CHAPTER III

=The Literary Side of Library Rebinding=

After satisfactory materials and methods of binding for a library have been discovered and adopted, there still remain many questions which can be well answered only by one having a wide knowledge of books. Nor is a general knowledge of books alone enough to qualify one to answer wisely these questions. Close acquaintance with the library's policy in regard to book-saving and book-buying and of its attitude toward the demand for popular and ephemeral fiction; knowledge of its reference work; of the amount of handling its books receive by the public, and of its financial condition and policy--all this and much besides the person in charge of binding should have before she can make wise decisions. And particularly she needs knowledge of paper, editions, prices and similar matters.

Take fiction for example. More than half of the binding bills of most free public libraries are probably chargeable to novels. One of these comes to the hands of the person in charge of binding in such condition that at the first glance it seems desirable to rebind it. Let us suppose that it is still in publisher's cloth; is quite soiled outside, but still fairly clean within; that the cover has parted from the book in front; that several leaves are loose and two of them frayed at the edges; that at the back the outside sheets of several signatures are nearly worn through or broken; and that the label is off. Should it be rebound; or what should be done with it? Before deciding its fate, questions like the following must be answered.

If this is not the only copy of this book now in the library, are the other copies in good condition?

If they are, can the library spare this copy because the demand for this particular title is past? And is it not better economy to throw it away or sell it--as it will probably never be wanted again--than to spend money in binding it?

That is to say, if it is bound, will it not stand idle on the shelf?

If it continues to be somewhat popular, and this copy would get some use if it were replaced, still, is it a book the use of which it is the library's policy to encourage?

If not, has it not served its purpose and should it not be put away, rather than entail on the library another expense item in cost of binding?

If it is the only copy in the library, is it a book the library wishes to retain or has it been in effect on trial, and has proved not to be worth keeping?

If so, would not the binding of it be a use of money far less justifiable than its original purchase?

Or is it perhaps of interest now simply as a part of the history of fiction and so still worth keeping?

But, if kept for this purpose, does it need binding at all? Will not a little mending make it hold together sufficiently well? Perhaps the best plan would be to reclassify it for the literature section, wrap it in paper, mark the wrapper, and put on the shelf.

If it is a good book, in constant demand, the question is still not a simple one. Is it on poor paper, so poor that in our style of rebinding it will last but a short time? If so, would not a new copy be a better investment than the rebinding of this one?

If the paper is good enough for rebinding, will it stand mending and further wear without making its ultimate binding very difficult?

If there are other editions of this book obtainable, does this sample indicate that this particular edition is the best one to buy hereafter?

These and many other questions confront the librarian every time a book, of any kind, comes up for binding. Because they are not wisely answered the shelves of every library show examples of the unwise expenditure of money. To take a specific example in this same field of fiction. The library has several sets of Cooper. In each of them is the Chainbearer. Consider any one of the library's copies of this book: No one reads it. But mere shifting on the shelf gradually wears it out. It goes through the bindery, and, being by Cooper, and a novel, it is bound, in the same style as the Spy which happens to go with it, in half leather. The Spy is used; the leather on it keeps soft and pliable and wears a year or two, until the book is too dirty to keep it longer. But the Chainbearer stands untouched and its leather hardens and breaks. It must be bound again within three or four years, even though it has not been lent once in that period. If it had received a plain cloth binding, that binding would have cost less and lasted indefinitely. If it had been thrown away the library would have been the gainer.

The problem is not less complex when books in classes other than fiction are up for consideration. Many of them are rarely used; why rebind them at all, no matter how broken? To tie a string about them or to wrap in paper and mark them would often be wiser economy. Often they are single volumes from long sets, an edition, for example, of some history bound about 1800. The binding is calf. In rebinding, to match the set is very unwise, for all calf now on the market will rot in a few years. It must be bound, let us suppose, as it is occasionally called for; yet it will not, like a popular novel, wear out or become unbearably dirty in a half century.

Shall it be put in morocco? This would be a mistake, for it is doubtful if present-day morocco will last 50 years, probably not half that time. The only alternative is cloth, and that with no leather title label on the back. One of the best things is, for a large book, heavy duck back, light gray or light green, lettered in printers' ink, with sides of any good book cloth. This spoils the looks of the set. Moreover, the cloth catches dust and dirt, and grows soft and flabby. But it is today one of the few safe bindings. If the book is small, full art canvas or imperial morocco cloth is better.

So, as I have said, paper, leather, cloth, sewing, joints, gold, and many other things the librarian must know; and to these must add knowledge of literary values, popularity of books and authors, editions, prices and a score of other things before he can be sure, if he ever can be sure, that he is really binding economically, in the long run.