When we were bored

From time to time I moan, usually to myself, about how it is that so many books printed today do not open flat and stay open at the desired page, in the way of quite ordinary books from between the wars. With reference 3 being an example of the latter and with reference 1 being a modern example of the former - although I could not honestly say that this is the reason why I have never managed to finish this rather long book, interesting and well-written though it is.

While reference 2 is a French book from nearly the same year which does, more or less, pass the opening flat test. Part of this is its use of very thin paper, much thinner and more flexible than the rather stiff paper used for most books sold in this country. But I also have a theory that another part is the binding.

As can be seen from the snap above, the French book is much more visibly bound in signatures, a printing term for a large sheet of paper folded in half five times (say) to give 32 small sheets of two sides each, 64 pages in the finished book. So in the case of reference 3, the sheets look to have been folded three times, giving signatures of 16 pages. And as with most older books, there are obscure printers' markings at the bottom of the page just before or just after the start of each signature, for example: 'vii 12', with the next being 'vii 13'. I think the idea was to facilitate the assembly of signatures into books. And the thread used to sew the signature together is visible between the two facing pages in the middle of the signature. With various wheezes being used to bind the signatures together and to attach the covers to the whole.

My understanding is that modern paperbacks sold in this country do not bother with thread at all, the cut pages simply being clamped together and bound with a good dose of glue along the spine - which sometimes results in chunks of older paperbacks falling out. And never results in the book opening flat, you always have to hold it open at the page you are trying to read.

In reference 1, there is no sign of signatures, printers' markings or thread. While in reference 2, the signatures are clearly visible, there are no printer's markings that I can see but neat stitching is visible in the middle of each signature. The fly in the ointment is that the length of the signatures varies around 60, so neither constant nor a power of 2, as it should be according to the theory enunciated above. I suppose I could check more carefully if I get really bored.

Reference 1: top: Europe's Tragedy: A history of the thirty years war - Peter H. Wilson - 2009.

Reference 2: bottom: Le Petit Larousse 2008 - Larousse - 2007. An important adjunct to reading Simenon in bed, replacing for this purpose 'Le Petit Littré' which I used to use - perhaps a little to literary for Simenon, with his eye to the mass market.

Reference 3: The tales of Tchekov: Vol.VII, The Bishop and other stories - reprinted 1930 - translated by Constance Garnett. Chatto & Windus.