Paperback-to-hardcover bookbinding project is almost done. Have a bunch of old paperbacks that I love and are falling apart, but I decided to do a trial run on a random book from my collection that is easily replaceable if it didn't work out.
Did some autumnal edge-gilding to start. I ended up not being super-happy with it--it's too casual/modern--but those were the stamps I had available at the time. I got some Victorian embellishments for the future.
Took off the cover, which was the scariest part because the spine glue was pretty cheap and fragile.
Got some gorgeous leather from @TanneryNyc and some contrasting end papers.
The only problem was the leather I wanted didn't come in a big enough piece, so I had to do the front and spine together and then join them to the back cover, which was a bit tricky.
I glued on the endpapers and used my Cricut to cut some chipboard covers and pieces to make the covers 3d.
From this experience, I learned that the Cricut's chipboard-cutting capabilities are only so-so. Housemate has a laser cutter, which I think I will ask to borrow next time.
I also used the Cricut to engrave the leather, thinking I would then use my pyrography pen to burn in the major lines on the cover to give it more dimension, and then gild on the top of it.
I have learned that gilding doesn't stick as well to burned leather.
I used the Cricut's foiling tool to do gold foil on the cover. Unfortunately, at the time I didn't know Cricut made bigger foiling sheets, so I was using the small ones, and the foiling didn't take where they were taped down. Plus, as you can sorta see in this pic...
I sort of stretched the leather downward when I was sticking it to the mat, so the patterns ended up not lining up. (You can see it on the title--basically I made the pattern on the leather too long by stretching it, compared to the original the Cricut was working from.)
So I ended up hand-lettering with some liquid gilding. I used a foiling pen to fill in the pattern in the center.
Unfortunately, all three golds are slightly different shades. :-/ It was also hard to fill in the pattern with the foiling pen, so there are gaps.
Then, on to the exciting part, gluing the leather to the chipboard covers and spine. I didn't believe that basic Elmer's glue would hold the leather to cardboard, so at first, I used superglue around the edges.
As it turns out, my instincts were completely wrong. Normal, schoolkid glue forms a nice tight bond between the leather and chipboard, even when it's dimensional, and superglue just peels off. I don't understand glue.
I had done resin "pearls" on the lattice pattern in the depressions, but I didn't like how that turned out (it was hard to make them consistent in size) so I used a tool I have no idea what it does or where it came from to dig them out and put in actual pearl-beads instead.
So, this is where we are now. I'm finishing up the pearls, I have to do gilding details on the lioness at the top, and I'm putting on a leather polish.
You can sort of see the line where I've done the polish on the bottom but not the top. It actually changes the color a bit, most notably on the distressed areas--before polish, they're light tan; after, they're dark brown.
Oh, and I made the join between the pieces of leather along a frame-line on the back cover. It's definitely noticeable, but I don't think it's too bad.
If I were doing it over again, I'd probably add an ornament on the blank spot on the spine, but I'm pretty happy with this as a first effort.
Anyway, there are a lot of bits of it that are sloppy, but it's ended up looking sort of weathered/old so they don't bother me that much, and I kind of like that it looks old.
Next up, Tal Ilan's book on women in Second Temple Judaism, for which I think I have a cool idea.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Hey, fellow elder millennials, if you're wondering why your salary seems high on paper but you have no money, it could be because you're still thinking in 2000 dollars, and 2023 dollars are very different.
I have a theory that our expectations for how much money is worth get stuck around how much it was worth when we first started having to pay for our own living expenses.
Obviously that varies--kids who grow up poor probably have to think about it a lot earlier--but for a lot of people my age, I suspect the first time we really had to think about, like, a food budget was when we went to college.
Yeah, the thing about diversity is it doesn’t mean any particular way of being is superior full stop. Different ways may do better in *some circumstances.*
Being different from the norm can feel superior because your way of being is *underutilized.*
The thing you learn if your brain doesn’t work like the standard, when you dig into how the world isn’t designed for you, and then apply what you’ve learned about yourself to observing other people?
There are no normies.
Everyone is a mosaic, and I don’t think there’s any one of us for whom every last piece fits the standard.
And if the ways in which you’re different are ones that are denigrated, it’s very tempting to view your difference as making you complex and deep where others are shallow.
So, don’t take it from me: take it from someone with a PhD: the way we conceptualize “religion” means that the only religion that exists is Christianity (and *maybe* Islam). (Thanks, @maklelan !) (1/x)
This is why I generally use the term “tradition” or “culture” or “practice” when talking about Jewish stuff.
As I keep saying, the religious/secular distinction is a Christian framework, and it is—sometimes explicitly, sometimes unacknowledged—a tool of colonialism.
The idea that you can just pull out the “religion” module of a culture and replace it with a different one (if you’re doing Christian evangelism) or none at all (if you’re doing antitheist evangelism) is… not how cultures work.
IIRC correctly, there's a correlation between higher IQ and higher rates of depression and other unhappiness--as one of my therapists said, "it's harder for smart people to figure out to be happy."
Like, we have a habit, in our fiction, of characterizing happiness as foolishness or oblivious. Simple people are happy because they don't know better.
But identifying what *actually makes us happy* is an emotional intelligence challenge most of us fail.
And almost everything in life that we pursue is a proxy for happiness: we think love will make us happy, we think fame or recognition will make us happy, we think money will make us happy.
We sacrifice a lot of things that might make us happy to pursue happiness proxies.
I’m hardly the first person to say this, but Luke’s gloss on the lost sheep parable that there’s more rejoicing over the repentant sinner than the 99 who didn’t stray has probably done more harm to the world than anything in the NT other than the Great Commission. So toxic.
Like imagine being a child abused by your youth pastor and hearing in essence that having abused you is PART of why he’s more spiritually valuable than you are.
After all, one needs to sin in order to repent. Combine that with the Christian idea that suffering is ennobling and not only is your abuser using your pain as a necessary component in his spiritual elevation, but he’s doing you a favor by giving you a chance to suffer nobly.
So—and this is not about Jamie Foxx, I’m not touching that one other than to point out that you should prioritize listening to Black Jews over anyone else on it—let’s talk about why the figure/story of Judas is antisemitic by itself, and why that’s so invisible to most Christians
The reason some Jewish scholars have suggested that the story of Judas is a later, ahistorical, and intentionally antisemitic addition is that it *doesn’t actually make sense* in the story.
It certainly is dramatic and emotionally evocative—conspiracy! betrayal! tragic end for a guilty villain!—but if you actually *read the story,* it’s superfluous.