H-50: The American Book in the Industrial Era
28 July - 1 August, 2008
1) How useful were the pre-course readings?
1: The readings were excellent and long. I wish I had more time to read them or had started earlier. 3: The required textbooks were very helpful; a good background for the topics discussed in class. I plan to read [History of the Book in America, Volume 3:] The Industrial Book, 1840-1880 more thoroughly when I get home; it is excellent. 4: Good for a general orientation about course matter; a quick overview in order to get the big picture. 5: The readings were great, although a bit redundant. (I actually found this aspect helpful, though, as an aid to memory.) They can be dull; lots of lists of names and dates. Overall, they were excellent preparation for the class. 6: Useful readings, though I felt like the course was taught with the assumption that we had not read them. That is, I wish we would have had more opportunity for discussion. 7: The pre-course readings were helpful and fascinating, though MW’s lectures were so robust as to make it easy, I would assume, for anyone to follow the course easily whether they had read them or not. 8: Very good background, summary, and detail. 9: The pre-course readings were quite helpful. 10: Useful; didn’t quite finish. 11: Right on target, foundational readings; no throwaways.
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 materials were helpful, and the reading list should be very useful for additional study. 2: Yes. 3: The detailed bibliographies will be very helpful for my future readings. I want to read more about some of the topics discussed in class, and I will use the bibliography as my reading guide. 4: The bibliography is exhaustive and will replace all others in my file. 5: Yes; MW compiled an excellent bibliography that will be useful, and the syllabus helped us stay focused. 6: Yes. Really liked the bibliographies. Also, the Linotype film [Farewell ETAOIN SHRDLU] was good. 7: Yes. They were useful for the class and will be very helpful to me in the future. 8: Yes, the short bibliographies will help a great deal. 9: The bibliographies will be of great use to me in my future research. 10: Yes. There was not an overabundance, but MW’s bibliography looked to be quite useful. 11: Extremely useful.
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: I was most interested in learning the general patterns of American book publishing, which the course covered well. I would like deeper discussion of the physical issues of the plates, but I think there wasn’t sufficient time. 2: MW’s research method and teaching style were of the greatest interest to me. Yes, the intellectual content was appropriate. 3: Everything covered in class was very relevant to my work with c19 American books. The intellectual level was appropriate and very stimulating. I especially enjoyed the discussion of c19 publishing practices and the section on the history of reading. 4: The heavy metal component of the course has forever changed the way I perceive books from the 1820's – 1850's. The mini-course in collation was also very interesting. 5: The discussion of technological advances in the book making process (the majority of the class time) will be most helpful in my work as a librarian. Discussions of authorship and readership were great, but I wanted more of this than the few hours we spent. 6: The mechanics of book production were good to include in that normally a textual (book) explanation cannot convey clear meaning. It was nice to have the instructor move through things with pictures and hand gestures. 7: General book history was probably most helpful to me, though the Whitman lecture was the most interesting; just fantastic. 8: Very much so, together. Content and the lecture discussion was very good and appropriate. 9: The lab time with the Whitman materials were of the greatest interest to me, particularly. I also especially appreciated becoming familiar with the more technical aspects of c19 printing practices. And I have always been confused by collation, but now much less so. 10: Love the Whitman and Cather presentations. Intellectual level seemed fine in general. 11: Hard to say. It’s a broad area, but MW’s approach gives new relevance to familiar territory. Much of the mechanics of printing was review for me, but was just as vital to MW’s overall presentation as the section on distribution or authorship or publishing. Wouldn’t change a thing.
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: I enjoyed MW’s coverage of the materials in SC. I tend to be a more visual than auditory learner, so a handout of his notes would have been helpful to follow along with. 2: We experienced two extremely well spent afternoons in SC. 3: We made two visits to SC; highlights of the course. It was wonderful to see the Whitman volumes and the different editions of Willa Cather’s Death Comes for the Archbishop. There is nothing like seeing the real thing! 4: Very interesting to examine Whitman’s work. 5: Our visits to SC were both useful for applying our class discussions and great fun. 6: Absolutely; especially enjoyed the Whitman. 7: Yes. 8: Very much so. Our two sessions in SC were exactly what we needed to see what we discussed laid bare before us, so to speak. 9: See above, but Yes! 10: Great. 11: Our Whitman presentation in SC was terrifically exciting; everybody said so. One of the many highlights.
5) What did you like best about the course?
1: I enjoyed the discussion of the physical issues of the plates and of current areas of research. It was useful to have the bird’s eye view of research and publication in the American industrial book. 2: I enjoyed MW’s teaching method: the use of artifacts (or faces of) to demonstrate processes, coupled with anecdotal style delivery to relay information. 3: Just having the benefit of the knowledge and experience of the instructor. MW is a wonderful teacher and a scholar. It was a great opportunity to learn how to think critically about book history and book production during this historical period in America. 4: MW reciting poetry; MW talking. I enjoyed the pace of the class. Our conversations were balanced between free-flowing meanderings and a relaxed attention to covering everything on the list of topics. 5: The visits to SC to apply our learning to examinations of editions of Leaves of Grass and Death Comes for the Archbishop. 6: MW; the way he conceptualized and explained historiography and intellectual inventions without pretension. 7: MW is a gifted scholar and lecturer whose passion for his subject shines through. I would have to say that it was his style and delivery that I liked best. 8: MW and his teaching! Or rather, his great depth and experience and knowledge, which came through at every point. 9: MW’s vast knowledge of the field and enthusiasm for imparting such knowledge. I also really enjoyed his ability to be able to bring the classes individual interests to bare on the daily material. 10: When MW digressed; which was often, and that isn’t a criticism. 11: I am always stirred by MW’s depth of knowledge and breadth of experience. A scholarly, practical, and human perspective inform everything he says. What a scholar, what a teacher, what a man. Most importantly, he offers something very valuable to literature people: a lifeline from book history back to the reasons we read and love books in the first place.
6) How could the course have been improved?
1: I am a more visual learner and would have liked more handouts to follow along with, especially for the discussions on edition, state, &c. 3: No suggestions. 5: A better balance between time spent on the techniques and technology of book manufacture and on aspects of distribution, publishing, authorship, and reading specific to this era. 6: I might have liked more fostering of discussion within the class and among class members. (Though, the nice thing about the group was that we carried discussion on beyond the classroom.) 7: N/A. 8: We spent about three days on processes and elements of bookmaking; slightly less than two on “history of the book” things, concepts, movements, &c. A roughly equal split might have been good, but not greatly. 9: I would have liked a bit more hands-on work or lab time. Some of the material (if one has done the required reading) was a bit of a repeat of the reading. 10: A bit more class discussion encouraged would have been nice. We were a relatively quiet group. Better, at the end of the week. Perhaps we were a bunch of introverts and were shy for a few days. 11: The first two days of class seemed less focused than they might have been. I think MW’s late arrival and loss of luggage affected his concentration.
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: Some of the students wanted to spend a great deal of time looking at materials passed around the room and so slowed the progression of materials around the table. It would have been nice to change locations from which materials would be passed to spread the inconvenience among everyone. 2: Some objects would benefit from stabilization treatments or jacketing. For metal objects, especially ones with a suspected lead content, a support for passing the object around would be ideal to minimize direct handling. 3: I thought the materials were handled respectfully and with care. 5: Cradles for use in the classroom might help. 7: N/A. 8: The copies we used were well handled, to the extent that we could, so I think everything was very appropriate. 9-10: No. 11: Everyone was respectful.
8) If you attended the Sunday and/or other evening lectures, were they worth attending?
1: They were quite excellent and I think they were well worth attending. Two speakers were a wonderful addition to the class experience and I enjoyed having one of them in class with us. 2: Yes, all evening lectures are worth attending. Thank you. 3: I attended both lectures and thought they were both very worthwhile. 4: Peter Stallybrass [no. 513] Wednesday night was fun and eye-opening. 5: All three lectures were very interesting and quite fun. 6: Yes. Even things that sound a bit slow were actually quite stimulating and even exciting. 7: Yes. Both Andrea Krupp [no. 512] and PS’s lectures were great in content and delivery. 8: Yes! Both lectures were illuminating, relevant, and very much worth attending. 9: Yes. I especially enjoyed TB’s Audubon presentation. 10: TB was his usual engaging self on Sunday. I couldn’t attend the other evening lectures; wish I could have as they sounded great. 11: PS was phenomenal. I also though AK made an interesting presentation.
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 get my money’s worth, and then some more. I encourage future students to start the readings early. They are engaging and excellent, but slow reads. 2: Yes, always. 3: Definitely; the course was even better than I thought it would be. It was a wonderful experience, and I would recommend it to anyone who is interested. This was my first time to attend RBS and I hope I will be able to come back. 4: Oh, yes. 5: I did think the course was worth the time and expense. Staying on the Lawn was a great help in developing a sense of camaraderie within our class and with other RBS attendees; even without air-conditioning, it’s recommended. 6: Absolutely. Read in advance. The more you know, the more you will get out of the course. 7: This was a great class, and I urge anyone who is considering taking it to do so. I feel like I got my money’s worth by the end of the first day. 8: Absolutely. The two readings complemented each other well, and are both necessary and helpful to hit the ground running and for discussion. 9: Yes! 10: Yes. 11: A hundred times my (institution’s) money’s worth!! Advice: come, bring hangers and lamp, and participate in everything. Don’t skip the breaks.
Number of respondents: 11
PERCENTAGES
Leave Tuition Housing Travel
Institution Institution Institution Institution
gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel
72% 54% 81% 81%
I took vaca- I paid tui- I paid for my I paid my own
tion time tion myself own housing travel
0% 0% 0% 9%
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
27% 45% 18% 9%
There were 4 rare book librarians (36%), 1 archivist/manuscript librarian (9%), 1 general librarian with some rare book duties (9%), 1 teacher/professor (9%), 1 full-time student (9%), 1 antiquarian bookseller (9%), and 2 conservators/preservation librarians (18%).