1) How useful were the pre-course readings?

1: Very useful for background -- some were pretty intense, but those not required, only suggested as reference works. 2: Pre-course readings were useful. History of the Book in America provided a good overview of the subject. Gaskell especially helpful for learning about processes of book production. 3: Required text of limited usefulness, but recommended readings were incredibly useful. 4: Useful but rather dull. 5: Reasonably useful. I liked the main text (Lehmann-Haupt), but not all of it was relevant; and since it is old, it does not deal with a lot of issues that have recently become interesting to book historians. I would recommend a more varied list including some more recent readings in the field. 6: Useful for conveying aspects of the topic not covered in class. Not sure I would have been disadvantaged had I not done the readings before class. 7: Very useful. 8: Lehmann-Haupt's Book in America gave an adequate overview, although much of the information in the book requires MW's clarification and lectures to fall into place. I would have liked pre-course reading with more diagrams and pictures of new technology. 9: Useful.

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: Both -- bibliography will be very useful as a reference later. 2: Class materials were appropriate. I found the course bibliography helpful, and think others would benefit from it as well! Explaining it would be even more helpful. 3: They will be very useful for teaching presentations at home institution. 4: Yes, appropriate and useful. 5: Yes. I can only say I wish there had been more such material. I would have been willing to pay for photocopying. 6: Only thing applicable here were the bibliographies, which will be quite useful not only for myself, but also to colleagues who will need references for the subject matter of the course. 7: Useful while in class and in the future. 8: Helpful. 9: Yes.

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

1: Yes. 2: The class had students from a variety of backgrounds, yet the intellectual level of the class was appropriate for all, I believe. 3: Yes -- especially given different backgrounds of students. I would have preferred more discussion of the book and its place in American cultural history. 4: Yes, at some moments over my head. 5: Personally (speaking as someone with a PhD in history) I wish it had been somewhat higher, but I recognize that RBS has a diverse constituency. 6: Mostly so, there were a few times when terms were used that I wasn't sure of; however, in most cases, explanations were given. In fact, in at least one area, course content was not intellectual enough. 7: Excellent! 8: Yes. MW can speak in depth on so many of these subjects, but he takes time to describe the technical innovations of the c19 in a clear way; occasionally I wish that he would have pushed ahead a little more quickly. 9: Yes.

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

1: Well spent, though I know we all were eager to handle the materials more than really would have been good for them! 2: Visits to Special Collections were definitely valuable. The opportunity to view books first-hand is a strength of RBS. In fact, such visits represented some of the most exciting aspects of the class for me. 3: Yes -- we did feel rushed toward the end of sessions, since we didn't always stay as focused as we might on the books at hand. 4: Very well spent. 5: Absolutely. The sessions we spent examining books in Special Collections were the best part of the course. 6: From the standpoint of using Special Collections as a place to show examples, I would say yes. Seating arrangement could have been better to see the examples, however. 7: Very much so! 8: Yes. I especially enjoyed the presentation on Willa Cather to illustrate bibliographical definitions. 9: Yes.

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, though a bit more detail on appropriate topics would have been helpful. 3: Yes. 4: Yes, with very interesting personal recollections added. 5: Yes. 6: Approximately, but not precisely in every case. There were a couple of subject areas where the subject being covered was not directly expanded or contextualized in c19 or early c20 terms. Otherwise, it was right on. 7: Quite closely. 8: The course description promises to cover so much that it is difficult to anticipate which subjects the course will emphasize. MW has discussed a number of topics that I did not expect to encounter. All has been valuable. 9: Yes.

6) What did you like best about the course?

1: Variety of backgrounds represented by classmates -- after some initial hesitancy, everyone contributed their specialized knowledge or experiences, when appropriate, which was moderated well by the instructor. 2: I especially enjoyed the visits to Special Collections and the presentations which drew on primary source material. 3: Demonstrations and hands-on exercises with collections made explanations and lecture material much clearer and will profoundly change the way I teach c19 American literature. 4: The instructor's discussions of personal experiences in the field. 5: Examining actual books as MW explained what we were looking at. Also interactions with my classmates. 6: Illustration -- by use of example. In terms of subject matter, by far the best feature was explanations of terminology. A second thing would be aids and advice on doing further research in this subject area. 7: MW's enthusiasm for the subject matter! As a result, I leave RBS with a good background of the history of the American book during this period (1820-1940). 8: MW decodes the printing and publication of the machine-made book. His knowledge and appreciation of the subject is one of the main pleasures of the course. 9: Special Collections visits.

7) How could the course have been improved?

1: Perhaps a time line of sorts could be included as a reference handout, with some indication of developments in say papermaking in relation to machine inventions. 2: A bit more detail in some topics covered may be useful, e.g. more on illustration, copyright, &c. 3: One of my goals was a sort of systematic overview of U.S. publishing history 1880-1940 and a "big picture" of issues/questions on book scholarship of the period. Digressive style made it difficult to cover this material -- although it's in course outline. Shift emphasis/time spent away from book production/material parts of scholarship toward larger cultural and intellectual issues -- i.e. three days on cultural/intellectual issues vs one or two. 4: For me personally, if some discussion of American publishing in areas other than literature -- i.e., natural history, exploration, &c., had been included. 5: This is my first RBS course, and I recognize that I might have preferences that don't really match the RBS way. But I wished there had been more discussion, more interaction between MW and us. The course was run pretty much as a lecture course, and I would have liked more exchange. Also I wonder if the course could be improved by splitting it in two. I think 120 years, especially such crowded years, is a lot to cover, and the twentieth century was barely treated. Perhaps the course should be divided into two: the c19 and the c20. 6: Too much about typography and platemaking; the discussion on literacy could have been more brief. I would have liked more on other genres such as non-fiction publications; university presses; more specific genres such as dime novels, &c. 7: I would have liked to have had a little more history on dustjackets as they pertain to this period and their importance as advertising media for the publisher and their general importance as carriers of information related to the author, &c. that is not noted in the book. 8: The visual examples and exercises in books cemented the teaching. I would have liked to have had even more examples. 9: It could have been better organized.

8) We are always concerned about the physical well-being both of the RBS 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?

1: We might use gloves as a matter of course when handling rare books, in some ways a best practice, if not an absolute necessity. [Not so. -- ed.] 3: N/A. 4: With one exception (myself), the students were professionals and handled the materials appropriately. I startled the instructor when taking out a pocket knife to examine a wood block, but only used the magnifying glass on it! 5: I have no suggestions. 6: No suggestions. Everything seemed fine. 7: None -- careful handling was stressed repeatedly. 8: This course could benefit from the use of book trays and supports. Books were not always carefully handled as they were passed around. 9: We did not have book supports in our classroom and were handling rare/fragile books.

9) Please comment on the quality/enjoyability of the various RBS activities in which you took part outside of class (e.g. 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 confess I generally skipped these to either have down time or just do computer work, but I'm just like that. Others seemed to enjoy the activities a great deal. 2: The extra-class activities are an important part of RBS. Being able to discuss topics of interest with colleagues adds greatly to the entire learning experience. 3: Study Night and Video Night were less enjoyable and informative. I would have loved a tour Sunday pm for orientation (canceled due to rain). 4: All pleasant and worthwhile, with good conversation at the coffee breaks. 5: Everything was great. I participated in all the activities (while appreciating that I did not have to) and enjoyed them all. 6: Most were fine; Study Night could have been a little more structured, and not focused so much on press books. 7: MW's lecture on Monday evening very good. Videos seen on Video Night plus the ones we elected to see during our lunch breaks were in synch with the course matter. 8: MW's Monday lecture was interesting and helpful. (This afternoon's discussion of Uncle Tom's Cabin contributed an additional source of interest.) 9: Very enjoyable, good company and good snacks.

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

1: I think I've benefitted professionally and spiritually from the opportunity provided by this course to consider, in exquisite detail, the history of how a group of books was created and published during time spent in the company of an equally intense instructor and group of classmates during time spent away from the variety of other demands in my workplace. 2: Certainly got my money's worth, and look forward to attending again in subsequent RBS sessions. 3: Yes. 4: Yes, I got my money's worth, and learned that there was a vast amount of detailed information involved in analyzing the publication of literary works. 5: Absolutely. This is my first time at RBS, but it won't be the last time if I can help it. 6: I really can't say. It will take some time to realize the potential for what I received. I will say, however, that it is quite expensive. 7: Yes, I feel I got my money's worth. 8: Yes. MW brings expertise and explanation to innovations and printing techniques of the c19. Students might want to emphasize specific subjects of interest in order to direct the focus of the class in the areas of publication and distribution. In short, MW should not have doubts about this course. It provides an essential understanding of the machine-made book. 9: I thought that too much class time was wasted with non-relevant discussion. I did not learn as much useful information as I had hoped to.

Number of respondents: 9

There were four rare book librarians (45%), one professor (11%), one full-time student (11%), one conservator, binder, or preservation librarian (11%), one book collector (11%) and one person with a scholarly interest in book history (11%).

RBS Home