Commercial Roots Everywhere

I found this story in my daily read of the online version of the Guardian: writers' favorite illustrations.
After looking through them all and recognizing many classics, I started to notice a pattern. All of the chosen illustrations, all ten of them, were by English artists. Hmmm. "How provincial," was my first reaction. I also thought, "How boring!" Why do we have to bring out these old chestnuts? Especially when we have so many incredible examples to choose from. Then I reread the story and noticed that it was "sponsored" by the Folio Society. Hmmm. Now I wonder if all of these illustrations are featured in the titles published by the Folio Society.

To be honest, the Folio Society books look really tedious. I shouldn't be surprised; if they're pitching them so hard, something's up (also think of all those financial resources burned up in advertising). I thought the Folio Society was maybe more like the Limited Editions Club, which has a history of amazing work.

I have one more complaint. Why couldn't the Guardian attached the most basic bibliographical information with the illustrations. What editions did these examples come from? We really don't know. It would be so easy to rectify errors like this if people learned a very basic lesson about the value of material evidence. Googlebooks also fails in this regard.

No more complaints. Enjoy the writers' comments about the illustrations. Even though I've been railing about the problems with this kind of journalism, I still love the illustrations (even though they're predictable and canonical).