pretty strange. I simply like to keep them for what might be called an enjoyable, accessible supplement to the ILLUSTRATOR IN AMERICA by Walt Reed. When you look up an artist in that excellent reference, Reed might give one or two example pictures, which is fine, because the book is 452 pages as is, and when we consider what Reed was trying to do, we must admit he did a wonderful job.

Many of those illustrators contributed a fairly large body of work throughout their careers, though. I think one thing which can't be denied is that the best of them were able to capture reality far better than the authors of some of those popular books they were illustrating. Of course, there are bad illustrators just as there are bad writers, but this situation with the popular books (from maybe 1890 to 1930) interests me because so many of the illustrators have proved to be so much better than the writers.

For instance, anyone who knows much at all about the history of illustration in America knows who Harrison Fisher was, but we certainly can't say that anyone who knows about the history of literature in America knows who Harold Bell Wright was.

That is not to suggest great writers like Jack London did not a ttract their share of fine illustrators, too, but it amazes me to find how much bad literature was illustrated by a genuine artist. Obviously, then and now it was about money. I suppose many publishers of the day were astute enough to realize that they could hire an outstanding illustrator for little or nothing more than they would have to pay a mediocre one.

By the way, in reference to the watercolors, did you ever see any those color-illustrated books from the same period I refer to above? Some of them are most impressive

The question I have for you is, why are you so defensive about this? If you are the owner of the books you can do as you please with them, including burning them! Why should anyone else have anything to say about it?

I do this. Sometimes it's for the illustrations on their own, and sometimes to use them in collage or as part of an assemblage. You'll find there are quite a few people on ebay trying to sell illustrations culled from old books, though many don't move unless they're a well-known illustrator or topic.

One thing our modern world has no shortage of is books. Goodwills and landfills are full of them. Repurposing tattered old books is as good a use as any for them, since you can't eat them, and I don't have a fireplace.

Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer