H-40: The Printed Book in the West since 1800
23-27 July 2007 in Charlottesville
1) How useful were the pre-course readings?
1: Extremely helpful and useful, though I wish I had read Anthony Rota’s Apart From the Text prior to Philip Gaskell’s A New Introduction to Bibliography. 2: The pre-course readings were outstandingly thorough. Other students found them too challenging, but I found re-reading and close studies of the texts not only comprehensive and illuminating for the course topic, but fascinating as well. 3: Readings were excellent and entirely appropriate. 4: Pre-course readings overall were quite useful, although some, e.g. Roderick Cave’s The Private Press, were perhaps better skimmed than read closely, depending on one’s level of interest. The readings also provided some good information, not otherwise covered in the course. 5: Very useful. It would have been a drastically different, and poorer, experience had I not done the reading. 6: Generally good; Rota’s book was particularly helpful and easy to read. 7: Very useful. 8: The most helpful, perhaps because the most accessible to the general reader, was Rota’s Apart From the Text. Gaskell is important, but hard going; it’s easier to read and understand now. 9: Useful, but I would have been helped by some direction about which order – e.g., Rota before Gaskell. 10: Far too long. Rota’s Apart From the Text was very engaging and touched on some of the larger social issues. 11: They were extremely helpful, and gave me a good basis of knowledge for the content of the course. 12: Yes, they were useful.
2) Were the course syllabus and other materials distributed in class appropriate and useful (or will they be so in the future, after you return home)?
1: Yes, the workbook provided was very informative and will, I’m sure, be more so upon my return home. 2: The course material to take home included reproductions of primary illustrations. They provided good examples of not-easily-described printing, composing, binding, &c., processes. 3: Most useful. Some explanations offered in class were greatly aided by the supplementary illustrations in the course syllabus. 4: Yes. 5: Very useful. 6: The workbook was adequate, but we didn’t cover everything in it. I was intrigued by some of the illustrations that went undiscussed. 7: They were very useful in class, and will be useful in the future. 8: EH’s workbook is great; very helpful indeed. 9: Yes, reasonably so given that the instructor had to provide the information to a diverse group. 10-12: Yes.
3) What aspects of the course content were of the greatest interest or relevance for your purposes? Was the intellectual level of the course appropriate?
1: The intellectual was spot-on. I most enjoyed and benefitted from the activities and exercises where we handled materials to examine and identify them in some way. 2: The show-and-tell of fine press books was of the greatest interest. Most relevant for my purposes was the handling and study of book structures (including paper, ink, binding, ornamentation) from the period, and was covered in high detail. 3: Of most interest/relevance – discussing the physical aspects of book creation over time (within a historical context). Intellectual level entirely appropriate. 4: I was pleasantly surprised to find that the course emphasis on printing and illustration processes was something I was able to follow (for the most part) and understand, as those elements of the reading largely baffled one. EH’s explanations and illustrations were quite helpful. The intellectual level was appropriate. 5: Material displays and hands-on examples provided what a book alone could not. Time for questions was much appreciated and well-used. 6: I enjoyed the “hands-on” activities. The intellectual content was about right. 7: I found the discussion of the private press movement the most interesting; about all the content was very stimulating. 8: EH’s presentations were clear and succinct. His use of physical objects was a great aid to learning. The intellectual level was appropriate. Class discussions were lively. 9-10: Yes. 11: The intellectual level was appropriate; the information I obtained about printing and binding history will be of especial importance to my job. 12: The opportunity to see various editions of the same book was very useful, as it provided visual evidence of the changes in technology.
4) If your course left its classroom to visit Special Collections (SC) or to make other field trips away from your classroom, was the time devoted to this purpose well spent?
1: Very much so. 2: I emphatically loved our visits to SC. 3: Extremely well spent; marvelous supplement to the lectures. 4: Yes – all such time was very productive. 5: Again, hands-on examples and experiments made the experience what it was. 6: Very well spent. 7: Very well spent. 8: Loved the visits to SC; enjoyed the hands-on exercise in “Lower Tibet.” 9: Yes, very well spent. 10: Yes – always good to see what you are studying. 11: It was well-spent! It was wonderful to be able to see rare works that correspond to the information we were learning. 12: Yes, it was. It raised my awareness of fine press publications, and the changes in type throughout the period covered.
5) What did you like best about the course?
1: Everything; I cannot name one thing in particular, though EH did make the material fun and enjoyable. 2: My total immersion in book culture. 3: EH’s enthusiasm for the subject. 4: Learning about areas in which I previously had little interest, and finding myself quite engaged with that material, due primarily to the instructor’s skill and knowledge. 5: The instructor’s expertise and willingness to answer any and all questions to the best of his ability. Also, the videos were highly useful. 6: EH was well prepared and informed; nice mix of lecture, video, hands-on work; visits to SC much appreciated. 7: EH, the workbook, and visits to SC. 8: The visits to SC; actually the videos were useful as well. 9: Show-and-tell; it helped to bring the art and the science together. 10: The hands-on work with illustration and printing practices; looking at consecutive editions of books to see how things had changed. 11: The “show-and-tell” aspect of the course was great. It gave us the opportunity to see different examples of prints and bindings, as well as the chance to apply our new-found knowledge. 12: The fact that it covered all the physical aspects of the printed book – papermaking, type and typesetting, bindings and binding designs. The paperback was covered satisfactorily as well.
6) How could the course have been improved?
1: Perhaps another text (for the pre-course reading) on printing processes. 2: Tour of a modern, very large printing facility. 3: Can’t think of anything. Everything was splendid. 4: I may have mis-read the course description, but I was a little disappointed that continental Europe was largely left out of the picture. The instructor explained why this was early in the class, but perhaps the Anglo-American emphasis should be stressed a little more in the course description. I personally also always enjoy learning about larger socio-cultural issues, but I doubt there’s enough time to add these. 5: Perhaps even more audio/video encounters. 6: The videos were dated and projection wasn’t ideal. 8: A little more organization of the physical materials needed as examples. 9: A timeline referenced to the workbook and the syllabus. 10: More about social-economic aspects of book history.11: It would have been nice to see even more examples of various printing techniques, such as the line-cut. 12: It would be wonderful to have seen a typesetting, Linotype and/or papermaking machine in action!
7) We are always concerned about the physical well-being both of the RBS 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?
1-2: N/A. 3: Likely not relevant. While at SC, only the instructor handles material, so no concern. 4: Things seemed to me to be handled well and used appropriately; I have no particular suggestions. 5: N/A. 9: N/A. 10: Tell the SC people to let groups handle books; we are all professionals. It sort of defeats the purpose of being a library, not a museum. 11: No suggestions as all. The material was handled with care by all.
8) If you attended the Sunday and/or other evening lectures, were they worth attending?
1: Yes. The Monday evening lecture [by Andrea Immel] was tremendously educational and entertaining. 2: Yes; promoted my immersion in book culture. 3: Missed Sunday, but attended all others. Some videos were hit or miss; would scrap the one with atonal music. 4: Yes, the lectures and other event were worthwhile. 5: Yes. 7: Yes. 8-9: N/A. 10: Movie night was extremely entertaining and educational. 11: N/A. 12: Yes, they were, on the whole.
9) Did you get your money’s worth? Any final or summary thoughts, or advice for other persons considering taking this course in a future year?
1: I did indeed get my institution’s money’s worth. I would heartily advise potential students to do the preliminary reading. 2: Yes. I thank TB, RBS staff, EH, RBS and UVa for continuing my professional development – in a fun and serious way. 3: Absolutely! Will be back next year. 4: I found the course to be very worthwhile. It was not quite what I expected (which, again, may be my own fault for not reading the course description more carefully), but it opened my eyes a bit more to areas that are equally important and interesting. And EH was excellent. 5: Great experience, and will certainly repeat. 6: Yes, very much so. 7: Yes! It was a great week. 8: Yes; it is important to do the reading ahead. 9: Yes, indeed. I look forward to taking classes in the future. 10: It’s very tiring; the day is structured so that there is no opportunity (for better or worse) to see or do anything other than RBS. 11: The course was wonderful, but the evening events were not of my interest. 12: Yes, it was definitely worth the time and money. I learned a lot!
Number of respondents: 12
Percentages
Leave Tuition Housing Travel
Institution Institution Institution Institution
gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel
67% 33% 67% 67%
I took vaca- I paid tui- I paid for my I paid my own
tion time tion myself own housing travel
8% 8% 25% 25%
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 scholarship home
25% 58% 8% 8%
There were 5 rare book librarians (42%); 2 antiquarian booksellers (17%); 2 librarians (17%); 1 archivist (8%); 1 conservator (8%); and 1 book collector (8%).