|
|
No. 41: The Use of Physical Evidence in Early Printed Books. 4 August - 8 August 1997 |
|
1. How useful were the pre-course readings?
1: Very useful. 2: Quite useful, though not always easy to obtain, even through ILL. I'm sure three of them are awaiting me upon my return. They are readings that I will read again and refer back to often. 3: Useful but not required, as noted. 4-5: Very useful. 6: Fairly useful. 7: Good. 8: The readings were useful and pertinent to topics subsequently discussed. 9: The readings were excellent and extremely useful. They gave students with/without previous knowledge a good background in the field. 10: The readings were a useful tune-up to the course. Most I will revisit and expect to derive a more complete understanding of their content. 11: Useful but difficult to obtain. Perhaps they could be offered for sale as a packet in advance. 12: Pretty useful. 13: The readings were excellent, original - sometimes not particularly main-stream - and a good preparation. |
|
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: Very useful. 2: Yes. Yes. 3: Yes. 4: They were appropriate and will be useful, with notes taken in class, in the future. 5: They were useful, although as we did not cover them all in class I'm not sure how much use the materials will be as a whole in the future 6: Yes. It would have been helpful to have photocopies of Hain and Goff in the packet. 7: Yes, in the main. Could be more organized, filled out a bit. 8: Yes, they were illustrative of numerous aspects of the early printed book and will be useful for future reference. 9: Yes, the packet was useful, but appears to be missing a bibliography of reference works - I would recommend this in future. 10: Not all the material has actually been drawn upon. They will be useful for review and further study. 11: Yes - would have liked samples of other additional materials referred to in class. 12: Yes - appropriate. Probably useful in future - except that we did not have time to go over everything in the course syllabus. 13: This syllabus by itself is worth the price of admission. It is as extraordinary as one might expect from PN. |
|
3. Was the intellectual level of the course content appropriate?
1: Yes. 2: Yes, very much so. 3-6: Yes. 7: Focus was unclear and a bit diffuse for a while (till Thursday). 8: Very much so. It was invaluable to have discussed not only the particulars but also the methodological underpinning of incunabular bibliography. 9: Yes. Librarians and booksellers in the class seemed better suited to the class than faculty members, judging by class discussions. 10: The course was conducted on a high intellectual level. The lecturer's deep interest in the intellectual history of his field prevents a lapse into mere data-accumulation. 11: Yes - instructor a stickler for clear, logical thought and expression. 12: Yes. 13: Good heavens, yes. |
|
4. If your course had field trips, were they effective?
6: We saw a demonstration of ISTC - it was fairly useful. 7: Yes. 9: Yes - we saw an ISTC demo in the BAP Classroom. 10: An instructive assembly of incunabula was brought to the classroom. The hands-on inspection of the volumes was probably the most helpful part of the course. 13: Just the ISTC on CD-ROM, yes. |
|
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: The descriptions were accurate. The course more than met my expectations. 2: Yes. Yes. We needed more time - there is so much to learn from the instructor. 3: Met and exceeded. 4: Generally yes. 5: Yes, although the actual examination of incunables, which the course description plays down and which was not a large part of the class, was so useful and enjoyable that it should be incorporated into the course (and therefore the description) to a greater extent. 6: The course content matched fairly closely although I thought we would follow a more rigorous timetable for learning about various topics. 7: The course itself had a more specific agenda than indicated in the description, I think, which subtended the coverage of the areas specified (making bibliographic arguments; constructing bibliographic catalogues). Seeing/knowing this at the beginning would have helped me organize the information in my head. 8: Yes, the course was adequately described, and fully met my expectations. 9: I found it to differ somewhat from the description (I thought it would concentrate more on provenance), but believe it met (and exceeded) my expectations. 10: I had not expected that the course would be restricted to incunabula. It did meet my expectations given the very high reputation of the lecturer. 11: Was surprised by the amount of time spent on the theoretical "history of the book" movement - who begat whom. Not sure if these digressions were helpful in a compressed one-week session where every minute counts. 12: Yes, but we did not get to everything we were supposed to get to, unfortunately. 13: Not entirely. A great deal of time was devoted to defining "bibliography," and to defining other bibliographers' faults. The first of these should be in the course description. I think that these areas were less useful than the positive examination of books and the dissemination of information needed for this. |
|
6. What did you like best about the course?
1: Having been a student of bibliography for 15 years, I have learned more in this week than at any other time. PN succeeded in making clear and understandable what has always appeared to me to be a very complex area of book history (ie the incunabula period). I particularly liked the way he made the class continually question much of traditional bibliographical wisdom, and to reassess it in the light of the evidence from 15th-century books. PN's easy, friendly manner, his patience in answering questions, and the clarity of his questions were also greatly appreciated. 2: The instructor's knowledge of the material. 3: Challenged me to re-verify many assumptions I've formed. 4: Learning the methods of the instructor - very useful. 5: The instructor - he obviously knows an enormous amount about the subject, was approachable and enthusiastic. 6: PN's incredible knowledge of the subject. He was accommodating and helpful. 7: PN (the Sherlock Holmes of the bibliographical description of incunabula) knows TONS and loves a good logical argument or discussion; [getting a] good idea of how to best construct an incunable catalogue; shift of paradigm to how to see a book as having/being a mirror image of the type page/printing medium. 8: The opportunity to view and have described incunables themselves. The instructor's knowledge and ability to impart it was remarkable. 9: The instructor's knowledge and experience with the subject matter was phenomenal! He brought both curatorial and cataloging perspectives to the class. Illustrating the lectures with items from the UVa collections was extremely effective. 10: I was enormously impressed by the wealth of knowledge of the lecturer and his tremendous energy and enthusiasm which he brings to the exploration of all facets of bibliography. Let me emphasize the useful instruction concerning paper-sizes, watermarks, &c. 11: Opportunity for working with the rare books under expert guidance (instructor as Sherpa). 12: (1) Knowledge of instructor - I learned a number of things which were completely new to me, and (2) actually handling the books to do some of our own investigative work, then having the instructor comment upon our results. 13: Everything came alive whenever PN picked up a rare book and started leafing through it. Whatever my reservations about his apparent digressions along the way, the end result was a clear sense of what information should appear in a good bibliography. My reservations, then, are about the process leading toward this result - but it worked! His sense of humor is really fun, too. |
|
7. How could the course have been improved?
1: Perhaps the addition of a list of further suggested readings. 2: Better control over loose cannon students who speak up far too often and with no relevant point to make. 3: A little more precise schedule for the week - and then hold to it. One area (paper) seemed to receive a disproportionate amount of coverage. 4: A schedule for topics to be covered should be presented at the beginning of the course and followed. 5: It could have been better organized, with less time spent discussing things of a practical nature (xeroxes) and a clearer structure to the treatment of single topics and to the week as a whole. Also, there was one disruptive member of the class who might (with difficulty) have been reined in. 6: (1) More time working individually (or in small groups) with the incunables with the assistance of the instructor. (2) All students should have showed respect and courtesy for the instructor and other members of the class. Unfortunately, this was not the case. One student in particular attempted to dominate the instructor's attention and the direction of the course. The second day was thrown off by late arrival of an additional student. This student needed photocopies of the readings, so others had to help this person out. In addition, this student grabbed books belong to the UVa library or the instructor and paged through them (or took a watermark rubbing at one point while other students were presenting their books) while the class was supposed to be focused on other things. The comments made by the student often threw off the instructor. Most disturbing was more than one offensive remark directed at other students who were particularly concerned about the proper support and treatment of the books. 7: Clearer structure/purpose. More concentration. Much more hands on. 8: Perhaps allot a minimum amount of time for certain topics. Beyond that, the discursive approach, with room for many and varied questions, was very productive. 9: As mentioned earlier, I would like a bibliography of reference works, and perhaps that more time to be spent on reference/research. Also (as mentioned) a smaller class would facilitate examination and discussion. 10: There might have been more integration of the theoretical concern with methodology with the autoptic study of incunabula, so that more time could be devoted to the latter. 11: (1) At beginning of session, review basic handling procedures for rare materials. (2) Advise instructors not to let just one student's questions or comments dominate the class's dynamic. (3) Keep a geographical dictionary on hand to locate places and terms. 12: I think that there should have been more concern about the actual handling of the rare materials, and more effort should have been made in using book supports and felts, &c. Perhaps at beginning of the course a member of the UVa library staff should give instructions on proper handling. also, we did not get to go over all the materials and topics that the instructor intended. Perhaps instructor should make a stricter schedule to stick by - he would sometimes get off on a tangent, which was usually interesting, but we still missed out on some potentially useful information! 13: As we all moved around from day to day, it seemed to me that PN tends to teach to the first two chairs on either side of him most of the time. People sitting further away can feel uninvolved. |
|
8. Please comment 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, evening lectures, Bookseller Night, tour of the Alderman digital/electronic centers, printing demonstrations, &c.
1: Although I did not participate in all the activities of RBS, I enjoyed those I attended (with the possible exception of Stoddard's lecture), and very much appreciated the efforts of the RBS staff to make all students welcome and at ease. 2: Enjoyed all. 3: OK. 4: All attended were enjoyable. 5: The videos were uninspiring, particularly the BBC/James Burke one which seemed dated and made for a different kind of audience. The other events were enjoyable. 6: I didn't care for Roger Stoddard's. Sunday dinner was congenial, but crowded. 7: Lectures good; great Rotunda exhibit. 8: Fine. 9: Sunday dinner is an excellent way to meet colleagues informally. I was glad to see a different selection of videos that evening. All of the tours and demos were great - I wish we had more free time to do more! 10: Again the lectures were instructive and stimulating (especially Brett Charbeneau's presentation). Roger Stoddard's lecture was a surprise and served a side of bibliography not usually emphasized. I greatly enjoyed the pleasant company of so many intelligent and devoted colleagues. 11: Appreciate that these are available but at the same time optional. 12: Everything was fine! Just not enough time to do and see everything. Might it be possible to let us view some other videos on other nights (give us access to the video library and view some)? or would that be a logistical or security problem? 13: The evening lectures have improved enormously in the past two years. Obviously, the RBS day is intense. I wish there had been a larger window of opportunity to re-visit the Desbib Museum of materials. I'm still trying to catch up with what I missed the first time around. |
|
9. Any final thoughts? Did you get your money's worth?
1: I would give PN's course the highest recommendation. Excellent value for money. 2: It was an honor to be able to take a class with PN. His knowledge base is incredible, and his manner most pleasant. 3: Very worthwhile. 4: If you have the opportunity or funding, do not hesitate to take an RBS course. The experience is well worth the money. 5: The class was on the whole both useful and enjoyable. My only reservation would be that we didn't spend enough time doing what we were discussing; the times we attempted to do our own descriptions of incunables, using what we had learned, were really the high points of the week. 6: I feel fortunate to have learned from the expert in the field, PN. The course goes through many aspects of the study of incunables, some in more detail than others. 7: This course [was] a bit frustrating initially for a while, but worth it for my own purposes - very good way to learn to see physical evidence, what the slightest detail can show about the process/life of a book as an individual copy and as a member of a set (edition). 8: A friend of PN is a friend indeed. 9: Future attendees should note that the course concentrates exclusively on incunables. The course is highly recommended. 10: I was astounded how much my understanding of the readings has changed in this one week. PN is at the cutting edge of his field. The students may not see this at first, but he has the talent to bring them right into the middle of the ongoing life of the field, rather than leaving them as passive onlookers. 11: Do the readings in advance, and review Bowers. 12: It's a really good course, and if it gets a little more organized next time it would be better. 13: No/yes. |
| Number of respondents: 13 |
|
| There were thirteen students in the class. Five students (46%) were rare book librarians; three (23%) were antiquarian booksellers and three were teachers/professors; and one (8%) was a general librarian with some rare book duties. |