1) How useful were the pre-course readings?

1: It was very helpful for me to read this classic (Lehman-Haupt, The Book in America: A History of the Making and Selling of Books in the United States) again after 15 years (and nice to see it holding up so well), and good to be exposed to some other texts that I had been meaning to get to. 2: The reading choices were good and provided appropriate background for the class. 3: Very useful; became acquainted with a new book in the area. 4: Very useful. More required reading would have been a good idea. Items on the optional reading list were sufficiently relevant to have been required. The reading requirements were lighter than could have been expected and could be increased. 5: Well-chosen, with an eye to future reference. I appreciated not spending class time repeating their contents. 6: The Perspectives on American Book History: Artifacts and Commentary (Casper, Chaison, and Groves) text proved very useful; I found that the chapters on reading in Antebellum American and on zine production nicely augmented course discussions of how to consider readers and the challenges of / approaches to distribution (respectively). 7: The pre-course readings set up a background of facts and dates that were necessary for the course. 8: I was glad I read Lehman-Haupt before coming to get a basic framework. I never did finish the Perspectives book. 9: The pre-course readings were useful in giving a detailed resource to look up things that couldn't get more class-time. Also to bring everyone to a shared level of knowledge. 10: Very good -- right on target.

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: There was very little distributed in class. Although I have to say that I did not miss the absence of a course workbook or course packet. 2: There weren't many handouts -- the syllabus was more a guideline for presentation and discussion points. List of new academic books in the field seems very useful, and I hope to purchase several for my special collections unit. 3: Yes; particularly the bibliography of new books in the area. 4: Very. 5: Yes, especially the list of recent noteworthy texts in the field. 6: Yes. The book lists will be good reference tools and I was able to add notes to them during the course. The syllabus provided a nice roadmap and is useful for both review and for considering the construction of the course. 7: The course schedule was useful. It would be helpful to have a printed bibliography, although a lot of resources were discussed in class. 8: We didn't get a lot, but it was and will be useful. 9: Yes -- the only thing I wished is that we could have gotten the reading list sooner. 10: Yes. The lists of book examples could have had place and publisher in addition to author, title, year and UVa call number.

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

1: Absolutely. 2: Yes -- it was a good mix of broad philosophical content and specifics. Although this was an "introductory" course, MW adapted to the fact that the majority of the class had background in some areas that the course covered. He encouraged discussion that allowed class participants to learn from each other as well as from him. 3: Yes; I thought MW did a particularly good job of presenting at the right level for our group -- given the different interests and backgrounds of everyone. 4: Absolutely. 5: Yes; it provided the terms of interest, and elaborated productively as needed. 6: Yes. This course claimed to be appropriate to beginners in the field, and MW offered both a solid foundation in technical terms and concepts and challenging ways to think about their application. 7: Yes, given that it was advertised as an introductory course. The generalities of the discipline, discussed on the first day, could be shortened to allow for more lecture and discussion about the colonial/early American period. 8: Yes, it was intellectually stimulating. 9: Yes -- the professor was very engaging and our discussions brought in a variety of experiences and were lively. 10: Yes.

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

1: The two visits to Special Collections were wonderful; we could have used another, I think. Printing demo was important to complete understanding of the subject matter and was very ably managed by RBS staff. 2: The Special Collections visits were very useful -- and although MW explained why it is difficult to have more or longer sessions, I think more and longer would be helpful if a place and staff could be arranged. 3: Time in Special Collections very well spent -- if logistically possible it would be nice to have more time in Special Collections. 4: If it were possible, more time in Special Collections with primary materials would be useful. (See 6 below.) 5: The Special Collections sessions were great, and the chance to operate the wooden "fake" press accomplished more than any narrative could. 6: Yes. Though time spent in Special Collections necessarily seemed rushed, these were interesting sessions that solidified course concepts. 7: The Special Collections trips (two) were a highlight of the course. More time with the books there or in our classroom would be welcome. 8: Definitely -- I wish we could have spent more time there. 9: Very well spent. We could have done well with more time at Special Collections. 10: Very much so -- perhaps there could have been more.

5) What did you like best about the course?

1: This course had a wonderful mix of students, each of whom added interesting footnotes to MW's presentation. But it is truly awesome to learn from someone who owns his subject as MW does. He has a broadly synthetic approach that brings much current and recent scholarship to bear. His presentations were very lucid and compelling. 2: The sections on the book 1830 and beyond -- clearly MW's extensive knowledge about the American book in this period is amazing. The stories he told based on a career of research were engaging and well chosen -- I for one could have listened to many more and hope to take the other class he teaches. 3: 1) References to other sources (we learned of additional books or articles throughout the class) -- this list will be valuable for me later. 2) Overall narratives about particular books or incidents which served to illustrate specific points as well as larger themes -- MW does this very well. 3) Suggestions for approaches to research in the area. 4) Solid framework on which I can build. 4: The content was presented in a lively manner. MW has an encyclopedic knowledge of the discipline and the material. The lectures were organized and systematic and provided a clear framework. 5: I learned a narrative of American book production that will be vital to thinking about my own work, one that is complemented by MW's free offering of sources, methodologies, and (most appreciated) polemics. MW himself is the best thing about the course. 6: I most appreciated MW's use of specific references or descriptions to explain general comments of his approach to history of the book as a field which can allow and encourage us to look at the people behind and around "the" book. 7: Lectures and discussions that centered around the c19, the obvious strength of the instructor. Time with the books in Special Collections. 8: MW's ability to use his own extensive research and scholarship to make book history come alive. I liked all the references to other books and research going on in this field. 9: The professor's knowledge and level of engagement -- the questions -- there were some unforgettable books, as well. 10: The mix of students: i.e., librarians and academic types, and the mixed approach to the topic. Theoretical discussion as well as hands-on examples.

6) How could the course have been improved?

1: This course far exceeded my expectations for it; it was remarkably well-structured and conceptualized for a first-time course. 2: I was disappointed in the section on the Colonial book. Either the class dynamic hadn't come together yet or there weren't the same kind of personal research stories to tell. I selected this class to give me more background on the pre-1830's period that I know much less about. Perhaps there need to be two more advanced classes -- one 1600-1830 and then Michael's other class. 3: I liked the overview of methodology of the field and history of the field as intro, though an initial narrative about a particular text(s) that could lead into this background might serve to provide a stronger beginning to the course. Overall, I was very pleased with the course and felt that each day was incredibly informative and enjoyable. 4: Perhaps more use of visuals / illustration. Although I was very glad not to have slide lectures. 5: Perhaps the breadth covered during the Special Collections visits might have been narrowed, in order to allow for more discussion of individual works. And of course, I'd like an answer to the question of how to talk about readers. 6: It seemed like we needed more time to discuss the c19; though each period covered proved significant to our web. 7: More discussion and lecture examples of early American book history would have strengthened the first part of the course. A hands-on exercise or two would have added to the lecture/discussion structure of the course. 8: First day was a little confusing for me. More time in Special Collections or looking at books in class. More reading lists of books to read might be useful. 9: More time in Special Collections, more hands-on with RBS books. 10: Perhaps a little bit more "nuts and bolts" dates, facts, bibliographic examples, but this is not a complaint -- just a thought.

7) 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: N/A. 2: This really wasn't an issue for this class in my opinion. 3: None. 7: No concerns or issues. 8: Seemed fine the way it is. 9: None. Perhaps we non-conservators and RBS novices need some instruction in handling things? 10: None.

8) If you attended the Sunday and/or Monday night lectures, were they worth attending?

1: Yes, both were excellent: TB was very welcoming and provided important context and history of the school, a great introduction to the week; John Bidwell's erudite narrative was a good example of why we need to know more economic history. 2: John Bidwell's lecture was just great, and I look forward to taking the class he and Tim Barrett are teaching. TB's Sunday night comments gave me new information and some new jokes. 3: Yes. 4: Sunday lecture was a good, brief overview of the program. Monday lecture was interesting and well argued, but more specific in focus than could be absorbed by a general interest audience. 5: I thought that more informational introductions of RBS staff and faculty should have been offered on Sunday night. Not everyone is a repeat student. 7: Yes, both were worth attending. 8: TB is always fascinating to listen to. John Bidwell lecture was interesting also. 9: Very much so. 10: Monday night lecture was ok.

9) If you attended Museum Night, was the time profitably spent?

1: They were extremely interesting this year. It is very exciting to see the collections grow. 2: Both Wednesday and Thursday museums were wonderful. The ProScope is a great find. I really appreciate that TB shares these wonderful discoveries. 3: And Thursday Museum night and the videos. Yes! 4: Yes. Having an opportunity to handle materials was instructive. 5: N/A. 6: I enjoyed Museum Night because it provided a window into other courses and provided further description of some of the concepts we covered. 7: Museum Night is the highlight of the evening activities. The displays and the catalog are excellent. 8: Yes, I enjoyed looking at everything and managed to learn quite a bit.

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

1: I feel that I did receive more than my "money's worth" on several levels: watching a master teacher in action is of course very stimulating, and the content he presented really did change the way I think about the subject. As a result of this course my conceptualization of the history of the American book has been "re-mapped." 2: Yes I got my money's worth. Since this was the first time this course was taught, MW said he was working out the structure -- as is true in all teaching. Each day the class built on the previous day and the input from class members was a benefit. I suspect that this course will become more polished in the future, but I am glad to have taken it in this first variation as I am interested in teaching style and practice as well as content. 3: Definitely, I got my money's worth. Not only did I gain extremely valuable info from the class itself, but I also benefitted greatly from the knowledge of the other participants during out of class time. 4: Yes. Great. Bring socks and a sweater. 5: Absolutely. MW achieved an impressive balance between technical history and its social/intellectual/methodological implications. It gave me terms with which I can start to frame my own future work. Thanks! 6: Yes. Thank you. This was a great mix of people and ideas. 7: Even though this is an introductory course, there could be time for depth on more topics, especially in the first half of the course. 8: Yes -- very worthwhile. I would recommend the course. 9: This course was very good, and will only get better. Based on your interests, I might recommend MW's other class, which sounds like a more intensive look at the period in the middle of this course. The strength here was the ability to have discussions and reflect on methodology. 10: Yes. Good course! I came away with a lot.

Number of respondents: 10

There were five rare book librarians (50%), one teacher or professor (10%), two full-time students (20%), one museum employee who did not work in a museum library (10%), and one researcher (10%).

RBS Home