G-20: Bibliographer’s Toolkit: Printed Books to 1800
21-25 July 2008
1) How useful were the pre-course readings?
1: Very useful. I understand the emphasis on ensuring that everyone does the readings in advance. The DVDs [Anatomy of a Book: I. Format in the Hand-Press Period; The Making of a Renaissance Book] were especially useful. 2: Very useful. 3: Very useful; they should all be required. 4: They were extremely useful and comprehensive; they also helped me to add useful additions to my research library. 5: I thought that having to go through Gaskell [A New Introduction to Bibliography] and the videos was very helpful, although I found Carter [ABC for Book Collectors] a bit less useful as a cover-to-cover read (better as a reference). Reading and then watching the videos finally made clear things I’ve not fully understood for some time. 6: Very. 7: Very helpful. Maybe there could be some note that if readings don’t make sense not to worry, because questions will be covered in class. 8: Very useful; good introductory and supplemental material. I would love a simplified version of Bowers [Principles of Bibliographical Description] and Gaskell. The technological aspects of the printing industry were made clear in class with discussion and demonstrations. 9: The readings are very helpful, in fact, critical to making the maximum of the class work. 10: Very useful, especially Gaskell.
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. 2: The workbook will be extremely useful. 3: Yes, the syllabus has very helpful examples and will be something I will refer to again, I’m sure. 4: Everything was well organized and covered the course materials accurately. I also was introduced to a Zelco [fluorescent light wand] for the first time – excellent! 5: The workbook, handouts, and Book Arts Press paper [schematic chainline paper] will be very useful for future reference, and were so in class. 6: Yes, excellent workbook. Thanks for the very comprehensive exit reading list. It should keep me occupied for a lifetime! 7: Very much so. 8: Yes. Thanks for the great handbook. I appreciate the exit reading list! It is useful as reference now and will be in the future. 9: These materials were pertinent; facilitating understanding and the learning experience. All materials will be very helpful in the future. 10: Yes, I will definitely hold on to, and refer to, my syllabus in the future.
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: DW’s superb selection of representative examples. Most useful for me was ... everything. The class was an excellent overview, and it was segmented and paced very well to give me an advanced introduction to understanding books in the hand press period and descriptions of them in various sources. 2: All aspects were of interest. The intellectual level was appropriate. 3: Collation and provenance; I would like to spend more time on both. 4: The printing demonstrations, provenance instruction, bindings, and bibliographical description were most useful for my purposes. The intellectual level was appropriate. 5: I thought that the historical aspects were quite interesting, but practically, the nitty-gritty of identifying and describing aspects of the books was more useful. History is very relevant, obviously, too; especially for vocabulary. 6: Very good overview of paper/printing/illustration, and binding evidence. A lot was review, but review is always good. The introduction to collation and bibliographical description was very helpful. I think this class was a great introduction to the descriptive bibliography class, and a good foundation. Overall, it was helpful. 7: All aspects were relevant, and though much of the information was new, most will be helpful if I do more with rare materials. Of particular interest was information of provenance. 8: Yes. Seeing the physical materials (books, bindings, and machinery) in a guided setting was helpful. Handling the materials described in readings was really beneficial. Printing process was also covered and explained so well; hands-on use of the printing press was great! 9: Being able to see and handle so many examples of books as reference was made to each of them. The level and content of information was very appropriate. 10: The course intellectual level was just as expected. The width of topics (paper, illustration, binding, description, &c.) was well-balanced with the depth with which each was addressed.
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: Yes, seeing the books in SC was a highlight. 2: Yes, we viewed some wonderful books of the hand press period. 3: Yes, very wonderful. We spent 1.5 hours looking at bindings at SC. The examples were imperative to a full understanding of different styles. 4: Yes, and it was highly informative, making for a memorable experience. 5: I felt that our short session in SC was gratifying in that we got to look at lots of interesting and beautiful books, but I’m not sure how instructional it was. 6: I enjoyed the trip to SC. For me, binding structures are the area that I am most familiar with, so this portion wasn’t as instructive as other parts of the class. That said, it’s always wonderful to see beautiful bindings. 7: Definitely. 8: Yes, it was great to examine actual examples with our instructor’s comments. 9: The trip to SC amplified the use of examples in the lecture and discussion. 10: Yes. SC had numerous fine and interesting bindings, and travel time there was negligible.
5) What did you like best about the course?
1: The multitude and variety of examples. 2: The contents were extremely good and very well-balanced. 3: The plenteous examples passed around in class. 4: The pace of the class. I found myself being truly surprised whenever each 90 minute segment was ending. I liked the materials presented, and the hands-on examples helped to re-enforce the materials. 5: I always find experimental anecdotes to be useful for both a lightening of classroom spirit and for demonstration of the real relevance of topics. I thought DW was very good about sharing great anecdotes, and at allowing others to tell some as well. I thought that he was a wonderful instructor who listened and answered questions (even un-brilliant ones) gracefully and thoroughly. 6: Good flow, well ordered, comprehensive presentation. 7: All of the examples used to illustrate what was being covered – well done and useful. 8: The show and tell of the books and bindings helped me to understand what was described in Gaskell and Terry’s Belanger’s article. The instructor’s knowledge of the subject and his ability to communicate material to us; he is great at having us discover the answer ourselves. DW is an excellent teacher; very encouraging and smart. 9: The course gave me exactly what I was hoping for in information. The presentation was clear and concise while laden with a breadth and depth of material. The five days were packed with most valuable information. The exit bibliography is particularly valuable for my continuing work. 10: My personal favorite was collation.
6) How could the course have been improved?
1: Examine sample books and allow us to try our hand at writing narrative descriptions (the kind in a bookseller’s description or a catalog record). We discussed so many features of the book, like binding and illustrations, but I wanted a chance to pull it together in a more concrete way. 2: By the time the books that were being passed around got to the end of the class, we didn’t know what the important details were. If they could be placed in baskets and someone could make a note concerning the book’s importance it would be extremely helpful – and it would even help to protect the books from additional handling. 3: More time for collation and provenance; more examples of different skins, side by side for comparison; notes with the examples of specifics. 4: Not sure. 5: I think that there were occasionally too many examples of things that were either redundant or too idiosyncratic, and that perhaps we could have passed things around less (especially as it divides one’s attention and causes one to miss lecture/discussion points). 6: Perhaps another field trip? 7: Each item circulated could have a brief description of why it’s circulated. By the time you received it, salient points about it were often forgotten. 8: Add a sample chart of binding leathers on one chart for comparison. Condense Bowers and Gaskell material specific to the course. Add Terry Belanger’s article on descriptive bibliography as required reading. 9: I would have to have more time to reflect, and will do so in the next few days. As of now, I would not recommend a change. 10: Materials that circulate should be accompanied by a slip that reminds you why you are looking at it.
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: By the time a book got around to me (passed from person to person) I lost track of why it was passed or what it represented, since so many were going around. Perhaps more flags identifying why a book was of interest? 3: More supports/cradles. The Allen baskets are great. I’m taking that idea back to my institution. 4: The baskets should include what you should be looking for on the examples as they are passed around. The last people were confused. 5: Grounds rules for basic handling should have been more firmly established. It seemed that, just as objects went around, it had been taken for granted that people knew the best way to carefully handle books. 6: I liked the Allen basket idea. Unfortunately, the pursuit of a good bibliographical description seems to entail a fair amount of manhandling of the materials (spines get flexed well beyond their comfort zone, head caps are poked, prodded, &c.). DW was careful to point this out. I suppose that is the risk of having a teaching collection. 7: None. I thought how books were handled worked well. 8: Use of book cradles was great! 9: All materials were presented in a way that maximized the well-being of those materials while allowing us to see, feel, and smell every item. 10: During the week I never saw a student or anyone else damage materials or handle them inappropriately. However, it couldn’t hurt at the beginning of the class to remind everyone what sound handling procedures are, especially if they are less experienced.
8) If you attended the Sunday and/or other evening lectures, were they worth attending?
1: They were not as worthwhile or stimulating as I had hoped, but they were all satisfactory. 2: Yes, I especially liked the Monday lecture [No. 511, by Richard Kuhta]. 3: Yes, very good. 4: It was mostly interesting. 5: Kuhta’s lecture was useful in that it gave me some insight into the perils and promise of library administration that I (being a student still) haven’t had much exposure to, especially regarding such high-profile institutions. 6: I enjoyed the Sunday gathering and evening lecture. I would like even more lectures (instead of movie night, &c.) 7: The Monday night lecture was excellent. I missed Sunday. 8: Yes. 9: As a first-time attendee, the Sunday lecture was interesting. The visiting lecturer was also interesting. As I’m not in the library field, it gave me a different point of view that is useful. 10: Yes to the lecture; the alphabet film less so.
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: Absolutely. I wholeheartedly would recommend this class to others and am now inspired to take more classes. 2: Yes! 3: Classes are quite expensive. It’s too bad they can’t be more affordable. But I’m very grateful they are available. Thank you TB, and staff, for your innovative program and just for being here! 4: Take it. DW is very knowledgeable and available as an instructor. He has a terrific style of teaching. Thanks DW! 5: I wish this course had been scheduled for the beginning of the summer, but this is mostly due to the particular summer project I’ve been working on and the introductory nature of the course. 6: Yes, I will definitely return. 7: I think I did. I know it’s a full week, but there’s so much to see and do (exhibits and such) at the university and environs (Monticello) that some reworking of schedules to provide a full afternoon would be appreciated (for those who can’t extend their stay). Personally, I’d rather have an evening class if an afternoon could be free. 8: Yes. I don’t want to leave. I wish I could have taken more courses this summer. I look forward to taking RBS classes in 2009, hopefully! 9: More than my money’s worth! Advice: do as much reading as possible before coming to campus. The course will mean more to you. 10: I found this a very worthwhile experience.
Number of respondents: 10
PERCENTAGES
Leave Tuition Housing Travel
Institution Institution Institution Institution
gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel
80% 70% 60% 50%
I took vaca- I paid tui- I paid for my I paid my own
tion time tion myself own housing travel
0% 30% 40% 50%
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
20% 0% 0% 0%
There were 2 rare book librarians (20%); 1 archivist/manuscript librarian (10%); 2 general librarians with some rare book duties (20%); 1 full-time student (10%); 1 antiquarian bookseller (10%); 1 conservator/binder/preservation librarian (10%); 1 digital conversion specialist (10%); and 1 personal property appraiser (10%).