No. 31: History of the Printed Book in the West
29 July - 2 August 1996
|
No. 31: History of the Printed Book in the West 29 July - 2 August 1996 |
|
1. How useful were the pre-course readings? 1: Excellent list of readings to provide context for elements of the course, with carefully prepared directions from MA about priorities. 2: Chappell was very useful. Some of the reading list titles were difficult to obtain. 3: I thought the readings were extremely helpful but very difficult to find. The booksellers that were listed with the texts seemed to have no idea why they were named as potential suppliers. It was rather frustrating. 4: Very useful. I would have appreciated a little more information about the availability of books to purchase, but the selection was appropriate and the suggestions for further reading helpful. 5: The pre-course readings were helpful in that they provided a basic framework for the history of the book. And now that the course is complete, I have a much greater understanding of them. 6: They were really necessary to a beginner who had no previous rare book knowledge. 7: Excellent. 8: The best  someone should reprint Chappell. 9: The readings were very useful. After taking the course, I will probably go back and re-read some of the material and will look for others on the same subject. 10: The pre-course reading was helpful in providing a knowledge of book-related terms. 11: Warren Chappell was interesting. |
|
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: Definitely. Titles of lectures directed to the important aspects of history of the book. Titles of videos for reference later. Very well organized, with parts of the day, such as visits to Special Collections serving as a lab to illustrate the lectures. 2: Yes. 3: Yes, everything was informative and helped to clarify what was being discussed. The visual aid of the videos was particularly helpful. 4: The syllabus was excellent a nice overview, helped to establish the pace and direction of the course, a useful summary for my supervisors. 5: Definitely. 6: Yes, both. Could have added a reading list. 7: Yes. Also a good start to building a library on the subject. 8: Yes. 9: There were not a lot of items distributed in class. I don't think they will be useful later. 10: Very useful. 11: Yes. |
|
3. Was the intellectual level of the course content appropriate? 1: Yes. Assumes beginning level in content but high level of thinking about it. 2: Yes. This course was billed as an overview and it was very, very good in exposing the students to and explaining the significance of the masterpieces of printing since its inception. 3: Yes. I feel that I now have a solid general background in the topic from which further research will be possible. 4: Yes. 5: Yes, despite the diversity of backgrounds of the participants, I think that everyone got a lot out of the experience (whether they were librarians, book collectors, or academics). 6: Yes, conducted on a very high level, demonstrating the superior knowledge of the instructor and his organizational skills. 7: Yes, absolutely. Wonderful survey. 8: Indeed. 9: Yes. 10: The level was appropriate for students with various backgrounds. 11: Yes! |
|
4. If your course had field trips, were they effective? 1: Yes Special Collections time absolutely critical to grasping the reality of the aspects of book production described in lectures. Great appreciation for the book as artifact and aesthetic object. 2: Excellent use of time to visit Special Collections, where examples of many of the masterpieces being studied could be examined under expert tutelage. 3: Yes, our time in Special Collections helped to visualize certain technical aspects and I'm leaving with a special appreciation of several specific works. 4: Absolutely. The more hands-on portions of the course dovetailed nicely with what was going on in the lectures and slides we saw in the classroom. All very well integrated; helped to keep everyone going through (necessarily!) long days. 5: Most definitely! Some of the most valuable time spent was in Special Collections actually looking at the materials discussed in lecture. 6: Yes, it was often too short, given the wealth of information to be shared. 7: Very well spent. A prime attraction of the course was 1) the ability to see the actual books discussed, and 2) the ability to see printing (and do printing). 8: The best. 9: Yes. 10: The Special Collections viewings were the most interesting part of the course. 11: Yes! Great choices for viewing. |
|
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: Can't recall exactly the description, but somehow I had the impression that there would be more emphasis on the social and cultural environment of books. I am not disappointed, however, with the emphasis on the technical aspects of production. 2: Content corresponded to RBS description and exceeded expectations. 3: Yes! 4: Exceeded expectation. I don't remember the ECD exactly, but the course covered the broader aspects as well, which helped to situate the book in the world. 5: Perfectly so. 7: Yes. 8: I would be surprised if anyone commented that the course didn't far exceed expectations. 9: Yes. 10: Yes, and then some. 11: Yes! Yes! |
|
6. What did you like best about the course? 1: MA's carefully prepared lectures. I often wanted to applaud. MA's selection of books to be viewed in Special Collections. 2: Viewing of examples of printing masterpieces in Special Collections. 3: I think that MA's knowledge and enthusiasm for the topic set the tone for the course and helped to create a cohesive group out of a collection of people from a great variety of professions and with a great variety of interests. I really enjoyed being able to get much more hands-on experience with the techniques of printing, binding, etc., than I had anticipated. 4: Scope, and obviously carefully planned integration of lecture, slides, and Special Collections materials. MA was very well prepared and organized, and gave insightful lectures; also offered ideas and questions for us to pursue. A fantastic job. 5: I liked the variety of the teaching methods lectures, slides, video, hands-on, demonstrations, viewing. It made the days fly by! 6: Viewing the rare books and the wealth of knowledge of the instructor. 7: Special Collections visits and printing press demonstration/participation. 8: The knowledge. 9: The slides and looking at examples in Special Collectionsthe videos were also very informative. 10: The amount of information to be digested was not overwhelming. 11: I learned a lot. |
|
7. How could the course have been improved? 1: Maybe the course could be divided into two parts: perhaps pre- and post-1800. I can think of no way to improve it as it is. I don't think there is too much in it, but there was perhaps less work with c19 and c20 books than there might have been (but I liked it that way). 2: Increase the length by several days. Currently there is so much material to cover that very important videos are shown during lunch and between 5 and 6pm as optional additional work. Attending these videos leads to a very intense schedule. It is well worth the effort, but leaves very little time for anything else. 3: ? 4: Not necessarily an improvement, but a possible addition might be the availability of handouts copies of relevant articles, etc., for those who are particularly interested in a subject, or bibliography on each area. The course, though, does stand on its own. 5: I would keep it the way it is. 7: No suggestions. 8: If I had done more reading beforehand. 10: I can't think of any way. 11: A supply of Warren Chappell's book, A short history of the printed word. |
|
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 enjoyable a special thrill to hear a talk in the enlightened space of the Rotunda. 2: Very good. 3: I attended two lectures which were enjoyable. I wouldn't say that they were my favorite part of the week, however. They were a good way to end a rather intense day. 4: Okay. Fantastic space added to the scholarly ambiance. 5: The two lectures that I attended were both enjoyable. 6: Thought they were lightweight this year, except for Kenneth Rendell, who was superior. 7: Not particularly relevant to my particular interests (I heard DVM only). 8: DVMparticularly worthwhile. Wish there was a short printed summary of the men he described. DMclever, witty, meaty. He has promise. TBonly better if general discussion had ensued. Very timely. 9: The evening lectures were not as scholarly as those I attended last week and were much more enjoyable. After a day of intensive learning, they were a refreshing change. 11: I liked TB's speechvery serious. Indeed, the rare book situation is serious, as is our profession's. |
|
9. Any final thoughts? 1: Be ready for an eye-opening experience. 2: RBS is a unique opportunity to be taught about rare books by experts. It is well worth the investment in time and money to get this intense training that is not available elsewhere. 4: Make sure you have access to the readings; they reinforce the material and class and give you the opportunity to examine types, etc., we saw in slides or in the actual books in the evening. 5: Don't just consider taking the course, do it and enjoy! 6: It's a very intense course; be prepared to have your whole day and evening occupied. 7: 1) The best instruction was more informal. Read lectures were good, but the less structured (and more enthusiastic!) presentations were even better. 2) In general, the instructor's depth of knowledge and willingness to flow with the class was impressive and made for a wonderful course. 8: Make sure MA comes back. 11: Be prepared for intense intellectual stimulation! |
|
Number of respondents: 11 |
|
|
|
*One student marked these categories "other" without providing further information. |
|
There were eleven students, two book collectors (18%), two full-time students (18%), two rare book librarians (18%), one archivist/manuscript librarian (9%), one attorney (9%), one general librarian with some rare book duties (9%), one teacher/professor (9%), and one "other" (9%). |