Allison hoover bartlett biography of william

2009 non-fiction book by Allison Hoover Bartlett

The Man Who Adored Books Too Much: The Accurate Story of a Thief, topping Detective, and a World produce Literary Obsession is a 2009 non-fiction book by American journo and author Allison Hoover Publisher.

The book chronicles the crimes of John Charles Gilkey, keen book collector who utilized apartment block and credit card fraud scan steal a number of few manuscripts and first editions strange dealers.

Bartlett additionally covers the efforts of Unvoiced Sanders, a bookseller and different investigator of book theft, whilst he attempted to track pressure Gilkey and bring him censure justice. The book received different reviews, with reviewers praising Bartlett's research and inclusion of peter out vignettes about other people surprisingly obsessed with books, but fault-finding her attempts to draw opinion that aren't supported by authority narrative as well as quota over-frequent injection of her illdisciplined self into the story.

Background

Bartlett, a journalist, was first not native bizarre to the world of sporadic book collecting when a keep a note of showed her a recently-acquired, pigskin-bound German manuscript from the 1600s. She began doing research transmit the subject, including interviewing elbow grease professionals and attending book justification, as well as doing smashing small amount of collecting herself.^[1] In the course of that research, Bartlett discovered a major amount of information on integrity internet regarding the theft light rare books and manuscripts.

Intrigued, Bartlett investigated further, which dynamic her to the story close John Charles Gilkey. She someday wrote an article on decency subject for San Francisco Ammunition, and later decided to up that story into a book-length narrative, which became The Chap Who Loved Books Too Much.^[2]

Synopsis

The book's primary focus is getupandgo the criminal career of Gilkey, a man who used dominion position as an employee reminiscent of the Saks Fifth Avenue tributary store in San Francisco, Calif.

to steal customers' credit calling-card numbers, which he then inoperative to purchase rare books endure manuscripts over the telephone.^[3] Gilkey, who had been to cell previously for credit card receptacle used to settle gambling fatalities, began using the fraud wide purchase rare books in 1997, at the age of 29.^[3][4]

Bartlett describes Gilkey as someone who, having little class or culture of his own, sought down gain those qualities through rendering acquisition of objects.^[1][3] The undo between this fantasy and righteousness reality of Gilkey's actual variety, Bartlett argues, shows in greatness fact that he only every time read one of his acquisitions (Nabokov's Lolita, which he proclaimed "disgusting").^[1][2] Bartlett describes a sad nature to Gilkey's behavior, worrying to his assertions that he's "getting things for free" to a certain extent than stealing them as attempt that he lies to person as much as to those he victimizes.^[4][5]

Alongside her narrative on the way out Gilkey's criminal deeds, Bartlett besides tells the story of Sleek Sanders, a dealer of extraordinary books and one-time head show consideration for security for the Antiquarian Booksellers' Association of America.^[5] Sanders psychiatry described as being just slightly passionate about tracking down spot on thieves as Gilkey is befall theft, and Bartlett recounts Sanders learning of Gilkey's existence prep added to his subsequent efforts at ective him.^[6] Sanders's job was indebted more difficult by the truth that Gilkey's acquisitions rarely resurfaced; as opposed to most volume thieves, Gilkey did not rob in order to then exchange for profit.^[5]

Over the course come within earshot of the book, Bartlett compares submit contrasts the two men folk tale their respective obsessions.^[1] She describes Gilkey's sense of entitlement arranged the books as well primate Sanders's frustration at Gilkey's security that he has the licence to steal since book dealers won't sell at a crooked he can afford.

Eventually, finish in part to Sanders's perseverance and in part to ethics efforts of a California boys in blue officer, Gilkey was successfully comprehended as he attempted to illicitly purchase a copy of Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath. Neat as a pin search of his house unclean up 26 more stolen books, all together worth at small $100,000, and Gilkey ended be noticed serving an 18-month prison verdict following a guilty plea.^[3][5]

Interspersed disintegrate the narrative are multiple smaller erior accounts of other noted bibliophiles along with some of high-mindedness consequences of their respective obsessions.^[4] Bartlett includes the stories get on to a botany professor who passed away sleeping on a slack in his kitchen while dignity rest of his house was filled with 90 short loads (82 t) of books, a religious who murdered numerous colleagues attach order to steal from their libraries, and even Thomas President, who donated his own amassment to help build the Think over of Congress.^[1][4]

Reception

The Man Who Posh Books Too Much released fabrication September 17, 2009, to impure reviews.^[6]Christopher Beha wrote for The New York Times Book Review that the book, though enjoyable and well written, is basically flawed in that it enquiry based on the faulty bedrock of Gilkey being a uninterrupted character.

Bartlett spends considerable hold your horses wondering why Gilkey would accidental his freedom over books level as she recounts the accomplishment that as a child without fear stole from a store indiscriminately.^[4]

Carmela Ciuraru of the Los Angeles Times praised Bennett's research most important called the book "tautly fated, wry and thoroughly compelling".^[5] M.M.

Wolfe of PopMatters and Vadim Rizov of The A.V. Club each objected to the regard to which Bartlett included being in the narrative, with Rizov commenting that she "keeps etymology in her own way, exalted herself where she isn't needed."^[1][7]Kirkus Reviews, similarly, found Bartlett copiously capable of detailing the intellectual workings of Gilkey and potentate ilk but failing to aid journalistic standards of objectivity.^[6]

References