54. Introduction to Descriptive Bibliography

Terry Belanger and David Ferris, et fils
(Evaluation of the RBS 1994 version of this course)

Introduction to the physical examination and description of books and other printed materials, especially of the period 1550- 1875. The course is designed both for those with little or no prior exposure to this subject and for those with some general knowledge of the field who wish to be presented with a systematic discussion of the elements of physical description (format, collation, signings, pagination, paper, type, illustrations and other inserts, binding, circumstances of publication, &c.). A major part of the course will consist of small, closely-supervised laboratory sessions in which students will gain practice in determining format and collation. Another feature will be extensive hands-on museum displays (changing daily) of tools (type and paper molds, engraved plates and lithographic stones, bookbinding finishing irons, &c.), samples (paper, leathers, cloth, &c.), and books (and parts of books) representative of various periods and styles.

• I. How useful were the pre-course readings?
  
  1: The pre-course readings were essential. 2: Excellent, even if Bowers was a bit overwhelming (I wish that I had read more than Chapter 5). 3: Very useful for this course, although Bowers prevails, as always, so perhaps up to Chapter 5 is the most relevant. 4: They were absolutely essential for this course. Bowers is hard to get before class, and not available in sufficient quantities in class. 5: It was my own fault that I applied late and did not have enough time really to digest the reading. I think it would be helpful if the assigned reading in Bowers was specified more clearly. 6: They were useful to the point of introduction. Perhaps place in the instructions a greater emphasis on signing and pagination. 7: Extremely useful -- and critical. I wished I could have stuck it out with Bowers before arriving, but I found him annoyingly digressive as well as opaque. 8: I did apply late and did not have as much time to read the materials as I would have liked. 9: For a beginner, the most helpful was the TB essay, the video, and the pamphlet. Gaskell was OK, Bowers impossible. It would help to receive some suggestions for specific chapters. The books in total are too daunting when time is at a premium. 10: Very helpful. In fact they were necessary to understand some parts of the course. 11: Video and sheets were helpful. Also Carter. I should have read Bowers and Gaskell, but didn't have easy access or time. 12: Very good, though in the end I got bogged down in Bowers Chapter 4 (title pages) which did not figure very much in the course itself. 13: They were useful, especially TB's article. I had access to Bowers only a few days before RBS; I wish that I had had time to read him thoroughly. 14: All were very useful. However, it should be made clear that the student is expected to know the collation, etc., information well enough to start the homework without any formal teaching of the basics. 15: Never made it past Chapter 5 of Bowers. 17: The pre-course readings were very helpful because, having read those materials beforehand, I was able to deal more directly and effectively with our course work, instead of having to try to juggle all the readings and course work at the same time. 18: The readings were useful. Gaskell and Bowers are, of course, standard texts and hence necessary resources. 19: TB's brief article is excellent. Parts of Gaskell were helpful, but more guidance about which parts were most relevant to the course would have been helpful. Bowers was impossible to read with understanding and retention before some exposure to the course content and material. Again, some guidance on which sections to focus would have helped. 20: I would stress reading the first seven chapters of Bowers and list Gaskell as an optional reading. The video, TB's article in Peters's Book collecting, and Carter's ABC were definitely necessary. However, I would shift the emphasis from reading Carter several times to simply reading the work carefully. I would then recommend keeping it handy as one read through the other works. 21: Very. I read them all. You might emphasize the importance of Chapter 5 of Bowers -- tell people to read it several times. 22: Useful, although Bowers is a bit difficult at first. Incidentally, the book grew easier and more interesting to read as the course unfolded during the week I was here. 23: All were useful, though (as you're well aware) Bowers is almost impossible simply to read through cold. And you didn't assign enough -- Chapter 7 is necessary reading for two of the labs. Can you get someone to write an Abridged Bowers for beginners? 24: Quite. The proposed order for reading was especially helpful. It might be a nice marketing technique to provide an order sheet or an agent's name for buying the books (still in print) at some discount -- just a thought. 25: Extremely. 26: I think the Bowers reading was most important as far as our labs and maybe that should've been stressed. Gaskell was less a factor and maybe should have been relegated as such on the reading list. 27: Carter, the first half of Gaskell, and Bowers (Chapters 3-7) were the parts of the readings that I think were most useful in preparing me to deal with the content of the course. 28: Very useful, but in the reading list there is no indication that Gaskell has a lower position on the totem pole. When one reads ahead of time, in a vacuum, one tends to develop a preference one way or the other; however, a preference for Gaskell is definitely an impediment in this course. In addition, it makes things messy when trying to do the homework assignments. Bowers's pre-eminence should be more clearly stated ahead of time or homework assignments should have two versions, a Bowers and a Gaskell answer. 29: Crucial. 30: The readings were very good. I must admit to not having read everything minutely, but I do think that the things assigned are classics that should be read and referred to regularly. 31: The usefulness of the readings probably varies from person to person. TB's chapter was a review for me, but it might have been completely unnecessary for some class members. The list should have had a stronger statement about the importance of the Bowers book. 32: Very useful. If I had it to do over, I would begin Bowers much earlier and try to go through it twice. 33: Absolutely essential for the course we had! The entire list (and the video) were useful before and during the course. 34: Essential. 35: Very useful -- actually essential for the inexperienced, but Bowers was a bit dense in Chapter 5. I would suggest a glossary of the various symbols and punctuation he used be provided on one sheet. 36: Useful and necessary. 37: Gave some needed introduction to the subject. 38: Very good readings. I wish I had realized how important Bowers was before I came. I appreciate him now, but before class began, I concluded that if this is what bibliographers do, I don't want to be one. :-) 39: They were useful although difficult to grasp fully until we got down here and started working with the books. I had to keep rereading sections, once in class, and each time I did, I said to myself, Oh! That's what this means.
  
  
• II. How successful was the advance use of the videotape, The Anatomy of a Book: Format in the Hand-Press Period, as a teaching tool?
  
  1: The videotape was useful, but I thought the cost of the one-week rental (with facsimile materials) was a bit high. It struck me as a lot for a rental; I think $12-15 range is more reasonable [There was no rental fee for the videotape; the $25 was for your purchase of the workbook and the tube of facsimiles. -Ed.] The video was helpful, though -- and I would urge its continued use to help RBS students prepare for the course. 2: Very useful -- also useful facsimiles. 3: Very helpful. It is always easier to see it in action than just to read about it. One picture (video) is worth 10,000 words (paper). 4: The videotape was very helpful. 5: Helpful and entertaining. I would like to have seen a slow video of how a hand-press works. It could also include a metal press and a stereotyping machine. 6: I think it was just right. I spent about two hours watching and folding. 7: This was the most useful of all the preparatory items -- it certainly helped me grasp the basics which reading Gaskell, Bowers, et al, did not. 8: The video was very helpful. In fact, I wouldn't have minded seeing Format, too, before getting here. [The videotape you saw is Format; do you mean The Making of a Renaissance Book or How to Operate a Book? -Ed.] 9: Yes, very helpful and very important. 10: Very useful as a starting point, and well-done, I might add. 11: Very helpful -- even though I had seen it before. 12: Fine, though I expected more of an interactive process -- using the facsimiles to give more practical exposure to, say, the various half-sheet formats, detecting work-and-turn, types of 12mo. Though, perhaps, that would be too advanced. 13: This was wonderful! When may we expect the video on collation? 15: Extremely helpful. 17: I think that the videotape is an outstanding teaching tool and, together with the accompanying materials, it helped prepare me for the lectures on format. 18: I had already seen the tape, which is good as far as it goes. In other words, the books themselves are really what's important. Materials seemed overpriced at $25. 19: Excellent introduction to format. 20: The tape itself was quite useful; the accompanying materials were more useful in class. (I must admit, however, that I borrowed the tape from someone and did not use the materials as I viewed the film.) That RBS has such sheets is certainly a plus; such representations offer superb teaching devices. 21: Very. But get rid of the concentration camp joke. (You could just dub over it.) 22: Very effective. How about videos on other subjects? 23: The tape is excellent. 24: I think I spent a total of two hours pressing REW and PLAY trying to get the folding right -- the combination of tape and facsimiles is a nice way to break into bibliography. 25: I very much enjoyed it. If I ever have the opportunity of teaching bibliography, I will make sure my institution gets a copy for classroom use. The sheets for folding are a brilliant pedagogical idea. Again, if I ever have an opportunity to teach, I will order reams. 26: I had seen it last year in another RBS course. I thought then that it was more helpful than any written description to actually see what all that folding yields as regards locating chainlines and watermarks. 27: Seeing the tape was useful for me. It was good to be able to see a demonstration of how various formats were done after trying to understand it from Gaskell's very technical description. Also, the transcript of the narration was helpful. 28: I did not have a chance to see it. 29: Good. 30: I liked this video so much that I showed it to the other librarians in my library as well as a couple of support staff. 31: It seemed aimed at persons unfamiliar with format. I found it too elementary. 32: Very useful -- in addition, the text and facsimile sheets are a valuable reference when memory fails. 33: See no. 1, above. 34: Not necessary. 35: Very interesting and well done, but not essential if one has some bookbinding experience. 36: I knew the material presented. The video was very well made, however. 37: Somewhat redundant. 38: An excellent teaching tool. I watched it four or five times and used up almost all of the sheets. The printed version was especially helpful as a class reference during lab/homework. 39: Actually, I didn't see it. Maybe that was my problem.
  
  
• III. Were TB/DF well-prepared to teach THIS course?
  
  1: Yes, although I never got to see DF teach. I am aware of all the work that he has done for the course; I only wish that perhaps he could/would have given a lecture or two. 2: Yes. 3: Yes, although I think you left out a few of your best stories -- what happened to the 300 plus copies of Lucile, and some others. That's one of the problems perhaps when you divide the lecture. 4: In both cases, yes. 5: Very well prepared. 6: Yes! I heard DF on one occasion and only one of the lab instructors. Perhaps some benefit could come from rotating instructors through the different cohorts, etc. 7: Eminently. 8: Absolutely! Can't imagine anyone more appropriate to teach it. 9: Yes. 10: Very!! 11-12: Yes. 13: Yes! 14: I think both instructors drew on their years of personal knowledge and experience. I'm not sure how much time was spent gathering information for this course in particular. Did TB have any prepared notes? 15: Absolutely. 16: Any small detail that may have been overlooked was promptly corrected. Years of experience plus patience and good humor were evident. 17: Both instructors were eminently well-prepared. 18: TB did all of the talking: a raconteur with pithy anecdotes. Although amusing most of the time, some long stories seemed to make fairly short points. But, yes, well-prepared, indeed. 19: Yes. Their knowledge is impressive. I would have preferred a slightly more systematic and focused approach in TB's presentation, although I appreciate his stories and digressions. 20: A lifetime plus prepared -- without a doubt. Since DF appeared to have a more behind the scenes role, I do not feel in a position to comment on his preparation. 21: Regrettably, I never got a chance to work with DF, or even to get a sense of him or his interests, scholarship, etc. You might have him do the morning lectures (ie, to the two Legions) on the day TB gives his evening lecture. That way everyone would ``meet'' DF and TB could have a break. TB is as well prepared to teach this course as anyone alive. The only suggestion I would make -- and I suspect most people will say the exact opposite -- is fewer stories and more information directly about bibliography, the book trade, etc. I like intensity, but then my mother always did say I was a pill (whatever that means). 22: Yes. 23: I am tremendously grateful for all the orchestration required of the instructors and assistants. But the tension was palpable through much of the week. It was not the friendliest RBS I've taken. In short, TB and DF were prepared in terms of their knowledge and familiarity with the material, but not for our class size or format. 24: Doubtless. 25: Yes! 26: TB's head seems to be jammed with bibliographical history and he is very comfortable and confident in his lectures. 27: Yes. 28: TB was very well prepared. One question I have is, what is DF's role? He gives no lectures, yet I am sure he must know the field well and he must also do a lot of the work. It would be beneficial to the class to get to know DF and to hear him deliver at least one lecture. 29: Yes. 30: TB was very well prepared. I think, though, that occasionally we students could see a ``cloud'' over him in that something else was on his mind. Nevertheless, he was wonderful. TB has a Sheherazade-like quality that really has one waiting for more. 31: I had no contact with DF. TB wouldn't teach a course unless he was well prepared. 32: I had little/no exposure to DF. TB was very well prepared to teach this course. 33: You must be kidding? 34: Yes, yes. 35-37: Yes. 38: I have never taken a class that was so well prepared and thought out. The syllabus and homework were clear and well timed. DF clearly spent a lot of time searching and preparing the books we used. TB has an incredible command of the subject matter. 39: I had no interaction whatsoever with DF, so I cannot say. What, exactly, was his role in the teaching of the course? TB's level of expertise cannot be duplicated. From an intellectual point of view, he seems to me to be the best possible instructor for the course. Two complaints, however: 1) he is unnecessarily rude at times. He was incomprehensibly disrespectful towards me twice (incomprehensible to me because we had not yet met both times I experienced his rudeness); 2) His lectures sometimes drift into a series of anecdotes. All very interesting, if full of name-dropping, but often straying from the topic at hand.
  
  
• IV. Was the intellectual level of the course content appropriate?
  
  1-2: Yes. 3: Yes, I think everyone felt challenged. 4-6: Yes. 7: Yes. At first I was dismayed at the complexity of the first homework assignment, but soon realized that this was the most helpful. 8: Yes. But I do think there could have been at least a cursory discussion of collation, with a few examples, before being turned loose on the exercises. 9-10: Yes. 11: To me -- with no knowledge at all -- it was challenging and stimulating. 12: Yes. 13: This is not a criticism, but I wonder if the course couldn't be offered near the beginning rather than at the end of the 5-week session. This would have made much of the rest a little easier to understand. 14: I wish that there was more structure to the lectures. For example -- discussing type and font perhaps giving a short potted history followed by examples of masters. Give a short biography of Caslon and then show examples of his work (or perhaps do it chronologically). 15: Yes. 16: The wide experience and broad general reading background of TB is evident. I have many notes referring to books and articles that I will read at home. And they do not all necessarily pertain only to descriptive bibliography. 17: Yes. 18: The tenor was generalist, with a great many specifics. What was valuable, I thought, was an attitude towards the subject that underscored the need for rigor. 19: Yes. 20: If one considers the diversity of the class in terms of backgrounds and reasons for attending, as well as the introductory nature of the course, I would say yes. I think, however, if one had a group whose purposes and interests were not as varied, then appropriate adjustments could be made in keeping with the group's composition (eg, rare book librarians versus medieval or c18 scholars or whatever). 21: Yes and no. Over the years I've read as much as I possibly could about the pre-1800 book trade in England, and so a fair bit of the background information was not new to ME. Next I would like to apply for one of those master classes TB described -- they sound fabulous. 22-24: Yes. 25: Yes, quite so. 26: I learned a lot and kept up for the most part, but I think for many of us neophytes there was some feeling of being a bit overwhelmed -- at the least -- in some areas. 27: Yes. 28: It was what I expected. 29: Overwhelmingly so. 30: I felt that the intellectual level of the course was appropriate, yet, in my talks with some other students, I wonder if some of them were out of their depth. I find Bowers rather daunting and yet I have done rare book cataloging. I do wonder how others deal with it. 31- 37: Yes. 38: It was fine for me. With so many different people and backgrounds, we all spent a few minutes each day listening to at least one conversation or lecture point we didn't know much about, but that's lots of fun for me. 39: Yes.
  
  
• V. How effectively were the various parts of this course organized and coordinated?
  
  1: The Museums were effective in complementing the material covered in the lectures. The ``parts'' of the course fit together very well. 2: See nos.7, 9, below. 3: The handouts were better organized and formatted -- nice orange booklets. The current updating was noted by all, as well as the clever, pithy, and very amusing descriptions in Museum, eg, ``puffs'' noted, multiple Farms, chromos, the Polish awfuls. Also the hot off the press annotations, such as ``When Timothy Barrett spoke last night...'' and ``In Kathy Leab's talk...'' Also the size of the type was much more readable (especially without glasses). 4: The TB lectures are fine in and of themselves, but are not connected enough to the grunt work of the labs. The lectures and the labs need to review the prior homework session and to highlight what is to come next, a kind of road map suggesting that such and such pages be looked at in Bowers and Gaskell with particular attention before completing the new assignment. The class prior to the assignment should also give a specimen of what the finished product is likely to look like, reviewing the principal symbols to keep in mind. This would result in a surer grasp of fundamentals. Tell the class what it is going to learn, let them learn it, tell them what they've learned. This needs to be done with a great degree of specificity. I do not feel this would be dissonant with the high intellectual level and entertainment value of the TB lectures. 5: It all worked very well. 6: Effectively coordinated. 7: All seemed to fit together very well. 8: Very effectively -- it obviously takes a great deal of organization and orchestration to get this show on the road and a lot of prep work. I felt I really got my money's worth. 9: The hour from 5-6 was sometimes wasted if the new books to be studied were not yet at Clemons. 10: There was a lot of behind the scenes work going on that was appreciated by a lot of the students. The course was very well-organized. 11: Good balance between listening and doing. 12: Excellently. 13: I'd give the course an A+, but it would have been a better idea, perhaps, if TB's excellent lectures had focussed more on the day's homework. 14: Considering the size of the group (40), the course was effectively organized. However, I am not sure if something was lost in not having the intimacy of a small class (about 12). Give and take in discussion with student and instructor was nonexistent. 15: We had a lot to do, but it all got done. Taking only a short lunch and dinner breaks became the norm. 17: I thought that components of the course, that is, the lectures, homework, labs, Museums, and optional video sessions were quite well planned, organized, and integrated. The course flowed smoothly from one segment to another. 18: The course seemed to have good balance overall. 19: Very well. I much preferred the schedule for Blue Legion over the Orange Legion. The variety throughout the day was preferable to six hours of listening. 20: Its organization and co-ordination were flawless. 21: I liked the arrangement of the Blue Legion's day much better than the Orange Legion's. They got their homework over with in the morning and then played all afternoon (at least, after 3pm). I would have liked to have alternating schedules so each Legion got one or two days of this pattern. By the third day of having Museum first thing in the morning, I was awfully tempted to sleep in. I never did get to the coffee breaks -- always reading Bowers! If you have to trim the budget somewhere, I think you could have people buy their own coffee and snacks (you can tell that my own university has no money!). Also, I would like a different lab instructor every day. DG was wonderful, but who among us would not also like a day to work with DF or JD? 22: Very well. 23: TB's lectures could have pulled things together -- integrated it all better than they did. The anecdotes were usually amusing but often too digressive. I would have preferred having him in the Museums after the initial obligatory lectures. Or bring DF from behind the scenes. 24: I was a little puzzled by the intention of the first day's Museum -- I somehow mixed up our Tuesday homework with the Carter books in the Museum, but otherwise it was quite clear, purposeful, and well integrated. 25: Very. 26: I think the structure of the course is quite fine. However, a fuller explanation of what each part would entail would've been more helpful up front. I particularly enjoyed the Museums with all their real world examples. 28: All parts were very well organized and coordinated. 29: Exceedingly well, although I admit to being most grateful that I had Museum, not lab, at the end of the intellectually (and to a certain extent, physically) exhausting day so I could pace myself (not in order to goof off). 30: Overall things were well organized with only one exception. I would prefer, maybe for at least part of the lab, that there could be some one-on-one training. Especially at the beginning, when working with signatures, it would have been helpful to have this kind of contact. 31: Very effectively. I never found myself wondering what to do next or why some exercise or activity was in the schedule. The course was a set of interlocking pieces. 32: Very effectively indeed. I saw no indication of anything lacking. Forty students were organized so that no one got in anyone else's way -- very good planning. Another table in the common area (for a 20-member legion) would be a big help. Some people were sitting with their backs to TB: not good. 33: I felt the course was well organized and the lab, Museum, etc., were well coordinated within the main structure of the course. 34: Lectures and Museums were coordinated because the Museum material was highlighted in the lectures. Lecture and lab/homework would be linked better if at least a portion of every lecture contained specific technical preparation for homework. A lab on Day 1 to preview the elements of the collational formula would be helpful. 35: Very effectively -- particularly the alternating homework/lab sessions. The Museum exhibits were very useful, and eventually (by Wednesday) replaced the coffee breaks. 36: Effective. 37: Lectures could have had more time directed to homework subjects. 38: Legions and cohorts were a clever and effective way to handle large numbers in DesBib. The best days in the Museum were the days TB was there to help with the stuff. 39: I saw the course really as three parts (the lecture, the homework/lab sessions, the Museum). Each followed its own path, although there was much overlap. I liked this method of progressing through the material in three different ways.
  
  
• VI. To what extent did the Paper, Type/Illustration, Binding/Publishing, and Descriptive Bibliography Museums contribute to the success of the course?
  
  2: The Museum exhibits were very instructive, but I wish that I could have seen a working handpress and actual papermaking. The video about papermaking was shown as no. 4 Sunday evening -- maybe this video could be made available/shown the day before the lecture on papermaking. 3: Probably the most interesting. The Museum time allotted was just right. Last year there was not enough time and the amount of material to cover was overwhelming. 4: These were outstanding as resources. The opportunity to work at one's own pace and in particular areas of individual interest was very much appreciated. 5: Fascinating. It might be helpful if a faculty member could be present -- not to lecture -- but simply to be available for questions or discussion. 6: I especially enjoyed the Museum on type/illustration. They contributed greatly to the success of the course. 7: Greatly. This certainly helped me to visualize the items and concepts talked about in the lecture. This was the concrete example of ``a picture is worth a thousand words.'' Also, the idea of illustrating ABC for book collectors [with actual examples] is an excellent one. 8: I found it a great benefit to be able to examine (in 3-D) so many examples of features of the book in one place. A picture can be worth a thousand words, and seeing a certain type of binding is much more illustrative than just reading about it in Carter. 9: The type/illustration was most helpful. For this topic, TB's lecture was beyond me since I did not know the vocabulary. Readings would be helpful, but that's asking too much for a one-week course. The lecture perhaps should not assume prior knowledge. 10: They were very informative/interesting to me, to actually look, touch and feel the objects. I may never get the chance to experience this at any other place. 11: Museums were wonderful, and provided additional stimulation and resources. The library was also helpful so as to check books off against the booklist for personal interest. 12: Very helpful. To handle a type mold (finally). To compare sheep/goat/calf on old boards. To see the paper mold and ``wrong'' sheets. 13: They were a definite plus, and I particularly liked the third and fourth. A halo for each of the organizers! In general, the time allotted for their viewing could be shortened, if necessary -- if, as I'd suggest, the labs were lengthened. 14: They were wonderful -- BUT the student really needed to read the pre-course readings to get a lay of the land and to see everything in context. 15: The Museums were my favorite part of the course. I especially enjoyed the examples for use with Carter and the box of examples of different leather bindings. The reference books on display were very useful, as well. 16: The bibliography will be on my desk at work and I will refer to it often -- it will be Continuing Education for me. I am glad to have it as I can at least examine most of the books at my leisure and choose useful favorites. 17: Because of the wealth of materials and your wonderfully informative displays, I found the Museums to have played an important part in all that I have experienced and learned in the course. 18: These were of great benefit, providing exemplars on given topics. It would have been helpful, however, to have had instructors -- perhaps just one -- on hand to answer the inevitable questions of the moment. 19: The Museums were very instructive, giving us a chance to handle, see, operate, etc., materials we probably hadn't seen before. 20: Indispensable. Not only did these hands-on laboratories provide a more explicit link to the Carter reading, they allowed one not to become ``iron-minded'' about collation. Of course, they were equally -- if not more -- important in reinforcing the interconnected fields of knowledge that intersect in that seemingly simple object, the book. In doing so, they preached caution (in a helpful, tactful way) to the ignorant. And, of course, they inspired awe, enthusiasm, and a desire to know more. Finally, they gave material reality to potential abstract concepts. 21: They were much appreciated. What a wonderful thing to be able to pick up a tiny embroidered 1635 Bible. Being able to pick it up (and yes, I confess, hold it up for a while) made me realize that these things functioned as jewelry as well as signifiers of a young woman's virtue. There's nothing like it! 22: In my opinion, they were the key to making it successful. Hearing about an object is one thing, seeing and hefting it quite another. 23: The breadth and depth of these collections is astonishing and for the most part the accompanying texts were very useful teaching tools. It would have been even better had TB and DF been available to talk briefly about the highlights of each or to answer questions. 25: The hands-on experiences properly rounded off our readings and work. Now I want to make type, make paper, work at a composing table, work a press, and bind. 26: Very much so. My particular weaknesses in cataloging are identifying illustration methods and bindings which sometimes are noted at my library. I feel a lot more confident about them now -- ie, in being able to identify them. 27: They were one of the things I liked best about the course. Actually seeing the things answered a lot of questions I had while doing the reading. For the same reason I also liked the Illustrated Carter's ABC. 28: The Museums were the most valuable part of the course. They raised the course from the level of useful to very valuable. 29: Excellent reinforcement to lecture descriptions. 30: All the Museums were fascinating and I think I will remember many of the examples examined. 31: These were great. They brought home to me two points mentioned in the lectures: 1) books are physical objects (obvious, I know) and 2) librarians see and handle a relatively small number of books. I saw things I might never see otherwise and learned much about illustrations, types, and binding materials. 32: The Museums were a major part of the course and were extremely helpful in giving me a hands-on experience with aspects of the book world I would otherwise never see. The box of old book covers was a great learning tool -- lemonade from lemons. 33: I strongly feel that these are essential to the course. While format, collation, and the number of leaves are the core of the course, the Museums brought it all together. 34: Extraordinary displays. They are worth the incredible work to put them together. 35: Very much. 36: These were excellent. I could have used more time to digest them. 38: All critical except for the first. ``The lie of the Land'' could be combined with the ``DesBib'' Museum (perhaps) if another day is needed. How about a day for publishing economics? booksellers? advertisements? flyers? publishers' records? notes in books? pie charts for profits, literacy, number of printers, etc.? cheap vs expensive editions? competitive titles? 39: To an enormous extent. The Museums were my favorite part of the course. The Book Arts Press has acquired a wonderful collection of teaching tools that speak for themselves and add so much depth to the lectures and the labs.
  
  
• VII. How could the Museums have been improved?
  
  3: See no. 6, above. 4: Could be improved only by allowing more time to use the materials. 5: I would like to have seen a few more examples of ``fine'' work at the Museum devoted to prints and illustration, eg, Walter Crane, Jessie King, etc. 6: In some instances the quarters were slightly cramped. 7: Perhaps by having teaching staff on hand to answer questions. Having guidebooks for each of the Museums would be useful. 8: More interactive exhibits -- such as the binding recognition test, etc. 9: 1) I needed about half an hour longer for every day except the last. This was especially true on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. 2) Also, if there was a sequence to the displays, it was not always obvious. A chronological approach to much of the material would have helped. 10: I couldn't imagine how. 11: As the BAP collections grow -- add more of the same -- learning from examples is extremely helpful. 12: Generally, quite good. Occasionally items mentioned in the Museum description sheets did not correspond to what was actually there (eg, the wrong volume of the Gesamtkatalog). I would like to have seen its description of the book (incunable) on display. 13: A small suggestion for the Museum: alongside GW and Goff, perhaps some printouts from ISTC could be shown -- eg, the printout for the Astrolabium that was on display. 14: No improvement needed! 17: I cannot think how they would be improved. Bibliographical museums like this are rare, where you can have hands-on experience with the materials. 18: The lighting in the hall was ambient only and insufficient to examine certain objects closely. Sometimes the texts referred to items not readily discerned (eg, I didn't see the two variant copper engravings anywhere), but this happened infrequently. 20: Perhaps more faculty presence. On the days that (the no doubt exhausted) TB was able to come, his engagement with me and other students made a difference. Perhaps in lieu of TB, DF or someone working in the field that was being displayed could be floating around. 21: See no. 5, above, re time schedule variations. I may like intensity, but not at 8:30 in the morning. My brain wasn't at its best during Museums. 22: Some of the objects were described on explanation sheets, but were missing from the Museums. Pie in the sky idea: Have you ever given any thought to constructing a permanent museum structure to hold, exhibit, and explain all the items in the collection? 23: The Museums are aptly named -- our group whispered and tiptoed around each other as if we were in the stuffiest museum imaginable. Since we were supposedly there to learn together, I have no idea why that was necessary. The curator was very reluctant to talk or answer our questions; she was quite busy with something (I'm not sure what). 24: Occasionally the write-ups for the stations didn't match the books on the table (eg, three books listed on the sheet, but only one on the table with it), so it might save a little time and confusion to delete the missing items. 25: Having all museum exhibits out all week would be tremendously useful. 26: I really have nothing to suggest. I thought they were the best feature of the course. We always had lots of examples and having the reference books on printing, etc., on hand was often helpful to compare with the Museum examples. 27: The very first ``Lie of the Land'' Museum was a bit of a disappointment. After doing the reading in preparation for the course I was ready to do something hands-on, not sit and do more reading. 28: Give us more time to view all the exhibits. Careful consideration of the meaning of each exhibit takes time. 29: Perhaps multiple (two, three for large exhibits) copies of the explanation so that more than one student could study material at the same time. 30: Sometimes things in the Museum had not arrived on time and one had to double back to see that part. It was more an inconvenience than anything else, but the materials could have been there a little earlier. 31: It would be good if they would open early or stay open later. Two hours for the Museums would not be too long. (I'd even accept a longer class day in order to fit in a longer Museum period.) 32: I was in the first period Museum and sometimes items were not completely out or I missed something that was later mentioned as important in class (or that I would have liked to see had I known it was there). Second period Museum perhaps got these hints prior to viewing. 33: More time to study them (I do not know how you could do this, but it is a thought). I could spend an entire day in each one. 35: More time -- but that became available by skipping breaks and using part of the hour and a half available for lunch. 36: More time available. 37: Some displays kept around longer. 38: Staffed full-time by TB, DF, or someone else (each day). 39: I'm not sure they need improvement.
  
  
• VIII.How successful were your format-and-collation labs? How effective was your lab instructor in conveying the material to be covered? [Nos. 1-4 are responses to labs conducted by Peter-john Byrnes; nos. 5-11 to those conducted by James Davis; nos. 12-19 to those conducted by David Ferris; nos. 20-25 to those conducted by David Gants; nos 26-31 to those conducted by Eric Holzenberg; nos. 32-37 to those conducted by Jonathan Smith; and nos. 38-39 to those conducted by Kelly Tetterton.]
  
  1: The labs were successful and the lab instructor was very competent and helpful. He seemed to know Bowers inside and out. He was also very helpful and patient in teaching the material. 2: I missed some formal instruction in the topic for the day's homework session. The actual sessions with the instructor were instructive -- we had good discussions, but worked under time constraints. 3: Better size groups. Our group was more or less at the same level of ability, which was good. PB was not as exacting as DF, but he did point out more interesting aspects of the books that were not in Bowers, such as a double watermark, pages added after printing, different paper, etc. 4: Instructor was prepared and conscientious in approach, able to deal with larger issues of value and purpose as well as the specifics of descriptive technique. 5: The labs worked well, but I spent too much time trying to find the information I needed in Bowers. 6: Very useful. Very effective except when the instructor tried to defend Bowers. Yes, I know Bowers is always right, but I can disagree with him. 7: They were successful in that I at least have a good idea of how to proceed and some/most? of Bowers's rules now seem more logical. JD on the whole was quite good, but in some areas he did not seem too confident, especially in the pagination conventions. But with Bowers, can anyone be confident? 8: I thought the system worked very well, although sometimes I felt I was back in school, writing the answer to a math question on the board. But JD was very patient and good at explaining the collations -- one might almost say long-suffering. 9: These were the most significant parts of the course. It is what I came for, what I needed help with to do my job better, and the labs did just that. 10: The labs were very helpful and pulled together the loose ends, so to speak. If any criticism/suggestions were offered, it would be to provide a little more of the labs. This is a broad field where some people could use a lot of help and advice. 11: Very useful. My comfort level increased each day -- even if not my skill -- my familiarity with the vocabulary of descriptive bibliography has taken a giant leap. Instructor was very supportive and patient with one rank amateur -- me. 12: Very good. Perhaps there were too many long books to collate. We might have learned more by doing more, shorter books. I learned to do them last, so I didn't end up using an hour to collate and paginate an 800-page Bible. 13: DF is a good teacher, knowledgeable, kind, and patient. 14: Random ideas -- 1) Distill Gaskell and Bowers into readable format and send to students before the course. 2) Assignment 1: three or four books that illustrate the basics of collation -- no funny stuff. Make sure everyone understands the ABCs (of collation, not Carter). 3) Assignment 2: four or five books with some tricks. 4) assignment 3: five or six books give a choice to the student. Also, time allotted (1 1/2 hours) is underestimated. More like three or four hours. 15: DF was very effective; I went into that portion of the course feeling very anxious, and I actually had fun -- and learned a lot. 17: My labs were quite successful in terms of what I have learned about format and collation, and my lab instructor, DF, was outstanding in both his knowledge and patience with all my questions. 18: These were of great utility. DF was patently and patiently helpful! Since I didn't get to Bowers before the course, all facility I now have is due to these exercises. 19: The lab sessions were very instructive, but I usually felt I hadn't had enough advance information to do the exercises accurately. It was a sort of stumble and learn approach. On the other hand, this was not very anxiety provoking, since there was no censure or ridicule resulting from mistakes. It was a supportive environment. 20: Very successful. DG was thorough, well-prepared, and placed problems in the context of Bowers as well as others. Quite knowledgeable, he never let that knowledge dominate. In addition, he took pains not only to comment on the correctness or errors of a particular formula, buy also the why behind a right or wrong answer. 21: They are the single most important part of this course. I wouldn't have minded more of them. I never did the evening homework, though -- I would need to be forced. DG was at his best on the last day when we were in a rush (six books to do). Then we concentrated most rigorously on the matter at hand. That's what I prefer. But again, others may flourish better in a less intense environment. 22: I appreciated the labs very much -- especially the ratio of instructors to students. Our instructor was well informed and taught the material very clearly. 23: Our instructor (DG) did a great job. He really was effective in taking some of the mystery out of the assignments with patience and humor. He also prepared us for the Wednesday and Thursday assignments which, otherwise, we would not have known how to do (Bowers, Chapter 7). 24: The labs were really useful and it's good to divide the class into smaller batches. DG was quite dedicated and expert and he often spent whole break periods answering questions. First class. 25: No problems. DG is knowledgeable, gentle, generous, enthusiastic, and supportive. 26: Our lab instructor is a very practical guy who is a cataloger just like the three of us in my cohort. He knows where we are coming from. We were only once or so perfect, but all three of us (I believe) understand formulary principles well now. 27: The way they were done -- in small groups with three [or four] students per instructor -- was very helpful. It gave everyone a chance to participate and ask all the questions they had. The lab instructor was very effective in conveying the material. 28: EH was excellent. He was ready to be bombarded with questions and hypothetical problems, etc. He made sure we had grasped the material properly. I also appreciated being grouped with people of similar background. It ensured that discussions remained at a level that interested all of us. 29: Very good on both counts. Small group instruction was demanding but highly effective. 30: I enjoyed the labs and I feel I learned a lot. I do wish they could work one-on-one with people. Maybe doing a book together would be helpful. 31: The labs were good. EH was knowledgeable but non- authoritarian. I will recommend his rare book cataloging course to colleagues. The interaction among the cohorts was good; I learned things from my cohorts. 32: I would have liked to have had more time with the books. It is my understanding that DF prepared the answers to the collations of the homework volumes. I think it would be more effective to have the lab instructor prepare the collations and be able to give specific reasons why rather than to say, ``Well, DF said...'' or ``DF probably said that because...'' 33: Labs were very useful in purpose. I think it helps to have group discussions about problems (and successes) that we all encountered. JS was excellent in addressing any problems and explaining how the collators came to their decisions. 34: The labs are the core of the course. Lab instructor was fine for our group -- most members did not have an academic background working in libraries. The idea of the small group working on specific books is brilliant. 35: Very successful and effective. They reinforced the fact that studying from a book is not enough. 36: JS and DF were thorough in their explanations. I really understood at the end of the lab. 37: An improvement could be the use of an example already worked out for the students. Then other examples would be worked on individually, as is now the case. 38: Very, very good. And thanks for not making us hand anything in. Writing on pads was fine and the relaxed atmosphere was good. KT was a collation master and fun to discuss things with. 39: Very successful. KT is a fun person who instructs clearly and thoroughly.
  
  
• IX. How could the labs have been improved?
  
  2: Suggest that the lunch hour be shortened in order to give the cohorts a half-hour session with their instructor before they are let loose in the homework session. 3: I would have liked my hand held a little more -- would have been helpful to have had a little review of Bowers, with examples, so that we knew what we were doing. Perhaps a Cliffs Notes of Bowers for the more mentally challenged. Perhaps something to add next year would be a little prompting for the labs. Self direction is tough the first thing and it would have been nice for the group to be formally greeted and led off in the right direction. Also, Melanie was very nice but did not make herself accessible to the group. If asked, she would help, but she seemed distant and not available. Much better when TB was in the Museum last year. When JD and DF arrived one morning, it was good. 5: Perhaps there should be a short session with the lab instructor before the homework in order to answer questions and explain the topic. 6: Issue an answer sheet of correct collations, signings, and paginations following the end of the labs. 7: At the risk of sounding masochistic, they could have been a bit longer to have more time for discussion. Of course, more collation exercises would have been helpful, but there are only so many hours in the day and week. 8: I think they worked very well in the present format. 9: 1) Again, some direction as to where in Gaskell and Bowers the material being presented is located would help. A minor point, but it would have saved some time. 2) If time permitted, more books to study would be good. Not a realistic thought, however. 10: Perhaps a little longer, less time on detail and more on theory. 11: More of the same. Hands-on work with the books was most helpful. 12: See no. 8, above. Perhaps a local merchant could be convinced to stock the microscopes and portable lights? UVa bookstore? I would like to have had them. 13: Excellent and masterly though TB's lectures were, I found the labs themselves the most helpful part of the course. I wonder if it would be possible to give out more books for collation -- ie, for the assignment that included only collation itself. The students in my Legion would have had time to collate more books than they were given. Alternatively, keep all the Legion's books available throughout the week, and during the lab/home-work or Museum period on Friday, distribute answer sheets, with full formulas, in whose light the books could be reexamined. 15: Encourage students to talk to each other as they work; I think my group evolved into that, but at first it felt awkward. 17: I cannot imagine any need to improve them. 18: Keys to the various books could have been provided to avoid a mishmash of notes. A clean end product is desirable, even if the process is messy. I appreciated the duct-taped Vulgate! The truth will always shine. 19: By somewhat more advance explanation of what we would be covering the next day. It would be helpful to have a list of the commonest types of notations and examples of correct ways to express them. 20: Perhaps on Monday and/or Tuesday evening or late afternoon, one lab session could have been held in which a book was collated as a group. Such a session should take place after all members of the course have had a chance to do some collating on his or her own. 22: It would have been slightly more convenient to have a table on which to place the books while discussing them. 23: Since the lecture sessions did not touch on format and collation until we were well into it, the labs should begin with one or two demonstrations, followed by individual exercises assisted by instructors. Labs 2 and 3 could then be done as we did them, but with greater ease and confidence. (I also don't believe in throwing babies into a pool to teach them how to swim.) 24: ? 25: Someone needs to make a diagram that explains the super- and sub-scripts in collation formulas, summarizing the significance of the placement of a number before or after, above or below, the signature symbol. 26: The relationship between the homework and lab sessions needs some reworking, I think. I found the official afternoon sessions not long enough for the following lab and that the previous night was a necessity to get it all done. Maybe alternating afternoons for homework and lab instead of Museum one day? I know this limits the amount of stuff that can be covered but may be more reasonable timewise. 29: At the beginning of the course, perhaps a walk through of a couple of titles with everyone viewing the same book (or facsimile, or even video, but preferably a hard copy) with the instructor showing proper determination and recording of format, collation, signings, pagination. 30: Again, a little more one-on-one instruction. 31: Have the books available at 5pm every day. 32: I thought the labs were very effective. I turned enough pages to begin to get the feel of the paper, see common printing errors in pagination and signatures. I would have liked to have access to the books after 10 pm. I would have liked to have had some exposure to cancels in the lab. When I asked, DF and PB held a 2-minute cancel class for me during a break and it was very informative. 33: Given the time constraints, I don't really feel they could be. 34: Better coordination within the lecture material. 35: Having a one-page list of signs, symbols, etc., used in the collation formulae (with definitions!). 36: They were fine. 37: A correct pattern of analysis does take time to learn and repetition does not hurt. Sheets to emphasize main points? 38: Please, please write up one official solution (a complete descriptive bibliography) for a book in each homework box. Save it in the computer for future years, if you like. I felt like we built the parts of a descriptive bibliography, but never actually did complete ones. Yet that's what some of us will go and do. The last Museum had so many examples (of different styles) I'm unsure which is right. 39: They don't need improvement.
  
  
• X. To what degree did the actual course content correspond to its RBS brochure description and Expanded Course Description, as well as to your own expectations?
  
  1: I think the course descriptions and the actual course content were fairly evenly matched. I had no false expectations; the course is much as I expected it to be -- and better. 2: We had more lectures about paper and type/illustrations than expected. 3: This particular course was described accurately, but I know there was some mumbling about a few of the other courses that were not. 4: Met my expectations very well. A fine and rewarding experience. 5: It corresponded closely. 6: It went beyond my expectations. 7: I had expected the majority of lectures/discussions to be on collation, but I was not disappointed in the more general nature of the content. 8: Very closely. I feel that I learned enough for my purposes. I'm not going to be sitting around all day collating, but I should be able better to assist those who do. 9: OK. 10: It is what I expected. 11: Course was more useful than I had expected. I now can read a bibliography and catalog with some degree of awareness. 12: Better than I expected. (Though I guess you can't actually take credit for that, can you?) 14: I expected the lectures to be more organized in the manner of the History of the Book course. 15: It surprised me to find myself in a class with so many librarians, so my environment wasn't what I expected. I learned a lot, but I realized quickly that I came to the course with a very different background from my classmates'. 17: The course content corresponded almost exactly to the catalog description, but in actual depth the content far exceeded my expectations. 18: Pretty good correlation, though I don't recall exactly what was billed. Certain portions of lectures covered familiar ground, though with a large class, this is inevitable. 19: Well. 20: Very accurately -- in the future, one could provide a model day or offer mention of the lecture/lab format. 21: The one thing that seemed not quite to match up with the description -- and I don't remember it very well -- were some of the people in the course. At any rate, people clearly came to this course with very different expectations. Perhaps one day when the course gets so big that you have to offer two separate weeks, you could have separate subgroups, one group for whom learning this stuff is a matter of professional survival, one for whom it is a hobby or interest. 22: To a high degree. 23: I expected the course to be better focused, organized, and integrated than it was. Our day was well (actually, too-) structured, but at this point I'm feeling that the course itself was quite disjointed. 24: The Museums were much better than I was expecting them to be -- more samples and examples, more individualized, less pressured. I had had an extensive briefing on RBS 93 from a fellow graduate student, so the course fit my expectations pretty well. 25: No unpleasant surprises. 26: I got what I wanted. Our daily participation in homework was a bit more involved than I expected, but I appreciate the amount of material to be covered and understand the necessity for the intensity of our homework assignments in general. 27: I know someone who had taken the course before, so I had a pretty good idea what to expect. 28: There were fewer lectures than I expected, but I'm glad. I learned a lot more through the combination of lectures, labs, and Museums. 29: It went beyond my expectations (much to my delight) regarding the amount of material covered in lecture and Museum. 30: The things I came to learn (basically the Bowers formula) was taught and for that I am grateful. I think the many historical elements of the class were very helpful. All in all, the course description was an accurate reflection of the course content. 31: It met my expectations. I didn't study the Expanded Course Description well enough to know how well the course corresponded to it. 32: Quite closely, as I recall. 33: The course corresponded exactly with descriptions and my expectations. (The comprehensiveness of the Museums was a pleasant surprise.) 34: Corresponded to the brochure description closely. My expectations have been refined in the fire of writing formulas in lab so that I now expect to admire and respect bibliography and its writers considerably more. 35: Completely. 36: They corresponded. 37: To a great degree. Detailed homework not expected. 38: I was surprised to get more out of it than I expected. I don't remember reading that I would learn how paper was made, type was founded, or artwork was created. Beef up this in the description? More hands-on than I expected. 39: It corresponded very well and actually proved to be more interesting and entertaining than I thought it would be. XI. What did you like best about the course? 1: Everything about the course was very well thought out -- its design, structure, etc. Throughout my week here I was very impressed with the level of detail and planning that went behind everything. The course was well organized. 2: The format, collation, signings homework and lab sessions. TB's Thursday and Friday lectures. 3: TB and the staff. TB lectures are great -- good content and humor. This year's class, though larger, was more fun. Even some of the poops came out of their shells by the last day. Met just about everyone from both groups and everyone from my Legion (orange). We had a great group. Once the staff has set up the course, it's the participants that make it work. 4: The Museums and the labs. 5: Its contribution to my general understanding and comfort with the history of the book. 6: The hands-on homework and then the lab discussions. 7: Difficult to say, because it was all very good from the divers content to the level of teaching to the fine-tuned organization of the Museums. Especially noteworthy was the effective use of the small groups -- cohorts -- which encouraged participation. 8: The practical side of doing exercises -- learning a new skill, as opposed to strictly theoretical information. 9: In order: 1) The labs, the hands-on practice, the freedom to be wrong. 2) The lectures, the perspective TB has from his years of study and teaching, the broad sweep into which we could fit the details we were learning. 3) The Museum -- again, because of the hands-on opportunities, the specific examples. 4) Least valuable -- the speakers and the booksellers' evening. The speakers were good, and valuable for broadening the coverage of book history. But time was needed in this course to prepare for the labs. They were more important for this course than the speakers or the booksellers. 10: Museum is #1, the lectures #2, very informative and interesting, and the work labs next. 11: The entire program -- Museums, lectures, labs -- a good combination and variety -- and change of pace. 12: Hands-on work. Meeting qualified and enthusiastic book people -- both staff and students. 13: The collations. 14: The Museum. 15: The Museums. Overcoming my fear of collation. Staying on The Lawn. Timothy Barrett's lecture -- and later that night talking with him on The Lawn about the future of computers and books in our society. 16: The well-balanced program of lectures-samples-reading-hands-on. It was tiring, but the variety stimulated mental alertness. 17: The competent and dedicated staff. 18: The opportunity to work first hand with books (and their parts) in the labs and Museums. 19: Learning how to recognize clues to a book's production and history from the actual material. Learning more about paper, types of illustrations, bindings, etc. 20: The opportunity to experience such an unusual place as RBS/BAP -- whose members clearly take such pride in what they do. In a very real sense, RBS/BAP represents the Jeffersonian academical village. The week offered a chance to meet with incredibly knowledgeable people and, in the process, enabled me to witness and sense book history as it is reconstructed and the book as it existed in the past. 21: 1) Picking up that Bible. 2) No longer being intimidated by lengthy collations or famous bibliographers. 3) Seeing that people like TB or Michael Turner are in fact human. 4) This gorgeous, wealthy, safe campus. What a delight! This is an intellectual Hawaii. It's very hard to go back home. 22: The format (no pun intended) of Museum, lectures, home-work, and lab. Very good pedagogically. 23: The Museum exhibits and the experience gained in the labs. 24: It's a tough call, but I guess I'd have to say the Museums. But the collegiality and chance to meet so many other people -- from such a variety of interests -- will be the most pleasant memory of the week. 25: The friendly and supportive, yet intense and serious environment. I enjoyed the people and the expertise all around me -- I think I am saying this more about RBS than just the course. About the course -- the hands-on activities, the homework that required us finally to work with books, and the lab discussions. Also, of course, hanging out with TB and soaking him in. 26: The Museums. I could go at my own pace (within an hour and a half), browsing the displays, returning to those I didn't quite follow the first time around. Hands-on examples at one's own pace works very well. 28: Museums. 29: The fact that I had learned a lot and yet remain completely overwhelmed by my ignorance. This should perhaps encourage me to give up -- instead, I can't wait to return and truly wish I could take a course a week. 30: The Museums were wonderful. They were informative and fun. I enjoyed the labs, but it was more business and actually, from my point of view, a little stressful. 31: The Museums. These appeared to be carefully planned and they contained so many specimens and examples. 32: Lab work with books. Museums. Lectures. 33: I really enjoyed the Museums because they gave such a hands-on opportunity with many things (and problems) that I have encountered in the business of bookselling. 35: Hands-on Museum experiences. 36: I liked the Museum and the availability of self study in the excellently laid out material. It was unique and all at my perusal -- I really enjoyed the lectures, as well. 37: The Museum exhibits. 38: The hands-on time in homework, lab, and Museum. I was encouraged to touch stuff and I did whenever I could. TB's lectures were also outstanding. He has tremendous insight into bibliography, publishing, and book arts. I will return for more soon. 39: The Museums.
  
  
• XII. How could the course as a whole have been improved?
  
  1: Although I enjoyed the ``lecture'' aspect of the lecture period, I wonder if it might have been improved if there was a greater interaction between the students and the instructor. I think a word or two at the beginning about asking questions might have done a great deal to promote discussion -- and also not to inhibit students from asking ``dumb'' questions. 2: See suggestions in nos. 6, 9, above. 3: Less is more in the coffee breaks -- just right. Didn't gain a pound -- last year I rolled home carrying three. Sunday dinner was just right, as well. TB did not -- at least in our group -- give much of his academic background (eg, Haverford College, Columbia PhD, years at Columbia, etc). Would have been helpful if he'd done it this year (as he did in '93). Weren't there 22 stones used to print the Japanese box? Also in the Museums it was nice to know where the books came from. What are the answers to the Twinrocker quiz? Is Robert Hall still in business? Your Washington, DC exhibit did nicely on the walls of the Museum. 4: TB needs to encourage a question and answer dialog in each lecture and to link the specifics of the homework assignment to his prepared remarks in more than a general way while, at the same time, keeping the broad-based and entertaining perspective he has on so much of interest and value in the field. 5: I think it would be generally helpful and quite stimulating if there were opportunities for discussion and questions after the lectures, possibly but not necessarily in small groups. 6: I feel that during lectures the endless asides (and asides within asides) are sometimes unnecessary and sometimes distracting. Yes, they are often amusing, but they sometimes do not add to the dissemination of information. 7: I don't know, other than a new and clearer edition of Bowers be published. 8: See if you can arrange to make a 24-hour day into 36 hours. 9: TB: could your lecture on book illustration pick up on some of your posters in the Museum? I was hoping for more content in this lecture. 10: I have little to compare them with; I feel it was excellent. 11: I hope it won't be changed. 12: Let them age, like wine. 13: See no. 5, above. 14: Cut the class size down to 15. 17: I can't at this point think of any improvements that need to be made. 18: As folk wisdom dictates: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. (Hence at RBS, this might be If it ain't ``boke''...) 20: Rather than specific improvements to the course, I'm already thinking ahead to future years. In contrast to TB's statement that some students might have been disappointed with the course's broad range, that breadth was exactly what delighted me. I would welcome the opportunity to extend this course's conversation and activities in a Part II. Yet, I would suggest a variety of Part II: specifically, one might offer ``Advanced Descriptive Bibliography and the c19 Book'' or ``Advanced Descriptive and Analytical Bibliography (1650-1750).'' Here the Museums might become organized lab workshops on some days. (I mention this possibility for several reasons -- one of which is a shortage perhaps of materials [though this worry no doubt is unfounded -- RBS/BAP has an impressive/amazing collection.]) 21: The one thing I didn't get out of this course that I wanted was a chance to pick TB's brain on the book trade in my period. I would suggest adding a half-hour period every day called ``Dumb Question Hour,'' where TB is tied to a table leg and we, in turn, are forced to conquer our inhibitions and ask him questions. Of course we could ask him a few every day, but I personally have many more dumb questions than that. 22: By providing an updated volume to supersede Bowers, which is outmoded on some points. Ever thought of writing a book? 23: CUT THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS IN HALF. In previous RBS courses I've felt like a student in a privileged small private school; this year I felt like one in a good but enormous state university. I've never had so little interaction with the instructors or opportunity to pick their brains (lab excepted, of course). 24: Perhaps a package of exercises could go out with the reading list so prospective students could get a little practice applying the skills before the course. 25: Another week or so of meetings. Just when I feel that I have a fingernail hold, I'm leaving. So much more to do! 26: The lab- homework mix (as noted in no. 9, above). Use the introductory session to explain clearly what to expect (up front) from each part of the course, and sensitivity (more sensitivity) to the general student's neophyte status in all this are areas I think need some rethinking. 28: A little bit of tightening up on the lectures; more historical content on publishing and printing patterns in Europe, as well as Great Britain. 29: This is probably a unique problem (mine), but I felt a bit disorganized and disoriented in my listening to and learning from the lectures. I hate to suggest another handout, but perhaps a very brief (a page or less for the whole week) outline of the lecture subjects. 30: A little more one-on-one demonstration/help time in the labs might be nice. 31: I would have liked to have had a period set aside to look at all the examples in the packets that were used during the lectures. 32: More time with books after 10 pm. More table space in the Clemons open square for the 20-member Legions. 33: I'm not sure that you could. 34: See no. 5, above. 35: Personally, I would have liked some information on descriptive bibliography in areas other than literature, ie, natural history (if available!). 36: I learned the most from the labs and the Museum displays and would have liked more time devoted to them. 37: See no. 9, above. 38: I would like to see an overview (or a separate course) on publishing economics in the hand press period. Also some comment on the role of the author/editor in the printing process. 39: See no. 3, above.
  
  
• XIII. Any final thoughts?
  
  1: I would recommend it highly!! 2: Read (again and again) your Bowers, not just Chapter 5 -- before the course. 3: Be prepared for a large class and a long day and not to be overwhelmed with the homework. Try to read Bowers to Chapter 5, and arrive early enough on Sunday night to see the videos and How to Operate a Book. The general consensus was that it was a successful week and everyone wants to come back. The new courses mentioned on Thursday have sparked interest in the ranks (at least on The Lawn). Good group on The Lawn this year -- also the master class is of great interest to the intellectuals although the great unwashed will need something more basic, perhaps. 5: I loved the whole thing. I wish it lasted longer. 8: I would advise anyone considering taking this course to DO THE READINGS in advance -- and I'd really stress that. You'll save yourself some panic attacks in the long run. Also, don't even consider it unless you've got a lot of stamina. It involves long hours and is a lot more intense than the RBS course I took several years ago. By the end of the week, I was exhausted, but I feel I've really learned something. 9: Take it! 10: Again, with little to compare it to, I do not have any thoughts on how to improve the course. The instruction was very good, the participants a unique bunch of folks, and the course was put together very well. 11: Read Chapter 5 of Bowers and at least some Gaskell, see the video and read Carter -- ie, do the homework and benefit therefrom. 12: Do all the reading assignments before the course. They take time. 13: By all means take it! Read Bowers first, though, so that you don't have to read him again in lab time. 14: Be sure you know how to collate before you take the course. 15: I'd want one of our employees to think out more carefully what it is they expect to gain from this course than I did. I'd try to help them prepare for the great transition required from being in a retail environment to an academic one. I've met some very nice people and, despite our vast differences in background, we found a lot we do have in common -- through the love of books. 16: The literature about RBS, the maps, Vade mecum, list of participants, were very useful to me and dispelled any doubts I had about coming here. As a first-time participant, I felt confident and realized I would not waste valuable time the first day finding my way around. I especially appreciate the fact that Catherine Boyd called to check on my registration. I don't know why the US mail was so slow getting my registration to Virginia. So I certainly appreciated her call. It would have been a disappointment not to have been able to come. I want to return another time! 17: I would without reservation most enthusiastically recommend this course to anyone seriously interested in the study of rare books. 18: Absolute Bowers corrupts absolutely! 19: For those unfamiliar with descriptive bibliography, perhaps helpful to suggest one or two to look at in their library beforehand. 20: Enjoy -- and believe the RBS caveat about having free time. 21: Please put my name down for that course you hinted at. I would love to see a course on the c17 British book trade (not a course on Shakespeare) or the c18 book trade up to 1750 (not a course on Pope). My dream course would be one on the period between Shakespeare and Pope, or perhaps 1640-1740, taught to people doing scholarship in the period, and focusing as much on broadsides, pamphlets, and other popular literature as on books. Oh -- and scheduled in Week 5. Anyway, my heartfelt thanks for this generous gift -- for that is what it has been -- and all best wishes for RBS's future. 22: Do it. It's worth the time and effort. 23: I wouldn't recommend it unless I learned that the class would be much smaller. 24: The Lawn was a nice experience and I recommend it heartily. You might consider altering the title and/or the course description to attract people interested in publishing history, editing, etc. (That is, if you want more applicants -- I know a number of people who've expressed interest in knowing more about printing, bookselling, copyright law, and other aspects of book history who were unaware that ``Introduction to Descriptive Bibliography'' was just the kind of thing they'd enjoy.) Well done. 25: Do the readings, watch the video. Fold the sheets. Come with the goal of experiencing everything. Don't bring non-RBS work -- it won't get done. Meet the people (staff and students); they are worth it, indeed. Thanks! 26: Despite what I've written above, it was certainly worth the time and effort. I did learn (or rather, begin to learn) what I came to learn. I feel what I have learned will improve my rare books cataloging, and I am satisfied. 29: The index for Bowers is wonderful, terrific, beyond description. I am going to have to trash my 3 x 5 card file with topics, translations, explanations from Matthew Caulfield and LCCN examples. THANK YOU (for everything else, too). 30: I will be recommending this course (as well as RBS in general) to my colleagues. I hope to be a recidivist in the near future. 31: Advice: Get your own copy of Bowers. 32: It is an extremely good course. It is necessary to have a copy of Bowers and if you have never read him before, you should begin the course reading as early as possible. A map of the Clemons Library in the Vade mecum would be a help. 33: Nothing. I think the course was well organized and taught by extremely competent faculty and staff. 34: Be prepared to work. A great course. 35: Take this course early in your career as a RBS student. It provides a wonderful foundation, and becomes a tool for future learning. 36: I would suggest this course as an introductory course for non-librarians, whatever their interests. It would have laid a groundwork for me, especially if I had taken it before ``History of the Book.'' The lectures on the process of printing a book and its later marketing were things I had never considered before. The interplay between papermaking, type, composing, printing, guilds, etc., and the product was fascinating. The time was really too short to do justice to all the material introduced, but I shall continue on my own. 37: Would recommend the course. 38: 1) Stay on The Lawn and bring wine and cool drinks for late night Lawn gatherings. 2) Trust the restaurant guide. 3) Read Bowers Chapter 5 and try a description before you come. 4) Look at old books before you come. 5) Homework is really your friend at RBS. 39: I would recommend that a person come to Charlottesville with Gaskell and Bowers in hand. I came only with Gaskell, which was more interesting preliminary reading, but only marginally helpful once here. Bowers-in-hand is essential, I think. I would also recommend bringing down a one-cup coffee maker, if other persons like good coffee as much as I do.

Number of respondents: 39

Percentages

Leave         Tuition        Housing        Travel

Institution   Institution    Institution    Institution
gave me leave paid tuition   paid housing   paid travel

53%           44%            30%            33%

I took vaca-  I paid tui-    I paid for my  I paid my own
tion time     tion myself    own housing    travel

6%            53%            59%            51%

N/A: self-    N/A: Self-     N/A: stayed    N/A: lived 
employed, re- employed,      with friends   nearby
tired, or had retired, or    or lived at
summers off   exchange       home

41%           0%             8%             13%

  CBS Bicen-  CBS Bicen-     CBS Bicen-
  tennial     tennial        tennial
  Scholarship Scholarship    Scholarship

  3%          3%             3%

Nine students (24%) were rare book librarians; seven students (18%) had a non-professionally related interest in the subject; four students (10%) were antiquarian booksellers; four students (10%) were full-time students; three students (7%) were general librarians with some rare book duties; three students (7%) were general librarians with unspecified rare book duties; three students (7%) were retired; two students (5%) were archivist/manuscript librarians; and one student (3% each) was the administrator of a complex of historical institutions, an Air Force officer working on his PhD in English, a graduate student/author, and a teacher/professor.