You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.34 AVERAGE
3.34 AVERAGE
This is your book if you enjoy the psychology of thieves and cons, but not if you like a glossy story of thievery and cons.
The most interesting parts of this book were the history and inner workings of rare book collecting and also rare book theft. The actual story of the particular thief and the author's conversations with him got tiresome pretty quickly.
A fascinating look at the world of buying, selling, and collecting rare books. And, oh yes, stealing valuable books. I love books and can understand the impulse to own valuable books--and I wish that the thousands of books in my house were valuable to someone other than me. However, John Gilkey crosses the line. His psychological obsession with possessing these books and his unconcern about the ethics of stealing books from dealers eventually lands him in prison. Gilkey used his job at Saks Fifth Avenue in San Francisco to collect credit card numbers which he then used to defraud dealers all over the country, but primarily in California. This book details how John Gilkey was able to pull off his scam for so long, how Salt Lake City book dealer, Ken Sanders, was able to figure out how he operated and finally have Gilkey arrested, and how the book trade operates. Barlett includes lots of information about book theft and hording through history and is able to help readers understand the vintage book trade. While I loved the story, I think that this book could have benefitted from some vigorous editing to tighten the narrative and avoid repetitive material. A very interesting read.
informative
fast-paced
This is really 2.5 stars. Bartlett is a good writer, and the story is interesting. Gilkey's twisted justifications for his crimes are fascinating in a disturbing way.
That being said, it kind of peters out at the end, and honestly, I was pretty frustrated with Bartlett by the end too. She does something that irritates me in a lot of modern nonfiction, where she inserts herself into the story when it is not necessary, and she also frequently stated that she found people's motivations baffling that were really not that baffling. She even wrote pretty directly about what those motivations were and it wasn't exactly anything original. I don't really see why seemed so baffled by why Gilkey stole. It was pretty straightforward. But that's not what really got me.
I don't claim to be an expert on journalistic ethics, but I did do quite a bit of research on the issue of ethics regarding writing nonfiction for my thesis (Oh, Truman Capote, you were brilliant but not always a paragon of virtue). As a result, some of Bartlett's admissions about things she did and didn't do based on Gilkey's revelations of previously unknown crimes and the probable location of his unrecovered loot infuriated me. I'm really surprised her editor didn't call her out for it, though she does admit some of her other sources did.
I don't deny that she was in a difficult position, but I wish she would have been more forthright about it and owned her decision-making rather than offering lame excuses and citing the legal opinions of attorney friends. Her justifications reminded me of Gilkey's but were a lot less interesting. I think if she had done that and been a lot more transparent about the ethical dilemma she was in, her actions would have bothered me a lot less, even if I still disagreed with them.
Soap box rant over.
That being said, it kind of peters out at the end, and honestly, I was pretty frustrated with Bartlett by the end too. She does something that irritates me in a lot of modern nonfiction, where she inserts herself into the story when it is not necessary, and she also frequently stated that she found people's motivations baffling that were really not that baffling. She even wrote pretty directly about what those motivations were and it wasn't exactly anything original. I don't really see why seemed so baffled by why Gilkey stole. It was pretty straightforward. But that's not what really got me.
I don't claim to be an expert on journalistic ethics, but I did do quite a bit of research on the issue of ethics regarding writing nonfiction for my thesis (Oh, Truman Capote, you were brilliant but not always a paragon of virtue). As a result, some of Bartlett's admissions about things she did and didn't do based on Gilkey's revelations of previously unknown crimes and the probable location of his unrecovered loot infuriated me. I'm really surprised her editor didn't call her out for it, though she does admit some of her other sources did.
I don't deny that she was in a difficult position, but I wish she would have been more forthright about it and owned her decision-making rather than offering lame excuses and citing the legal opinions of attorney friends. Her justifications reminded me of Gilkey's but were a lot less interesting. I think if she had done that and been a lot more transparent about the ethical dilemma she was in, her actions would have bothered me a lot less, even if I still disagreed with them.
Soap box rant over.
informative
reflective
fast-paced
adventurous
informative
lighthearted
medium-paced
Really sharp and really informative, though I found some of the meandering historical stories of other book collectors and thieves a little weirdly placed or dry at times. Gilkey is a fascinating person, and I liked Bartlett's personal musings on what was going on! As a Salt Lake City native, I also enjoyed the focus on Ken Sanders, considering he's in my backyard and I love that bookstore! If you're from the area, I really recommend this- especially if you haven't gotten around to reading Sanders' memoir (something I've been putting off for a while).
adventurous
informative
reflective
slow-paced
informative
medium-paced
informative
reflective
medium-paced