No. 14: Introduction to Rare Book Librarianship
15-19 July 1996
|
No. 14: Introduction to Rare Book Librarianship 15-19 July 1996 |
|
1. How useful were the pre-course readings? 1: Very useful. They established the context for the subjects discussed in class. 2: Useful  good background. 3: The readings were useful, especially for unfamiliar terminology. Some were fascinating, quite like mystery stories, dealing with theft cases. 4: Very useful, very entertaining. Most were fun reads and not a chore to get through. Good choices. Perhaps more on the history and structure of the book would be useful. 5: I thought some far better than others. 6: Very usefulintroduced me to DT's take on the whole "what it is to be a rare book librarian." 7: They provided a reasonable pre-course introduction. One was well-served by reading them in advance. 8: Very useful. I intend to continue with those items I was unable to finish. A good mix of articles, and most held my interest. 9: Yes, the pre-course readings were useful and well chosen. The post-course readings appear likely to be very good as well. 10: Very useful, and those I did not read I will read now that the course is over. 11: Readings provided good background information and helped me to contribute to discussions. Some readings were difficult to get, but many were readily accessible. 12: Very useful. Obviously, some were more relevant to my immediate needs than others, although I'm happy to have references for all of them. |
|
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, the course syllabus was very useful it established the direction we were heading in class. 2: Yessyllabus and exhibition catalog. 3: Yes. 4: Very useful, and I will refer to it at home. 5: Excellent. Thanks, DT, for the handbook to take home and use for "reading arounding." 6: Yes, and yes. 7: Yes. I'll share some of them with colleagues. 8: Syllabusyes. Other materialssome will be, some won't. 9: They are useful and I do intend to put them to good use when I return home. 10: I haven't looked extensively at it yet, but what I have looked at I believe will be useful later. 11: Syllabus is useful to me, materials will most likely be helpful. Some of the book dealer catalogs I'll keep; others, though interesting to look at, I won't keep. 12: Not sureI haven't yet looked at them closely. |
|
3. Was the intellectual level of the course content appropriate? 1: I think so. In an introductory course, not everyone is starting with the same knowledge, experience, and skills. 2: Yes excellent. 3: Appropriate. DT created a collegial and comfortable atmosphereencouraging interruptions for questions. 4: Yes. 5: Both breadth + depth + instructor sensitive to every student's level of experience and knowledge. 6: Very appropriate. 7: Yes. 8: Well, given the variety in participants' background and expertise, yes, but I guess I would like to have been able to discuss more of our individual situations and to learn some specifics from each other. There were many basic things that most of us already knew and therefore we could have gotten to another level of discussion. I appreciated DT's intellectual grasp of issues and ability to globalize theoretically for all. 9: Yes, it was for me. 10: Yes. No pat answers because there are none. I came (though I did not plan this) to think, and that's what it allowed me to do. 11: Yes. DT is very knowledgeable. 12: When I signed up, both TB and DT told me they thought my needs put me between this course and the advanced one. Well, I agree. I've learned a lot and have no regrets about spending my week this way. The time that DT spent breaking down narrow preconceptions as to what makes a rare book were clearly appropriate for this course. But as a social historian, I already carry with me a very broad sense of what materials should/can be preserved in an archive. |
|
4. If your course had field trips, were they effective? 1: I think so. It was helpful to meet someone already well-established in this field to gain some perspective on what it's all about. 2: Very would like more visits, maybe other special collections. 3: We went to UVa Special Collections to spend 90 minutes with Heather Moore, a young curator. She discussed her duties and career. Her talk was helpful and engaging. 4: Too much of the conversation was on exhibits, but that was interesting. Would have liked more time devoted to how the librarian does her job. 5: Thanks, HMyou covered all the territory in ways to which we could all relate. 6: Very well spent. Meeting HM in Special Collections brought a lot of the course content to life for me. 7: Yes. See no.7, below. 8: Yes. I would like to have been able to have spent more time in the Alderman Special Collections area. There were lots more questions I would have asked had there been time. 9: The class visit to Special Collections was very good. It was a little bit basic for me, but was very well targeted for the level of others in the class and very appropriate for the class as a whole. 10: Yes. Most illuminating. I would have even liked about 30 minutes more to look at the exhibition there. 11: Yes. Practical, real life situations always put discussions into perspective. 12: Yes. It might have been useful to spend some time in the processing areas of Alderman 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: It certainly met my expectations and in some ways far surpassed them it's refreshing to meet and talk with someone in the field both so knowledgeable and so entertaining as DT. 2: Yes. 3: It more than met my expectations. It was fun! 4: Yes. 5: I think the description accurate but a bit understatedthe course exceeded my expectations. 6: Yes, but I wish more time had been spent on specific preservation issues. 7: Yes. 8: Yes, for the most part. In general, yes, it met expectations. 9: The course met my general expectations and exceeded them. 10: More than met my expectationsexceeded them. 11-12: Yes. |
|
6. What did you like best about the course? 1: The fact that DT didn't try to concentrate on the details but rather raised issues and concerns relevant to the field. 2: DT as instructor, storyteller, mentor; hearing experiences of other students. 3: DT's teachings and the style in which the lessons were presented was the best aspect of the course. He followed each section with appropriate "truth is stranger than fiction" stories, spicing even dry material with humor verging on camp. 4: The instructor had a great manner and rapport with students. He encouraged us to speak, to give each other advice, to ask questions. He understood our situations very well too, and could comment on them. 5: The instructor's thorough coverage of the fieldhis grasp of its problems and his respect for all its practitioners, even novices. 6: I liked DT's relevant and many times humorous stories. 7: DT is amusing and knowledgeable in so many ways. 8: DT's sense of humor. Good collegiality. 9: The instructor's wit and wisdom. 10: The instructor's manner, the experience he brought, his attitude. His problematizing. 11: Introduction by each person was very useful. DT wanted us to think about the issues and realize there are no simple answers. 12: Meeting classmates and instructor. |
|
7. How could the course have been improved? 1: More opportunities to stretch our legs it's very difficult to sit that length of time without moving. You feel exhausted by the end of the week. 2: Less time sitting. Even though DT is great and it was a good course, more exercises (substantive, not athletic) would have been useful. 3: ? 4: Include a tour/meeting with TB on what is the Book Arts Press. I know no more now than I did before I came. 5: I would have liked a brief hands-on time with the museums on Day 2 or 3. 6: Perhaps by the instructor offering research or project suggestions for us to follow up on at the end of the weekaccording to our different aspects of interest in the field. 7: Bad, uncomfortable chairs. Meeting room was adequate, but chairs were poor for an all-day program. Also, tables were poorly arranged. The trip to Alderman Special Collections might better have included a tour of the facilitiesstorage, reading room, preservation, etc.rather than only hearing the one staff member. She did, however, provide very useful comments. 8: More discussion would have been appreciated. 9: It would need to be made longer to adequately cover the content. However, RBS would need to issue serious drugs or pharmaceutical aids to students after the third day in order to assure that we could have our brains battered that long. 10: I enjoyed it as it was. 11: It seemed to start slowly after the introductions, but then it got more focused. 12: Not sure, although I could use fuller bibliographies dealing with more specialized topics, for example, reference materials and electronic data bases. Still, I now have more contacts and ideas for finding those sources. |
|
8. Please comment at will 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 and videos, Bookseller Night, tour of the Etext Center or Electronic Classroom, printing demonstrations, evening lectures, &c. 1: Very interesting and informative they provided yet another perspective on the subject. 2: T. Tanselletoo dry; K. Rendellvery enjoyable; TBenjoyable and informative. But it was hard to sit after being in class from 8:30 to 5, then the Etext demo, then the lecture. Maybe just one or two, not three lectures. 3: Attended KR's informative Wednesday lecture. 4: TT was boring! KR was a good speaker with an interesting topic. 5: I particularly enjoyed TB's vision of our future neighborhoodthe pitfalls and the reason to hope for the survival of the book as artifact. 6: A little dry for my taste. I would have liked to have seen some high spots, perhaps. More visuals. 7: I attended both KR's and TB's lectures and enjoyed being present. The meeting site is wonderful. 8: Excellent demonstration of UVa Web site. Though brief, I learned what UVa is doing. Quite helpful. In general, evening lectures were helpful, enjoyable. It is hard to sit for more time after being in class all day, however. 9: The first two lectures were useful because we had the opportunity to listen to two of the key players in the world of bibliography and the rare book trade. 10: Felt they were important and in some cases enjoyable. TT's lecture was not informative or very enjoyable for those not in the SB circle, I felt. 11: Monday you had to know a great deal about the topic beforehand. It was for a certain "in" crowdboring. The others were much better. KR was the best, he enjoyed his work and had a sense of humor and perspective. 12: OK. Not great. |
|
9. Any final thoughts? 2: Overall an excellent course and well-run program. But how about more decaf coffee and maybe a break or two outside on a sunny day. 3: Get rested before you come! Stay on The Lawn and enjoy the atmosphere there. DT is a great teacher, engaging all 12 of us in the discussions. I wish I could take one of his literature courses. 5: I had a wonderful time and feel enriched by the experience. 6: This course is well worth it for anyone in charge or working with a special collection. 7: I liked RBS at Columbia and I like it at UVa. Both locales offer much to those participating. I'm pleased TB and others appear happy at UVa, but NY does have its good points. 8: Take it, without hesitation; it's well worth the time. Thank you, RBS, for a wonderful opportunity. 9: This course, like any other course worth its salt, will be as good or as bad as you make it. You will determine its success as much as your instructor will. 10: So many of the points DT makes apply to other fields of librarianship I would suggest that anyone with even remote Special Collections interests take this course. 11: The course is philosophy of rare book librarianship, no practical how-to-do-it. 12: Do it. |
|
Number of respondents: 12 |
|
|
|
There were twelve students: three were general librarians with some rare book duties (25%), two were conservator/binder/preservation librarians (17%), and one each was an archivist/manuscript librarian, an archivist/manuscript librarian with some rare book duties, a manager of a historical society library, a rare book librarian, a rare book librarian/archivist/manuscript librarian, a student, and a subject bibliographer (8% each). |