No. 35: Teaching the History of Books and Printing

26-30 July 1999

1) How useful were the pre-course readings?

1: They seemed overwhelming when I got the list (15 complete books required, and three articles), then nine more required books were added the week before class. But, fortunately, we weren’t put on the spot in class regarding what we had or had not read. All are indeed important, and I have every intention of reading the rest through the summer. 2: Readings were excellent, invigorating, challenging. There is no way in the world to read the amount of material specified in the time available, but the list provided a good introduction to a carefully selected group of materials. 3: The list was fun and extensive, though I would have liked a little more guidance: for instance, read Eisenstein, Gaskell, and Darnton; if possible, read ..., with some evaluations on the bibliography. 4: Very relevant. 5: Very - but it might help to reduce the "required" reading to half a dozen essential items, eg Eisenstein, Darnton, Febvre/Martin, Johns. 6: Excellent selection, but more reading than can realistically be expected. 7: Helpful to get the reading list. Although a bit overwhelming, it was handy to see which books I found relevant to my course needs and those that clearly were not. We did not receive the course syllabus before class, which would have been helpful. 8: Useful, provided insight into the depth of the course. 9: Too numerous for the time allowed - perhaps it would have been kinder to categorize them as highly recommended and less highly so. 10: Very useful. All on the point. All universe-expanding.

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. 2: Terrific. 3: I think so. MR’s outlines were especially useful. 4-5: Yes. 6: Yes, very good. 7: Yes. Now that I have it, it will provoke thought of revamping my own. 8: They were relevant in guiding the class, and I’m sure I’ll sue them again after I get home. 9-10: Yes.

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

1: Yes. 2: The course problematized problems I didn’t know I had. I learned a tremendous amount about book history and teaching. 3: Very high and quite sound. 4: Yes. 5: Yes. MR and DT did a beautiful job of setting the history of books and printing in a variety of contexts, of addressing a variety of pedagogical situations and problems. 6: Yes, but perhaps a bit too high for many of us (at least for me) who are just beginning to teach history of the book and printing. 7: Yes, although I’d have liked a literal translation of all the comments made in Latin. :-) 8-9: Yes. 10: Dead on center.

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

1: Yes. The demonstration of the printing press, and the visit to the BAP to see its resources were both very instructive. High praise to John Buchtel for all his organizational help and charming manner. 2: Excellent. 3: Keep the hand press demonstration. This was superb; something I just can’t do at my institution. 4-5: Yes. 6: Extremely well spent. The instructors’ show and tell sessions were most informative, entertaining, and helpful. The student presentations on Friday were also very useful. 7: Absolutely. However, it took us away from the rich resources left in our classroom, and we all would have liked more time with those books. 8: Yes. I discovered worthwhile things by visiting Special Collections and using it. 9-10: 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: Yes. 2: Very closely. 3: Yes, lots of strategies with an emphasis on pedagogy. 4-6: Yes. 7: Yes, and even exceeded it. 8-10: Yes.

6) What did you like best about the course?

1: Loved the team of MR and DT; what a couple of wonderfully personable intellectuals! They shared their insights while creating a relaxed environment of collegial discussion with the rest of us. 2: Learning about new ways to conceptualize teaching the history of the book. Small examples were used to expand on themes that solidified (formalized) for me for the first time. Questioning material objects to "learn their stories" is very effective for raising further questions. 3: Well, let’s see. The talk was informative and interesting, the reading list quite useful. But I think the best thing was the lively teaching. 4: Intellectual content of the Wednesday class was best. Actual use of the press was very instructive. Access to texts in the classroom was quite helpful. 5: Seeing MR and DT demonstrate the kinds of things that can be done pedagogically with a wide range of books. 6: Pedagogic tips. Assignment ideas. Teaching from examples - learning how to hear the books speak. Reading lists and constant reference to and discussion of the literature. Drawing out the questions which can be asked. Learning about BAP’s teaching resources. 7: The way MR and DT constantly posed questions to us about the entire topic: "Why is this important?" "Who cares?" kind of thing. And the innovative way they looked at "ordinary" mundane books and the teachability of those artifacts. 8: Exposure to certain aspects of the topic I hadn’t been able to think about for myself. 9: Interaction with new colleagues under the benevolent guidance and advice of the instructors. 10: I liked being provoked, being forced to consider the question, "What the hell are you doing this for?" (though of course the question was not stated that bluntly).

7) How could the course have been improved?

1: Some structured time for us to look over the wealth of reference sources they had brought over to the classroom. Some were books on our list, many were not. (There just wasn’t time over breaks, if one needed caffeine or got talking with colleagues.) 2: Just keep doing it. 3: We could have had a bit more structure in the course outline. I would also suggest the syllabus be sent to students before the class - I just didn’t think about getting it off the website. 5: The student presentations on Friday were useful, but a bit long. 6: The extent of intellectual problematizing might be reduced a bit to allow more focus on basic elements and techniques useful in teaching history of the book and printing. This view may not be shared by others with more experience. I would have liked to have come away with things such as a list of key concepts, characteristics, and issues to point out when using books as examples, and a list of sample assignment "mechanics" which have proven successful. 8: Though the reading list was good, some of the books that we emphasized in class could have been highlighted on the reading list so we might have focused and been better prepared for those books. 9: Perhaps a little more formal structure and presentation, but I am not absolutely certain that I would insist upon that by any means. 10: I am not sure that the student presentations were all that effective. We tended to talk about things we are already doing, and thus in a way only reinforced issues and procedures we had not thought about deeply before coming to RBS.

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?

1: Didn’t see any problems with the way our class handled the books. 2: Care and handling were fine. Light levels in the Rotunda (direct daylight) could be improved with UV film on outside windows and glass cases (this may or may not be an issue). 3: None: oddly, the rare book people were especially helpful - this is unusual in a high-class operation. 10: No suggestions.

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.

1: Really enjoyed Roger Wieck’s slide show of books of hours; Bookseller Night was a lot of fun. 2: Wonderful. 3: The films were more interesting than I expected; and the Etext Center - Wow. 4: Lectures seemed especially good this year. 5: Great, as usual. 6: All were quite good and a nice dimension to the program. 8: Hand press demonstration was very informative. 9: Very good on all counts - a little more free time during the day may, on occasion, have been helpful. 10: All quite nice.

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

1: It’s a great course. We had an interesting combination of people, and we learned a lot from each other about different approaches. Oh yes - I definitely got my institution’s money’s worth! 2: Wonderful experience (this is my first time at RBS). I would have liked to have a chance to use the BAP collections, but time was too tight. 3: I absolutely got my money’s worth and so did my institution. 4: MR and DT are great assets to RBS. Yes [got my money’s worth]. 6: Excellent course; extremely worthwhile. A pleasure. Instructors were very knowledgeable, supportive, and affable. 8: Yes, I got my money’s worth. Be prepared to accept openly ways of viewing things with which you are not familiar. 10: TB should think about publishing the Vade Mecum. It is by far the best guide going to Charlottesville and would make for good fund raising.

Number of respondents: 10

There were four rare book librarians (40%), two general librarians with no rare book duties (20%), two teachers/professors (20%), one full-time student (10%), and one conservator/binder/preservation librarian (10%).