Reviews - The Man Who Loved Books Too Much

521 reviews for:

The Man Who Loved Books Too Much

An interesting story about a serial book thief John Gilkey and his obsession with books. The writer rightly ponders her own situation when she arranges meetings with Gilkey, visiting bookshops Gilkey had previously stolen from, and rightly so. The ethics of the whole thing baffle me. The writer knows Gilkey will commit more crimes, she consciously closes her eyes when seeing stolen goods, just so she can continue gathering material for the biography. The whole process didn't seem right.

The interviews are interesting and Gilkey's skill for self-deception and ability to justify his crime spree are creepy. The book offers insight into the world of rare books and parts where the victims and the "bibliodick" Sanders are interviewed were also great, though I can completely understand their ire for the writer.

Interesting book but the ethics of the writing process leave a bad aftertaste.

howse's review against another edition

4.5

adventurous informative mysterious slow-paced

bev_reads_mysteries's review against another edition

2.0

The Man Who Loved Books Too Much (2009) by Allison Hoover Bartlett purports to be the story of John Gilkey, rare book thief, and the man who helped catch him, Ken Sanders (book detective or "bibliodick" as he is dubbed). It is also Bartlett's tour of the world of rare books--the dealers and collectors and supposedly is a peek at what makes them tick. The cover announces that it is "Compelling with elegant suspense." Uh, no. Not compelling. Not the least bit suspenseful. And quite frankly, as a journalist, Bartlett leaves a lot to be desired. She inserts herself into the narrative--accompanying Gilkey on little jaunts to book dealers he has conned, to pay phones he has used in his scams, and generally behaving like a book thief's groupie. One wonders if his book-thieving ways has rubbed off on her--she opens the book by telling us that a rare edition of a 1630s German herbal medicine book has made its way to her desk. She makes an effort to track down the library that it belongs to--but by the time the book ends we don't know what she did with the thing. Last we know it's still on her desk and she's musing "...did not returning it make me a thief? Or was I a thief only as long as I kept it?"

Overall: This book is like a song with a single verse and chorus--played on repeat all day long every day that you read it. Bartlett is looking for what makes a person jump from law-abiding book collector to book thief and repeats this observation on Gilkey's book-lifting habit ad naseum throughout the book:

While many collectors build images of themselves through their collections, most of them do not cross the line between coveting and stealing. It was not just a collection Gilkey was building but an image of himself for the world....The leap between collector and thief is a huge moral and ethical one. {you don't say...}

She appears to think that the reader will see these comments as some sort of stupendous revelation--every. single. time. she makes them. [Most readers should be astute enough to get it the first time. And probably already knew it.] She jumps back and forth between saying that Gilkey is just like other collectors (the more books they get, the more they want) and not--because of that whole "thieving is bad" thing and he's a thief.

I also have a small issue with the title. Gilkey did not really love books. He loved having books that he thought others valued and in some twisted way he thought "owning" them would give him prestige. He felt like he had a right to them and if others had valuable books, then he ought to have valuable books too. He reminds of the rich man who has a trophy wife. He doesn't actually love her--he loves having a beautiful woman on his arm and considers it to reflect on him--his good taste, his position, he ability as a man. It's all about him--not her. And with Gilkey--it's all about him, not the books. He also seemed to get a bigger thrill out of stealing the books than actually having them.

The best thing about the book is the peek at the world of rare books. More of that would have gone a long way. And I think I would have been much more interested in a book that focused on Ken Sanders and others who hunted down book thieves. ★★ and a half--leaning more towards two than three.

First posted on my blog My Reader's Block. Please request permission before reposting. Thanks.