The Book Forger: The True Story of a Literary Crime That Fooled The World

by Joseph Hone

Synopsis:

London, 1932. Thomas James Wise is the toast of the literary establishment. A prominent collector and businessman, he is renowned on both sides of the Atlantic for unearthing the most stunning first editions and bringing them to market. Pompous and fearsome, with friends in high places, he is one of the most powerful men in the field of rare books.

One night, two young booksellers - one a dishevelled former communist, the other a martini-swilling fan of detective stories - stumble upon a strange discrepancy. It will lead them to suspect Wise and his books are not all they seem. Inspired by the vogue for Hercule Poirot and Sherlock Holmes, the pair harness the latest developments in forensic analysis to crack the case, but find its extent is greater than they ever could have imagined. By the time they are done, their investigation will have rocked the book world to its core.

I have a weird quibble with Joseph Hone’s The Book Forger which is going to sound very, very niche, but took me aback: he talks about Dorothy L. Sayers, and compares the real people about whom he’s writing to her detective, Lord Peter Wimsey. He quotes from The Unpleasantness at the Bellona Club, and then… very bizarrely gets everything wrong, claiming that Wimsey has found arsenic on the victim’s shoe (no, he found varnish) and that he died of it (no, he died of digitalin). What actually happens is that Wimsey visits the analyst with the varnish sample, and the analyst is finishing up with a sample that’s full of arsenic unrelated to Wimsey’s case.

It’s just a weird sloppy mistake, and it’s not germane to the overall point he’s making or the real detective work he’s recounting, but at the same time… if he can’t manage to read that scene properly, or research it to check his recollection is correct, how do I trust the rest of the book?

I keep getting stick now and then for noticing and caring about this sort of thing (and counting it into my ratings), but in non-fiction, it does matter. If you get wrong a point I can verify, or interpret a study without noticing it has bias (in the technical sense, e.g. like selection bias), or just make a muck of explaining something I understand well… how can I trust the rest of the work?

Now, that aside I did rather enjoy The Book Forger. I knew little about Thomas J. Wise beforehand, and nothing at all about the two men who unmasked him (Pollard and Carter), so the fact that it’s careful to set the scene is helpful, though there’s a certain amount of imaginative reconstruction (quoting e.g. letters wherever possible).

It’s worth keeping in mind while reading it that a certain amount of it is fiction in a sense, but it does lay out the likely events, grounded in the evidence that’s available (so far as I can tell), and it is quite the story. I’d maybe have liked to see the impacts a bit more: do the fakes still circulate? Might there be more that we haven’t identified and dissected? How has it impacted e.g. scholarship?

Rating: 3/5 (“liked it”)