1) How useful were the pre-course readings?

1: Essential. As usual with RBS courses, the more you put in (doing the reading), the more you get out (benefit from the course). 2: The pre-course readings prepared one for the class and got one familiar with and confident about the subject matter. 3: Useful -- I appreciated the list of short optional texts, though a bit more annotation on each would have been helpful for initial decisions on what to look at first. 4: Very useful. They offered a good summary of publishing in our period. They become a necessary part of the course because of the length of the course. 5: Very useful. 6: The readings were useful and for the most part were reinforced by class work. It was odd to have one of the readings characterized by the instructor as "all wrong." (Why read it, then?) 7: Useful, and nicely chosen -- not too much, and well-written works. 8: Very useful -- they gave a very good survey of the period covered, and provided detailed information as well. 9: The readings gave a good background for the course. 10: Yes.

2) Were the course syllabus and other materials distributed in class useful (or will they be so in the future, after you return home)?

1: A list of books for further reading was distributed, but only fleeting reference was made to it, and I have not had an opportunity to evaluate it. Probably useful. 2: Yes. I especially appreciated the bibliography we were given. It is a manageable number of books, but with enough to expose me to the current state of the field and "classics." 3: Bibliography will be very helpful -- linotype sheet was good. 4: Yes. The bibliography will be especially helpful. 5: Fine. 6: Only a brief syllabus was given. The bibliography (which was extensive) will be very useful for further readings on the subject. 7: The bibliographies from RBS classes are always useful afterwards. 8: Yes -- I will use the extended syllabus for future reading and study. 9: I think the syllabus should be more detailed. The bibliography will be helpful in continuing the reading on this period. 10: Yes.

3) Was the intellectual level of the course content appropriate?

1: On balance, yes. However, the instructor was required to respond to too wide a range of knowledge and preparation. Some students were obviously ill-prepared. Others, in order not to disrupt the flow of instruction, needed to restrain their pursuit of some topics. 2: The course was structured more like a survey, which didn't lead itself to more in-depth discussions. The breadth/information presented required this format, however. 3: Mostly, yes -- my own purposes were best served when the lectures and questions focused on more general arguments about the relations between technology and culture, but I understand that other students have more specialized, technical points they want to discuss. 4: I think so. MW presented a good, coherent, and vigorous introduction to the period. The course is especially helpful to me in my graduate work. 5: Great. 6: Yes. 7: Yes, although it must be difficult to balance content for students whose technical knowledge and theoretical bents varied so widely. 8: Yes. Unfamiliar terms were explained, nothing was over my head. MW consistently asked if we had questions or weren't following the discussion. 9: Yes. 10: Yes, but at times I would have preferred it to be less general and more specific.

4) If your course had field trips, were they effective?

1: The visit to Special Collections was a pleasant diversion. The artifacts, including books, supplied by BAP and the instructor were more than adequate and were in fact one of the chief joys of the course. 2: I only understood on Thursday, when we were scheduled to discuss publisher relations, how well the Monday paper and Wednesday Special Collections trips fit into our topic. The instructor wove together the afternoon events to make our experiences diverse while staying on topic. 3: Yes -- I liked the opportunity to see the Whitman collection, and the vast number of the Whitmans -- while a bit overwhelming in quantity -- did have good pay-off. 4: Yes. The presentation on Whitman was especially good. 5: Yes. 6: Yes. Our examination of various editions and issues of Leaves of Grass gave a good understanding of some of the things that had been talked about in class. 7: Yes. 8: The afternoon spent in Special Collections looking at Leaves of Grass was excellent. We had enough time by staying there for two periods, and the presentation by MW was fantastic. 9: Yes. Special Collections is a great place to study the texts. 10: Yes, it was an excellent trip to Special Collections.

5) Did the actual course content correspond to its RBS brochure description and Expanded Course Description (ECD)? Did the course in general meet your expectations?

1: Yes. 2: Yes. I liked the course even better than the description. 3: Mostly, yes -- my main suggestion would be to emphasize the nineteenth-centuryness of the course. While the datelines goes up to 1940, the vast majority of time was spent on the 19^th century, and so the official dates were a little misleading. 4: Can't remember the description. 5: Yes. 6: For the most part. 7-8: Yes. 9: Not exactly. I hoped to learn more about the technical processes of production. 10: Yes, though I would have liked the course to have been a bit more date specific, because lumping everything into 140 years without date distinctions can be confusing.

6) What did you like best about the course?

1: Expertise of the instructor -- his contributions and knowledge of the field and the work of others. 2: MW's command of printing technology issues -- from gender and labor concerns to business records -- made this class much more than a class about books. His respect for physical evidence and contextual history gave us a greater understanding of the entire field. 3: Connections between technology and culture -- the pragmatic approach to bibliography, discussions of reading modes and practices. 4: MW's understanding of this period is far-reaching and detailed. I like that he refuses easy answers and truisms. He has had to figure much of this stuff out on his own -- publisher's records and accounting systems aren't readily or frequently explained, after all -- so he is able to speak about books and publishing from this period in a way that seems less like History 101 and more appropriate to serious study, academic or otherwise. 5: The instructor's knowledge is encyclopedic. He used the books in ways that supported that knowledge. 6: The structure of the course allowed me to develop a sense of both specifics and overall trends in the field of printing and publishing in c19 America. 7: The coverage of publishing history, the history of bibliographical theory and the history of the book field -- and MW's wide knowledge and experience in his field, including the manufacturing of books. 8: The instructor's presentation of the material, which seemed initially disjointed, all came together in the end to give us a clear view of c19 publishing. 10: The Walt Whitman lecture in the Special Collections and the Tent on the Beach demonstration.

7) How could the course have been improved?

1: Get down to business the first day, on which there was a good deal of temporizing. Avoid so much use of straw men in making points that may in themselves be valid. 2: Not sure if it could. The course assistants made the course incredibly smooth. 3: More emphasis on cultural/historical argument, and less on the detailed practices -- some of the details would be very helpful, but potentially shift the ratio a little. 4: Maybe one more case study? I thought the Stowe and Whitman presentations were especially good at showing the general trends of the period in relief. 5: The instructor's knowledge is vast. However, on occasion he seemed reluctant to be challenged. He also sometimes did not allow for the students to ask, and have answered, the questions that they obviously needed to ask and have answered. Sometimes I wondered if the course was more directed by the instructor's interests than the students'. Having said that, I can't imagine anyone better qualified to teach the course, and I do feel like I learned a lot more than anyone else could have taught me in a week. I just think the instructor needs to be more thoughtful about the structure of the course and allow a little more flexibility and time for questions. 6: At the opening session the instructor indicated that he welcomed questions and discussion, but this really was not the case until the last one and a half days. If the first few days needed to be devoted primarily to lecture (which was not a problem) that should have been indicated at the first session. 8: I would have liked a more structured and extended presentation of what was done on the final afternoon, when MW showed us publisher, printer and binder business records. It helped to tie much of the material together, and more with it would have been even better. 9: I think it would be good to have more slides during the talks -- ie in describing a linotype machine, show a picture of it. This would also have been helpful for the processes of book illustration. 10: If a bit more time was given to class discussion of the various theories and ideas given by MW. Also, he needs to be a little better organized in his presentations.

8) We are always concerned about the physical well-being both of the BAP's teaching collections and of materials owned by UVa's Special Collections. If relevant, what suggestions do you have for the improved classroom handling of such materials used in your course this week?

2: Handiwipes available in rooms if people find the need to wash up before handling books/items. 3: None. 5: I have no concerns. The stuff needs to be used and it is. But it is handled carefully. 8: Everything was handled with care and consideration, especially Leaves of Grass. 9: It would have been nice to be able to pass around the copies of Leaves of Grass in the baskets, so we could look closely without touching the books. 10: I would have preferred to have and handled more books, so wrap them in mylar and let be passed around so they can be true teaching collections.

9) Please comment on the quality/enjoyability of the various RBS activities in which you took part outside of class (eg Sunday afternoon tour, Sunday night dinner, evening lectures, Bookseller Night, Video Night, Study Night, tour of the Alderman digital/electronic centers, printing demonstrations, &c.).

1: I would rather have two lectures than both a Study Night and Video Night. 2: Rotunda -- nice talk -- liked exhibit. Tour -- N/A. Dinner - very nice. Really enjoyed meeting people straight off. TB lecture -- liked his reminder for people to support BAP. Shouldn't be embarrassed to say stuff like that to us, so glad he did. GA -- entertaining and informative. Bookseller Night -it rained, but I participated and enjoyed meeting friendly vendors. Study Night -- sparse attendance, but I appreciated the opportunity to access the materials. Video Night -- good videos. Would like more on mechanical processes. 3: Ok. 4: Bookseller Night is wonderful! 5: I missed having two lectures this week. Overall, however, the pace and tone of the week was more relaxed and I appreciated that. 6: All of the "extra" activities in which I engaged added to the overall experience and enjoyment of RBS. I particularly enjoyed GA's talk. 7: The new evening schedule was rather fun -- Study Night and Video Night were less formal than the traditional lectures and made it possible to appreciate the scope of BAP holdings. 8: GA's lecture on the Stinehour Press was excellent. Tuesday evening Bookseller Night is a winning idea. RBS staff rules! 9: GA's talk was especially wonderful. I think Study Night should have been scheduled from 5-7 or 6-8 to allow for some free time. I missed having the van take us downtown. 10: The RBS activities outside of class were well-organized and enjoyable. I liked the change in schedule from last year.

10) Any final thoughts? Did you get your money's worth?

1: Offer a master class on this topic. 2: Graduate students should be given consideration in the price structure. I used the only research grant given to me this year by my department to pay for this course. The individual U.S. institutional payment mechanisms make this a difficult dilemma, I understand. But in order to enlarge the circle of BAP supporters past small circles, you might consider aid to students in non-book history programs. 3: A very intense experience. 5: For one thing, I could do a much better job on this evaluation if it was given out the day before and I could work on and think about it over the evening. Instead, I have to cram my comments in the last half hour of the course time and it was a half hour the instructor managed to eat into significantly. I take these things seriously. I think criticism is vital to improvement. Give me the time to make meaningful criticism. 6: I got a great deal of useful information from the course. 8: This was a great class and I can't think of a better instructor for it. His range of knowledge is fantastic and he's incredibly considerate about continuing discussion after class. 10: Yes, my institution did [get its money's worth].

Number of respondents: 10

There were three rare book librarians (30%), three full time students (30%), two general librarians with some rare book duties (20%), one antiquarian bookseller and one retiree (10% each).

RBS Home