No. 34: Advanced Descriptive Bibliography

26-30 July 1999

1) How useful were the pre-course readings?

1: The readings were uniformly helpful. The selection for future installments of this course could conceivably emphasize bibliographical procedures and analytical techniques, over methodology and the history of the discipline. 2: I thought it was a very good list: manageable in size with relevant readings. 3: Very useful. I only wish I had gotten through more. 4: They were very appropriate and helpful. 5: Essential, although we did not get to some topics presented in the reading list. 6: Excellent list sent in time to get copies and read them before class. The content gave a very good lead into the class.

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: Most definitely. They will be useful for several projects. 2: The handouts included captions from two "Introduction to Descriptive Bibliography" museums, so I think this doesn’t apply. 3: All useful - and the unread readings will be so much more in the future. 4: The syllabus was fairly helpful - I have seen much of this before. The reading list was quite helpful. 5: Yes. The syllabus will be used again. 6: Yes. The future, up-to-date, precis of Bower’s rules will be welcome.

3) Was the intellectual level of the course content appropriate?

1: In a previous evaluation, I suggested a continuation of "Introduction to Descriptive Bibliography." This course almost seamlessly took over from that course. That I was among (chiefly) professional catalogers proved most challenging. 3: Yes. 4: Yes. The instructor was able to teach at the level of each student. Fortunately (also), everyone had a good basic knowledge, and had done the readings. 5: Yes. 6: Most appropriate.

4) If your course had field trips, were they effective?

1: I hoped to pay attention to analytical bibliography, and thus our visit to see the Hinman comparator was enlightening. 2: I profited from using the Hinman and the Lindstrandt Comparators. The chance to print on the Common Press was an added bonus. 3: We spent some time printing with Terry Chouinard, though everyone in the class had done so already. Seeing the Hinman Collator was fun, though the cheaper collator seemed useless. 4: The Hinman Collator was well worth seeing. 5: The printing demonstration is always fun - I think we had encountered the Sisson Press before. The time learning about the Hinman Collator was well spent. 6: Himan Collator: a very good demonstration.

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: Initially, I expected a greater emphasis on the analytic foundation of bibliographical description, but as the course unfolded, the detailed work with the books compensated for that. 2: Perhaps not. Next time, it might be better to emphasize that format and collation are the chief aspects to be covered. 3: Yes. 4: Generally, yes. The instructor made appropriate changes as he went along, but covered what I expected. 5-6: Yes.

6) What did you like best about the course?

1: The course had a most cordial atmosphere. It was prepared thoroughly. The lecturer is one of the outstanding minds of his field. The course should definitely become part of the standard repertoire of RBS, and one might think of a corresponding course in analytical bibliography (perhaps on an alternating basis). 2: I enjoyed the chance to work with the actual books, and discuss my findings in the labs. 3: The chance to collate some challenging books, and them talk about them. Analyzing and presenting a bibliography seemed useful and fun. 4: Working with interesting books. The instructor was very knowledgeable, and teaches gently. The labs were the best part of the course. 5: The thought, care, and energy put into the course planning and presentation. Despite the set agenda, the instructor demonstrated great flexibility in adapting the program to the students’ interests and the moment. 6: The opportunity to do descriptive bibliography with books, and have good feedback on our results. The combination of integrated workshops and lectures. The ability to go home and do a "Bowerian" analysis.

7) How could the course have been improved?

2: I really do feel that it would have been appropriate to discuss type and paper - both the methodology of describing them in a bibliography, and the problems involved. Even a list of important books and articles to read in these areas would have been welcome. I would have also liked to see some books not treated in "Introduction to Descriptive Bibliography" - books which we could have seen and analyzed for evidence that would have been beyond the introductory course (eg running title analysis as an aid to determining format, the evidence of deckles and watermarks to point out the possible arrangement of pages in a forme). I have also seen some interesting use of the Hinman that goes beyond obvious textual variation, eg the evidence (otherwise almost indetectable) of re-setting. There must be so much more that I’m unaware of. I would have liked to have come away absolutely overwhelmed with the richness of evidence, and its multifarious interpretation. Believe it or not, I would have been delighted to have worked late every night fiddling with running titles if I knew the examples had been chosen to teach me something about the use of that evidence. But to examine a book just for the sake of practice in recording running titles, when nothing significant is to be learned from them - that’s not inspiring, I’m afraid. 3: RN knows a great deal and has a great deal of practical experience. This is a new course, and the format to let him express it is still evolving. Perhaps ask participants for topics they’d like to discuss? Many (on collation) come up in the course, but I feel that some must have been missed. 4: The instructor said he was not good at lecturing, but I disagree - he can lecture very well. He explained difficult concepts logically and lucidly. A more introductory presentation of the concepts would have been helpful. 5: A discussion of plates (illustrations). I was disappointed that the subject of their description did not come up. RN occasionally did not stay on "on message." 6: Distribution of upcoming precis to Bowers.

8) We are always concerned about the physical well-being both of the BAP’s 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?

6: Close and careful work with the books provided a good understanding of them, with a minimum effect on them.

9) 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, &c.

3: Good. 4: 1. Sunday Afternoon Walking Tour: didn’t go. 2. Sunday Night Dinner and videos: nice. 3. Evening lectures: excellent. 4. Bookseller Night: Generally a waste of time. I could have gone to the stores another time, and I would have preferred another talk. 5. Hand-press demonstration: nice! 6. Rotunda exhibition: fair. 5: I enjoyed all of the lectures. 6: As always, a delight to see RBS - and what TB has wrought.

10) Any final thoughts? Did you get your money's worth?

3: The more preparation the better. I had done a fair amount of book collation, but not using Bower’s system, and I probably should have practiced a bit before class. 4: Three students and an instructor for the lab is about the maximum (therefore, RBS needs another instructor if more students are accepted). The museum demonstrations were almost the same as in the introductory course. A great course! Excellent instructor! 5: I thought it was a great course: I learned a lot. The logistics of working with the materials was fine. Just the right number of students. 6: An excellent course worth every penny.

Number of respondents: 6

There were three rare book librarians (50%), one general librarian with some rare book duties (17%), one teacher/professor (17%), and one book-collector (17%).