54: History of the Book in America [H-15]
5-9 July 2004
1) How useful were the pre-course readings?
1: Lehmann-Haupt was extremely valuable. I haven’t looked at Perspectives in American Book History yet. 2: Extremely helpful. I learned a great deal both from the required and suggested reading, and plan to do more when I return home. 3: I was very impressed with Lehmann-Haupt’s Book in America especially – a great book with clear information available. The other books listed were also important readings for the background information. Especially the colonial era. 4: Pre-course readings were very useful. Since I had no background in the history of the book, it gave me a context for class lectures and discussion. 5: Very. 6: Lehmann-Haupt was a very good narrative history of the subject. Perspectives should be optional reading. The documents it presents are idiosyncratic and lack any useful essays placing them in context. Select chapters from [Amory and Hall, eds.] The History of the Book in America: The Colonial Book in the Atlantic World would have been useful as required reading. 7: A fine suggestion list for pre-course. Lots of room for options. 8: Lehmann-Haupt useful, but I could read it only in short bites. Perspectives interesting, but more for the content of the excerpts, which are more general, social, political history than book history. 9: Perspectives was very helpful. The History of the Book in America much less so – I felt it wasn’t well-organized, and was a bit repetitive. 10: Very useful. 11: Very useful and a very manageable amount of reading.
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: Yes. There was no “packet,” but I didn’t feel the lack. It was less burdensome to have just a few simple, useful handouts. 2: Bibliography of recent work in history of the book interesting and helpful. Appreciated lists of books viewed from Special Collections, as this made it easier to take notes during sessions (would have been even better with full publishers imprint). 3: The recent publications will be useful for future reading in the field of the “book.” Thanks for the newest publication listing! 4: MW’s recommended reading list and bibliographies were appropriate and will be useful. 5: Syllabus was very useful. A bibliography of pertinent sources would have helped. 6: Yes. 7: Limited amount of handout material which is adequate. A good solid bibliography and many in-class reading suggestions made orally. 8: Yes. 9: Not many handouts, so note-taking is essential. But I liked that aspect of the class. 10: Not heavy on the handouts, which is fine.
3) What aspects of the course content were of the greatest interest or relevance for your purposes? Was the intellectual level of the course appropriate?
1: MW was terrific at establishing the history of the field with its different strains of scholarship. I felt very well situated. Also loved his passing references to works relevant to the topic under discussion. I can’t wait to extract them from my notes, make lists, and read! Content and intellectual level were right on target. 2: I have very uneven background in history of the book, with pockets of knowledge and ignorance. The course helped bring together these fragments, and enabled me to make interesting connections. Thematic approach – rather than strictly chronological – was particularly useful method of showing patterns and trends. 3: Yes – the intellectual level was great. I didn’t know that much about the colonial period, so I enjoyed learning more, and also the period after the mid-century and e-book, &c. 4: Everything? The books and other materials that we could examine in the classroom, the special collections, the lectures, the optional videos. 5: The historical overview of book history as an area of scholarly endeavor. The intellectual level was perhaps a bit elementary, but the week was very intense in the amount of material covered, so perhaps that level was best. 6: The treatment of the c19 book was excellent and informative. It would have been good to have more in-depth treatment of the colonial book. The intellectual level of the course was high and gave valuable perspectives on the reading for the course. 7: The intellectual levels were always appropriate. A very solid general introduction of all aspects of book production, reception, and distribution in America from colonial period to current day. The greatest relevance was in the very good presentation of the colonial period. 8: As a non-archivist, non-bibliographer, I discovered a whole world I was only vaguely aware of before. I had no idea people spent so much time on such detail of the physical aspect of books – very interesting, if not currently relevant to my work. Level of course was appropriate. 9: Intellectual level of the course was very good, and the more general survey approach was very helpful. I most benefitted from the discussion of colonial printing and MW’s expertise on c19. 10: Yes. A very useful overview. Especially liked the colonial book and c19. 11: The course was wide ranging, covering a great deal of material. The professor, MW, is incredibly knowledgeable, and class sessions were useful, stimulating, and challenging.
4) If your course had field trips, were they effective?
1: I loved these sessions. MW is good at talking about all aspects of a book. These are the best book discussions I’ve ever had because they integrate knowledge of physical aspects and publishing and printing history with literary insight. 2: Yes, as always, Special Collections visits make concrete the abstract. I think MW can talk with authority, and even interest, about almost any book ever published in America. Also appreciated printing and type composing demonstrations and videos, which all complemented the lectures. 3: Yes, time well spent on the visits. The show and tell about the press was cool, and watching MW put together a line of type was fun to watch. 4: The Special Collections sessions and the demonstration of the hand press greatly enhanced the educational experiences. 5: Very well spent; seeing the rare book examples was crucial. Working the wooden hand press was a genuine highlight – something I have always wanted to do. 6: Yes. Our two sessions with Special Collections materials were well tied in with the subject discussed in lecture. MW’s discussion and comments on the materials we saw were excellent. If possible, a third session with Special Collections materials would be desirable. 7: Very well spent. We looked at a combination of “important” items and also items that represented points made in class. Very well organized presentations of items. 8: Visiting Special Collections is always worthwhile – love it. 9: Because Special Collections was moving, books were brought to us. That was great service, but I regretted the fact that we didn’t actually spend any time in Special Collections. 10: Yes. Show and tells are essential in a survey. 11: Very well spent. MW used these sessions both to demonstrate broad principles/characteristics of the book trade, and to discuss individual books in detail.
5) What did you like best about the course?
1: MW. I love him. As I said above, his range is what makes this course so great. He seems to be able to cover everything – minute bibliographical detail, book history, general history, economics, historiography, in a digestable form – in a way that should be impossible for any individual. It’s fascinating to learn about his methods of research. How many scholars go so far? What a privilege to have spent a week with him. I can’t say enough. 2: MW has a very creative way of looking at things and bringing things together. He is also a great story teller. He knows current and past work done on history of the book, and can supply a reference about almost any topic. 3: Learning from MW – he has great knowledge and understanding of the book. He allowed time for questions, showed many visual things, but yet kept us on the history of the book. Followed the course outline as listed in the class schedule. He’s a great teacher! 4: The opportunity to be taught by such an esteemed expert as MW, in the company of such an illustrious group of classmates. 5: MW’s expertise – he can dredge up a detailed answer to any question. 6: The course is not simply a narrative rehashing of the required reading. MW’s lectures give valuable insight into the information in the required and optional readings. 7: MW is a very, very fine instructor. His ability to mix and present the results of his own research, the research of others, and anecdotal information about the topics is exceptional and kept the class firmly engaged. Anyone would be extremely lucky to have the opportunity to take a course with him. Again, exceptional. 8: MW’s personal stories about people in the book world. 9: The discussion of c19 printing and technological advances that had such impact on the book as we know it. 10: It was great to have the time to question MW about trends and questions in such a free-form setting. MW’s ability to respond – not with definitive answers – but to pose further questions or avenues of study was impressive and very stimulating. 11: Visits to the Special Collections were outstanding, and MW was a terrific professor.
6) How could the course have been improved?
1: Our day on colonial history seemed a little slow. I got the sense people wanted more straight lecture in this area because it was what we knew the least about as a group. 2: The class was unusually quiet! I often learn as much or more from classmates as from the instructor. Would have liked more discussion in the sessions reserved for discussion. 3: Change classroom’s location, please! The classroom was real noisy, and not at all convenient. Also, because of the noisy room, we had to keep the door closed. It was very warm and close. 4: A larger classroom closer to the Alderman Library. 5: Our class met in the Architecture School building – an awkward locale with respect to RBS breaks and other functions. 6: MW’s lecture on the history of the book was wonderfully concise and clear. I’ve not heard or read it presented better. However, it takes a whole session of class not devoted to the book in America, per se. Could Robert Darnton’s article on the same be listed as required reading in order to free up the time for other purposes? But MW still worth hearing on the topic. 7: This course could be turned into so many courses on narrower topics. I think MW is so knowledgeable on so many things that he often seemed to not be able to say all he wanted on a topic due to time restraints. 8: Start at 9 instead of 8:30 a.m. – better location. Being a distance from the library was a drag and inconvenient. Missed the opportunity for more interaction with other students. 10: I would like more on c19, less on late c20.
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: We were good boys and girls and used pencils near the books and didn’t touch. 2: Everyone was careful and thoughtful in the handling of the materials. 3: I realize the difficulty in arranging U.Va Special Collections to allow us “show and tell” time. I believe it was done under the most difficult time, and handled the best way it could have been done. 4: None. 5: It was unfortunate that our classroom was so remote from Alderman. But the materials were kept safe. 7: No concerns. The materials in class were used carefully and ground rules concerning food and pencil use were laid on in the first session on the first day. 8: None. 9: We didn’t handle much at all...classroom use of materials was monitored and Special Collections materials were presented. I’d say you’ve really minimized any potential impact.
8) If you attended the Sunday and/or Monday night lectures, were they worth attending?
1: Sunday = good to be reminded of the underpinnings of this great institution! Monday = delightful. 2: Monday, yes. 3: Yes – always nice to hear TB’s discussion. 4: Yes, I did, and they were. 5: They were all right. 6: The Monday night lecture on Warren Chappell was excellent. 8: Yes, both were. As a returnee I was afraid Sunday’s would be repetitious, but learned new stuff. Lecture on Monday was fascinating. 11: Yes – both were very interesting and the Monday lecture was a great supplement to class description.
9) If you attended Museum Night, was the time profitably spent?
1: Both fabulous. Loved the typecasting demo, though the Linotype machine still seems somewhat mysterious. (Not intuitive). The printing surfaces night was also very valuable. Well worth all the staff time involved! 2: Yes. I found the demonstrations of the Linotype and hand-type casting particularly interesting. 3: Yes – attended both. 4: Yes, especially the staff’s demonstrations and explanations. 5: Yes, but very crowded quarters. I particularly was impressed with the Printing Surfaces exhibits, but it was really just too much too fast for me to take it all in. I wish that exhibit could have been left standing (elsewhere) so I could have revisited. By chance, perhaps, the very next morning our class was introduced to book illustrations, and what I had learned at the Museum Night fit perfectly as examples I could recall as we learned new terms. 6: The Museum Nights are wonderful opportunities to look at materials more closely. They are an important element of learning the materials in a given field beyond what one is told in lecture. 7: Missed the Museum Nights this year, but have attended in the past. Always worthwhile. Good handouts this year. 8: Did not attend Wednesday, as had seen much of it the year before. Was disappointed Tuesday, as did not see the Jane Eyre material promised in program. 10: Printing Surfaces night was helpful. 11: Yes! I really loved the things I saw – but there was way too much to take in, and I wish there was a way to return to materials throughout the week.
10) Did you get your money’s worth? Any final thoughts?
1: YES!! Yes! And again, yes! Thank you, MW! 2: Yes. Excellent course, particularly as an introduction. 3: As in years past (I have now attended RBS six times), I have always received my time and money’s worth. I love RBS! 4: Yes, especially since this was my own money, and I chose to spend my vacation at the RBS. 6: Yes. 7: Very much worth it. I think a lot (if not most) of the attendees were probably all pretty knowledgeable about some aspects of book history that we covered, but obviously not all, so even though this is a generalist sort of course we did still benefit from such a large time from covered. All four of the classes I’ve taken at RBS have been more than worth it professionally and personally. 8: Yes (got money’s worth). Bring good walking shoes. 9: I do think I got my money’s worth – got a real appreciation for the process of book publishing and for the history of the industry. It’s exactly what I expected. MW’s teaching style is excellent and engaging. 10: Yes. Take the course – it is well worth it. MW’s manner of “lecture” is engaging and exciting. His ability to synthesize – while at the same time demonstrate complexity and richness – is considerable. It was a pleasure.
Number of respondents: 11
Percentages
Leave Tuition Housing Travel
Institution Institution Institution Institution
gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel
64% 64% 64% 55%
I took vaca- I paid tui- I paid for my I paid my own
tion time tion myself own housing travel
27% 18% 27% 45%
N/A: self- N/A: Self- N/A: stayed N/A: lived
employed, re- employed, with friends nearby
tired, or had retired, or or lived at
summers off exchange home
9% 18% 9% 0%
There were three rare book librarians (28%), one archivist/manuscript librarian (9%), one general librarian with some rare book duties (9%), one teacher/professor (9%), one antiquarian bookseller (9%), one curator (9%), one head of Special Collections (9%), one once and future librarian (9%), one Special Collections librarian with both rare books and manuscript duties (9%).