82: The Printed Book in the West since 1800 [H-40]
2-6 August 2004
1) How useful were the pre-course readings?
1: I applied late, but managed to hurriedly read the books. But it was through the daily lectures, exhibits, &c. that I came to understand the material more fully. 2: They were quite good. And the course content made much of the more technical material much clearer. 3: Readings were very useful and essential. 4: Very useful. 5: Gaskell’s New Introduction to Bibliography was very useful and established a solid foundation for the course. Steinberg’s 500 Years of Printing was not as well organized or as readable, and since Gaskell covers much of the same material, the use of the Steinberg volume should be a supplemental reading only. 6: Usefulness varied – Rota text useful ( and readable). Gaskell probably would have been useful if I didn’t find myself merely skimming the ponderous prose. 500 Years of Printing was useful definitely. 7: Very useful, particularly the Rota book, Apart from the Text. I was disappointed in Gaskell and suggest it only be recommended as a reference source. 8: The pre-course readings provided a necessary familiarity wit the subject matter that enable me to follow and digest the in-class lectures and discussions. 9: I found the pre-course readings were helpful, particularly Apart from the Text and 500 Years of Printing. Gaskell’s work was difficult to get through and really needs only to be skimmed. 10: Very useful. I felt they gave me quite a good background introduction to the themes that were developed in class. 11: Not very, since the teacher basically read his notes from these texts.
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. I look forward to rereading and consolidating my notes when I get home. 2: The syllabus really could have been more detailed. We often did not know where we were going next. It would have been nice to have a detailed overview; this would also have been very useful for those of us who might be teaching such a class. The workbooks were very handy. 3: Materials distributed in class were very useful, particularly the workbook. 4: Excellent workbook, will be useful in future. Could have liked a more formal syllabus. 5: With the exception of the bibliography which has not been updated in a year or more, the other course materials were useful. It would have been helpful to have an outline or chronology distributed. 6: Approximate and useful; doubt future use. 7: Useful for class; too skeletal to be very useful in the future. 8: The course syllabus and materials were helpful and will be excellent resources for future independent study. 9: The course syllabus was clear and organized, and the handbook distributed in class has a wealth of valuable information. 10: The syllabus was a bit vague, but served as a good general guideline. Materials distributed in class were useful for the sessions and will serve as a good ready-reference tool back at the office. 11: Not much distributed – hard to say.
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: I found something of great interest and relevance daily, perhaps what has changed most for me is how I will really look at a book now. Yes, the intellectual level was appropriate. 2: The chronological structure was good – taking the same subjects and looking at them indifferent periods. The detailed and clear explanations of confusing technical processes was especially helpful. A bit more on the book trade would have been good. 3: I very much appreciated all of the time spent on illustration processes and the examples provided. The section on Janson’s History of Art was enlightening, as were many of the other exhibits used in class. I also liked the sections on private presses. Intellectual level was appropriate. 4: Special Collections visits [and] commentaries, exercises in class, TB’s [Linotype] demonstration [and] comments, Museum Nights. 5: The evolution of the process. Yes, the intellectual level was appropriate, but I would have preferred that the instructor not read directly from his notes. His knowledge is quite expansive, although his style is disappointing to participants. 6: Of greatest interest and relevance to me is the period roughly from 1900 to the present. Intellectual level of course, again, varied. 7: Intellectual content at the appropriate level – I found the sections on typography and paper of most relevance. 8: As a collector, all facets of book history – printing technologies, papermaking, typography, and binding technologies – are of interest and are important to the evaluation of potential additions to my collection. The intellectual level was challenging and enjoyable. 9: I was most interested in the history of the book trade, of private and fine presses and the evolution in the illustration process, which the course spent a good deal of time on. 10: The intellectual level of the course was very appropriate. Information about illustration processes will probably be the most useful to me, since this is an area where I get a lot of questions. However, looking at the book over five distinct segments of about 40 years each was very useful. 11: Twentieth century book design. Yes.
4) If your course had field trips, were they effective?
1: Yes. The museum visits were most instructive. 2: For the most part, yes. The visits to the museums were not thought out. 3: The time was very well spent. EH had obviously worked hard to find good examples to show. 4: Very. 5: The trips to Special Collections and to the [RBS] museums were invaluable and contributed a great deal to the learning experience. 6: Indeed. 7: Yes – very useful and informative; the right balance between classroom instruction and visits. 8: Yes. 9: I felt the Special Collections visits were very appropriate and were fascinating. We were given a chance to see amazing books at an intimate level and center our class discussion around them. 10: Yes. It was helpful to see those examples of techniques that we had discussed in class. 11: Definitely.
5) What did you like best about the course?
1: What I liked best was how it has helped me to better appreciate “the book.” 2: Seeing good illustrations of arcane machines and processes. Getting a solid idea about the evolution of the hand-press to digital technologies. Integrating, at last, the c20 into book history. It’s always seemed like an alien creature. 3: I liked the sections on illustration processes (see response to question number three). Also like the time spent on private presses (see same). Also liked the clarity with which EH described some of the more mechanical printing processes (the workbook illustrations were very valuable). 4: EH. 5: The trips to Special Collections, the classroom materials, and the practical exercises. 6: Opportunity to spend the week with people as passionate about books as am I. 7: The instructor. 8: The quality of the information imparted and the format addressing each developing facet of book history in 30- or 40-year segments each enhanced my comprehension and retention of the course material. 9: Special Collections visits. Instructor’s knowledge and ability to convey a range of information. 10: The distillation of a huge amount of material into an understandable and accessible package. Relating the different processes to others surrounding them at the same time (typography, binding, printing, &c.). 11: Special Collections visits, hands-on activities.
6) How could the course have been improved?
1: I don’t have any suggestions in this area. 2: More detailed syllabus. Less time spent in class fumbling for notes and teaching materials. A list of books, maybe annotated, of books and materials used in class and Special Collections. Maybe an actual museum or two just for this class material. 3: It is hard to think of a way this course could be improved. Perhaps a handout (bibliography) of the exhibits shown in Special Collections would be helpful. 4: Little better organized, but it was still great! 5: Please eliminate the duplication about the Linotype process. It is not necessary to read many pages, hear an hour or more lecture, watch a demonstration and a video. This time could be better spent exploring other topics such as the book trade. 6: Notwithstanding the breadth and volume of instructor’s knowledge base (which is considerable), I feel we needed more visuals, perhaps show-and-tell objects, perhaps Power Point images. Much course time was spent listening to straight lecture with use of a bound handout. A video tape of the bookmaking process shown on day five was helpful, as were the rather artful drawings on the blackboard, but again no substitute for the object in hand or on screen. “I thought we had it there in the room, guess not,” “I don’t have one here with me to show, but...” were familiar refrains. Our instructor spent too much time referring to his notes. I feel more prep time on his part would have improved the quality of our class time significantly. 7: A better room – the room was not good for viewing exhibits. The Hawaiian shirts offered an exotic daily floral display. 8: A small improvement would be to have a more streamlined access to visual materials used to illustrate concepts. 9: I am quite pleased with the course in its present form. 10: No suggestions. I thought it was fine. 11: Less lecturing, less reading lectures to class. More organization of materials for each day. There was too much “Oh. I can’t find this or that” or “Where did I put...?” a waste of time.
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: I think that most class members were attentive to the careful handling of materials, and if not, gentle reminders seemed to work. 3: I thought all of the material was carefully treated, and the instructor made a special point of teaching people how to handle it properly. 4: Think room used could have been better organized. Regarding where materials were placed, viewing of. 5: Please provide, if requested, a written packet about the local museum presentations and the classroom materials. 7: Use slides. 8: I find no flaws. The materials were extremely well guarded. 10: The classroom should be set up in such a way that every student has a decent view of the materials.
8) If you attended the Sunday and/or Monday night lectures, were they worth attending?
1: The Monday night lecture was interesting and entertaining. 2: N/A – a little later start on the Monday lecture would have been helpful. 3: Yes! 4: Very. Profitably. 5: Yes, but too long. Try to limit the presentations to 45 minutes or less. 6: Yes, both. TB is always worth it. After meeting Sid Huttner, will always think of Owen Meredith when I hear Kenny Rogers. 7: Interesting, but not terribly worthwhile. 8: The Monday lecture was wonderful – entertaining and informative. 9: The Monday night lecture was very interesting – it covered Owen Meredith’s Lucile’s publication history. I really enjoyed it. 10: I attended the Sunday night lecture only, and it was interesting. 11: Sunday’s seemed strange and egocentric.
9) If you attended Museum Night, was the time profitably spent?
1: Absolutely! And I found Melissa [Mead] particularly helpful on both nights. 2: I had seen most of it in previous years, but it’s always useful to see again. I would love to see a museum for this class material. 3: Yes. Particularly liked the exhibit on sewers’ marks. 4: Very profitably. 5: Very well spent (see response to question seven). 6: Yes, especially binding museum. 7: These were well-organized and appropriately staffed; I found these very interesting and learned a lot in the one average one and a half hours I spent at each one. 7: both Museum Nights were great learning opportunities and were some of the most profitable time I spent. 9: Both Museum Nights were interesting and well presented. 10: Since we spent time in class in the museums, I did not go to the Museum Nights. 11: Yes.
10) Did you get your money’s worth? Any final thoughts?
1: Yes, my individual experience was rewarding, and I can only hope that it will be the same for future students. 2: Definitely worth the time and money. 3: I got my money’s worth. 4: Yes. Always enjoy RBS. 5: Yes. 6: Yes, of course. 7: Yes – actually quite a bargain. 8: The course is excellent value for both time and money spent. I will unhesitatingly recommend it to others. 9: I felt it was a very valuable experience and highly recommend it. 10: Yes. 11: I got my money’s worth, but not because of class content. Other aspects of RBS filled the gap. I would consider if it is ever taught by another teacher or not. EH seems very knowledgeable, but he lectured too much and I thought I would fall asleep. More hands-on. Less lecture. More class participation.
Number of respondents: 11
Percentages
Leave Tuition Housing Travel
Institution Institution Institution Institution
gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel
36% 36% 36% 27%
I took vaca- I paid tui- I paid for my I paid my own
tion time tion myself own housing travel
0% 55% 55% 64%
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
64% 9% 9% 9%
There were two general librarians with some rare book duties (18.33%), two book collectors (18.33%), one rare book librarian (9%), one general librarian with no rare book duties (9%), one full-time student (9%), one antiquarian bookseller (9%), one museum employee (9%), one rare book librarian’s assistant (9%), and one former librarian (9%).