No. 35: The Industrial Book in the Industrial Era: 1820-1940
29 July - 2 August 1996
|
No. 35: The Industrial Book in the Industrial Era: 1820-1940 29 July - 2 August 1996 |
|
1. How useful were the pre-course readings? 1: Will be quite useful. 2: They were useful, but I would have appreciated more specific guidance, as these were huge overarching topics. 3: Fairly. 4: Useful, but I thought some of them too broad. I would have liked the entire bibliography (handed out the first day) to have been made available beforehand. 5: Very helpful. 6: Interesting, but not as stimulating as MW. 7: Quite. (But see no.7, below.) 8: Good  still haven't read everything that was suggested, but the required reading was useful if dry in long stretches. 9: Generally useful. The one required reading (Lehmann-Haupt) was tedious but fact-filled. The recommended readings were better reading. All were relevant. 10: Lehmann-Haupt is a goodthough dulloverview, but I could have handled a longer reading list that dealt with specific subjects in greater depth. |
|
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: Good, extensive bibliography will be quite useful. 2: The syllabus, only somewhat; the reading lists, very useful. I plan to plunge into them soon. 3: Very nice bibliography of basic sources, and many other interesting items (especially new publications) brought to our attention. 4: Yes, especially the bibliography. 5: Yes. Great bibliography. 6: Yes. 7: The bibliography was especially helpful. 8: Yes. 9: All were interesting, but only the bibliography and sample bibliographic description will be useful to me in the future. 10: Yesvery good reading list, which we annotated in the course of the class. |
|
3. Was the intellectual level of the course content appropriate? 1: Yes MW really conveys his enthusiasm for his area of expertise. 2: Yes. 3: Mostly.... I did wish in the first three days that basic knowledge of descriptive bibliography and hand-press printing could be assumed; there was lots of elementary review for the sake of those without the background. But also much good material with machine-era focus that was exactly as desired. 4: Although I am not sure I would have enjoyed assignments, I would have liked more work (directed work) to have been completed during the week. I felt rather unchallenged in some ways, as if the instructor was unsure of our intellectual lives. 5-6: Yes. 7: Yes (but see no.7, below). I would have gained even more than will be specifically useful if I had time to talk with the instructor. At the beginning of the course, he said that RBS courses can be like Methodist camp meetings. But as I go forth and sin no more, I would like some specific suggestions about how, exactly, I will do that. That is, some time to talk specifically about my own projects, however informal, would have been useful as I return to an institution without such resources. 8: Yes; see also no.9, below. 9: It's hard to say. I would have liked it more advanced in some areas (distribution and publishing, copyright, author-publisher relations) but I wouldn't have had the background for a more advanced discussion of printing, production, etc. 10: Though it was positive to have a wide variant in student experience and interests, somewhat too much time was spent on elementary descriptive bibliography in order to bring everyone up to speed. Perhaps the course description should suggest that some experience in descriptive bibliography would be helpful and the class could move quickly to other subjects. |
|
4. If your course had field trips, were they effective? 1: Thoroughly enjoyed MW's presentation on Walt Whitman in Special Collections using the Whitman books! A tour de force. 2: To Special Collections very well spent. To the Rotunda to see the Luciles, less so: we'd seen many in class. 3: Absolutely. Explanation of Whitmans in Special Collection and Lucile in the Rotunda were terrific and helped me put it all together. 4-5: Yes. 6: Terrifically well spent showing and telling and joking and reading about Whitman was the highlight of the week. 7: Without question. In fact, I would have appreciated more time there. 8: Yes. 9: Yes, very well spent. 10: Yes. Both Whitman and Lucile extended the experience with materials that were available in the classroom. |
|
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? 1-2: Yes 3: Yes, very much so. 4: Yes; yes and no of course I liked learning of machine-made books from the inside out, from their details of production to a broader picture of society, but I had not expected to approach the subject in this way. I had expected to learn something excitingsomething conveyed with not only insight but true devotion, and that I did. 5: Yes. I think the move toward making this course more "history" and less "advanced bibliography" will give it a broader appeal. 6: Yes, but it was much morepoints of view, dimension, and perspective provided by MW are invaluable 7: Yes. 8: Yes. See also no.9, below. 9-10: Yes. |
|
6. What did you like best about the course? 1: Liked the fact that it has evolved into more history not so enmeshed in advanced bibliography. We covered a lot of bases, including some bibliography. The overview was interesting and appropriate for the course and students. Lots of good information presented. 2: The depth of MW's knowledge of the subject matter, especially since it was matched by an equally deep care for the topic. This matters; it made me eager to fill in the immense gaps in my education. 3: MW really knows his stuff, can adequately compare his period with earlier/later ones, and displays/generates infectious enthusiasm for the machine era (not to mention a notable wit). And I finally got to see what all the Lucile fuss was all about! 4: The transparencies showing records of publishers' payments to authors, bindery workers, etc.; the instructor's stories of working in a bindery and of his own scholarship. 5: MW's enthusiasm for the subject matter is infectious. 6: Specific examples of daily subjects! Whitman discussion in Special Collections. 7: MW's knowledge and enthusiasm are an inspiring presence. Just to watch his mind turn is a model, especially in a time of a dearth of admirable academics. I mean this. I also appreciated meeting and talking with other students many of whom are instructors at RBS, and all of whom will be for me valuable colleagues and new friends. 8: I enjoyed sorting the Luciles a lot. The overheads of actual publishing account records were wonderful. 9: The lectures early in the week were fact-filled, clear, and just what I needed. The trip to look at the editions of Leaves of grass was also a high point. 10: MW. Good class bondingwe enjoyed each other's company. |
|
7. How could the course have been improved? 1: Maybe a little more focused at times. Perhaps more field trips or hands-on experience. Maybe more on non-trade specialized publishing firms, though hard to cover everything in a week. 2: As I mentioned, pre-course reading could have been more specific. Otherwise it seemed a fine and balanced overview of a field which could easily fragment. 3: Even more "broad strokes" interpretation of what all the details add up to, but then I suppose this is wishing on a star if the research just hasn't been done. 4: I'd like a little of the last day on the first especially some insight into current scholarship. I'd like to read a novel about the book business in the period discussed. 5: Of course space would be a big problem, but it'd be nice to see some of these machines, or maybe some technical drawings of them. 6: Distribution and publishing were too general. I would have preferred more specifics such as Ticknor & Field or Houghton Mifflin. 7: The course is clearly torn between bibliographic lessons (which librarians already know) and more historical information and questions. I think that this course would be best served by a preliminary pre-course package about pertinent bibliographical conventions. While I'm not familiar with some bibliographic methods, I think I could have learned the basics from readings suggested by the instructor, then practiced them at RBS. 8: It might have been nice occasionally to begin some discussions with more specific examples (especially since we know that Michael has them!) and move to the general. 9: The Friday morning session was a little too loose. The general overview of approaches to bibliogrpahy and book history should have included more c19 exmaples. 10: Move more quickly through the introductory material. |
|
8. Please comment at will on the quality/enjoyability of the various RBS activities in which you took part outside of class, eg Sunday afternoon tour, Sunday night dinner and videos, Bookseller Night, tour of the Etext Center or Electronic Classroom, printing demonstrations, evening lectures, &c. 1: Really liked Dan Miller's talk on the American Service Editions very enjoyable! Enthusiasm was contagious and delivery fun! 3: David Vander Meulen: dull, dull, dull. Bibliographical societies surely can be made interesting. Daniel Miller: oh, to be young again. (Thanks for the great exhibition, kid!) TB: A great improvement over 94-95 (but I'll get the cold salad statistics privately, I must confess). Thanks for the brevity. 4: I liked that the two lectures I attended (DM and TB) were short and not without humor. 5: The undergraduate curator was a stitch. 6: DVM's lecture was not as entertaining as in previous yearsbut I'm visually oriented. DM's lecturewonderful. Are we sure he wasn't a drama student? TB seemed subdued. 7: DVM was rather dull. However, DM and TB were as fine as lectures could be. 8: DVM was dry. TB was entertaining as usual. Perhaps the Texas program will be just fineI'm not sure it's time to send dark clouds. Some change there could be good. 9: DM's lecture was the best. 10: DM was a real treat! |
|
9. Any final thoughts? 1: RBS is always intellectually stimulating, fun, and exhausting! I highly recommend the experience. 2: Since I only learned of RBS three months ago, I was stunned to learn that so many of the students returned year after year. But I'm going to try to come again myself, so I guess it no longer surprises me. 3: Thanks for the unbelievable weather! 5: Highly recommended. There's more to c19 books than crummy paper and insurmountable bibliographic problems! 6: Look forward to my seventh return visit. RBS is terrific. 7: Spend the time. Spend the money. It is worth it, without a doubt. 8: I have taken Sue Allen's and Michael Twyman's courses. I assumed/hoped that this course would address production processes and issues about c19 books not covered in those courses, even though that is not admittedly what the course description said it would do. Nevertheless, with a group of people with diverse backgrounds, MW managed to hit the high points (and some very detailed points) nicely. I think this was a hard course to teach to this group of people! MW describes it as a course in transition. If I were the instructor, I might like to define my audience more narrowly. Given all that, this was a very useful course. It was also thought-provoking in a way that most RBS courses aren't. So there was both information and intellectual content (which sometimes are different!). 10: Do it! Stay on the Lawn. |
|
Number of respondents: 10 |
|
|
|
*The tuition of one student (10%) was funded by a fellowship. |
|
There were ten students: three were rare book librarians (30%), two were full-time students (20%), one was an antiquarian bookseller (10%), one was an archivist/manuscript librarian (10%), one was a conservator/binder/preservation librarian (10%), one was a general librarian with some rare book duties (10%), and one was a rare book/manuscript librarian/archivist/manuscripts (10%). |