Michael Winship
The American Book in the Industrial Era 1820-1940
19-23 July 2010
1. How useful were the pre-course readings? (Leave blank if you applied and were accepted late for the course, and thus did not get the list in time.)
1: The pre-course readings, particularly The History of the Book in America vol. 3, are very helpful. MW's essays are clear and carefully supported with examples from primary source material. 2: The initial reading list was rather general, but excellent starting points. Most valuable was the bibliography MW gave out in class on August 1. 3: Pre-course readings were very good and applied directly to the course description. 4: Very useful. 5: Turns out they were essential. All or most of what I learned came from the reading. 6: Very helpful. 7-8: Very useful. 9: Useful. 10: Very useful and I will probably revisit them. 11: Pre-course books were highly relevant and will be valuable references now that the course is completed. 12: The readings were useful and will become part of my working/reference library. 13: They were interesting but not essential—some of the material was covered in the class.
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: The bibliography and MW's comments on the works listed will be a valuable resource for the future. In fact, I've already started to buy some works and ILL others so I'll have them when I return home. 2: Yes—see above. The bibliography is thorough and useful. 3: Very good bibliography of additional readings. 4: Bibliography was useful. With MW's comments on selected titles during the course, I have a good "road map" for future reading. 5: Possibly. The syllabus says nothing. 6: Yes, helpful. 7: The bibliography composed and supplied by MW will be very valuable for future reference and study. 8: Yes—course bibliography is brilliant. 9: N/A. 10: Yes. The bibliography seems very extensive and will certainly be of use. 11: The course outline was closely followed and reference list comprehensive. 12: I will definitely work my way through the bibliography and try out the books I have not yet read. 13: The primary document is a bibliography, which should be a good resource.
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 students in the course came with varying degrees of knowledge of book history but everyone, I'm sure, left with vastly more than they started with. 2: From my perspective, the last couple of days on the book trade(including distribution, publisher relationships and history of the book discipline) were most relevant and likely to prove immediately useful. However, I enjoyed learning more about the technical and mechanical aspects of printing practices. 3: Understanding how books were made in the nineteenth century was most interesting. Intellectual level was good, even for those with no previous history in making books. 4: The sections on the printing/publishing histories of Whitman and Owen Meredith's Lucile. Yes. 6: MW and learning all he had to say was the most relevant and of very great interest. The level was just right. 7: The intellectual level was excellent. 8: Distribution, reading, history of the book critically considered. 9: Bindings, social history, intellectual level was appropriate. 10: The intellectual level was appropriate. I particularly enjoyed the coverage of publishing and distribution and the hands-on sessions. 11: The relationship of technological advances to social history. Intellectual level ideal. 12: I think the last two days of the course were the best. There was a little too much time spent on the basics of hand vs machine paper making, hand vs machine casting of type without enough time spent on the impact of these shifts. 13: The course may differ from others at RBS in that it focuses both on book history and on bibliography, though the emphasis is on book history. I liked this combination, some participants may find that they would rather have a course that does the one thing or the other.
4. What did you like best about the course?
1: MW is wonderful, humorous, meticulous and encyclopedic in his knowledge of printing, publishing, and distributing books in the nineteenth century. 2: MW's clear mastery of the material and general knowledge. The variety of interests/professions represented by the students offered a variety of perspectives on the material. The opportunity to handle and inspect materials personally. 3: The focus on how books evolved in the nineteenth century, especially the review of the Whitman books. 4: MW's command of the subject matter was stunning. A wonderful teacher. 5: Looking at the books—various editions in the classroom. 6: MW of course! 7: MW's knowledge, MW's brain, and MW's personality—especially his superbly dry sense of humor. 8: MW's expertise and graciousness. 10: The instructor was knowledgeable and engaging. 11: Most of the arguments were based on data derived from the books themselves or original materials. 12: The time in SC and the exercises with Tent on the Beach and Lucile. 13: I especially liked the afternoon labs where we got to touch and examine materials.
5. Did the
instructor(s) successfully help you to acquire the information and skills that the course was intended to convey?
1: Yes. 2: Yes. He was thorough in all lectures. Like anyone with
a particular professional perspective, I might have liked more about the
social/business history of the printing trade, but overall was more than
satisfied with the material/balance of the class. Also, I very much appreciated
MW's willingness to share his own research and unpublished materials with the
class. 3: Yes, considerable knowledge of nineteenth century, but little
knowledge of early twentieth century. 4: Yes. 5: Some. 6: Yes, most definitely! 7: In every session there was constant
professorial explication and insight, covering the broadest range in
appropriate detail. 8: Yes—he went out of his way and took break time to
answer my questions. 10: Yes, to the extent possible. The potential
scope of the course is much broader than could be covered in a week. 11: There was a perfect balance of didactic instruction, interaction and hands-on
demonstrations. 13: Ye—though I thought we would do more hands-on
bibliographic work.
6. Did you learn what the course description/advertisements indicated you would learn?
1-4: Yes. 5: I'm not even sure. 6: Yes. 7: Yes. More than I anticipated. 8-13: Yes.
7. Did you learn what you wanted to learn in the course?
1-4: Yes 5: Not really. 6: Yes. 7: Yes. More than I anticipated. 8-11: Yes. 12: Yes. I was hoping to learn more business history related to publishing and printing. 13: Yes.
8. How do you intend to use or apply the knowledge or skills learned in this course?
1: I plan to continue a research project and develop more course materials for the American literature courses I teach. 2: Material towards a dissertation. Future classroom use for undergraduate courses. 3: Additional reading, independent research and writing. 4: To improve my ability to understand or recognize processes used in producing c19 century books. 5: I look for new acquisitions and handle special collections, make recommendations for collection maintenance—can possibly make better judgments about books I'm looking at. 6: I'd love to build on them to learn more on the subject, this is certainly a great start. 7: Improved bibliographic skill in describing books, being more critical of my personal book collecting at work. 8: Research for my book manuscript, create a new course on the history of the book in America. 10: As a librarian, a deeper understanding of the history of printing, publishing and the book helps me communicate with my patrons. 11: I will use this in research and in planned publications. 12: Hopefully good background knowledge for the collections that I work with and the curators that I work with. 13: I don't have any intended uses but I am happy to be in possession of them.
9. How could the course have been improved? If you have a suggestion for a new course (and—equally important—a person who could teach it), please contact the RBS Program Director.
2: Six hours of lecture/day is a bit much. Would have liked more "field trips"/workshop-oriented activities in the afternoon. Note: the bibliography description exercise was great as an example of a workshop activity. Make Wednesday or Friday a half day to allow students to visit Special Collections on their own. Personally, there are things at UVA I'd like to take a look at and can't afford accommodation for another weekend. Half a day in the Special Collections would have been very helpful. 3: This is too broad of a subject. We spent several days learning about type, printing, and other technical topics. Very interesting, but it restricted time for other aspects of book publishing, regional topics, use of libraries, bookselling, &c. 4: Nothing to improve. 5: I enjoyed Pattison's lecture on binding mistakes. I'd like a course taught by him on printing/binding—physical aspects of the book. The "Studio" is extremely uncomfortable, too small, hot, terrible chairs. A terrible room for a class. Everywhere—breakfast, &c. is too crowded and claustrophobic. 6: More time would certainly have improved the class. Besides that, it was really right on—I just wanted more time. 7: RBS: add the book in c18 America to 1820. 11: Medical bibliography. 12: I think Todd Pattison would be a great instructor for the Publisher's Cloth Bindings course. He won't be able to completely fill Sue Allen's shoes, but I have taken other courses with him, and he is a very good teacher. 13: Perhaps some more time devoted to the relationship between book history and bibliography would help clarify the purpose and import of the time we spent in Special Collections.
10. 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. I really enjoyed the afternoon that we spent with Leaves of Grass. 2: Yes and no. MW's knowledge on Whitman and Cather (delivered in Special Collections with materials) was valuable and important! However, I would have liked to explore the materials myself as well (we were only shown them briefly). We are all trained in handling rare books—would have liked to have been treated that way. 3: Excellent time in Special Collections. Very informative. 4: Yes, in fact, visits to Special Collections greatly enhanced the course. 5: We couldn't really see anything. Waste of time. 6: Yes, it would have been impossible to see that material anywhere else and there is no substitute for seeing the real thing. 7: Yes, indeed. The session on the Walt Whitman collection was the best single presentation of a special collection I have experienced in the three courses I have taken. 8: Yes—excellent. 9: Format did not allow sufficient time to examine individual items. 10: Yes. 11: Special Collections sessions were exceptional, with very scarce materials discussed in relation to each other. 12: The time in SC was a highlight! Very helpful in illustrating things we heard in the lecture portion. 13: Yes, though we spent that time looking at multiple editions and issues of a single book—and I am not entirely sure what one does with the information collected from such a study.
11. 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: None. 2: If handling is a concern, conduct a quick overview of safe practice. But the classroom use of artifacts was excellent! Don't lose any of those materials from the course. 3: Would have liked to be able to look at the books in the RBS collection shelves in the meeting room. We were told not to touch them. 6: They were handled very carefully. 7: None. 10: Students could be more strongly encouraged to wash hands, but I didn't see any problems. 11: Best practices appear to be followed. 12: It would be nice if all the students could sit at a table and the trays with the books could be slid around while the instructor keeps talking and the RBS assistant keeps an eye on the book. Might be a more efficient use of time and give the students a better look at the books.
12. If you attended the optional evening events (e.g. RBS Lecture, Video Night, RBS Forum, Booksellers' Night) were they worth attending?
1: The lecture and forum were excellent. I found great books at Heartwood. 2: Absolutely! Both MW and Todd Pattison's talks were great. I love Heartwood books. 3: Excellent. 4-5: Yes. 6: Most definitely! 7: Yes—an integral part of the week. 8: Two lectures were fabulous, thanks. 9: Attended lecture and forum. Both were well worth attending. 10: Yes, absolutely! 11: Lectures and forum outstanding. 12: Todd Pattison's lecture was great!
13. Did you get your (or your institution's) money's worth? Any final or summary thoughts, or advice for other persons considering taking this course in a future year?
1: I took the History of the Book in America last summer. While this course repeats some of the same information, I now have a better understanding of the material. This class (nineteenth through twentieth century) offers a more detailed look at the period. The book histories are particularly helpful. 2: Yes! 3: Excellent value for time and money. I'll be back! 4: Very worthwhile. 5: No. I'm leaving with more questions than answers, not raised by thought or discussion but rather from vagueness and confusion I felt during class. I would prefer a more structured lecture, and not be told that answers to questions are in another course or in an upcoming new book or article. 6: It was well worth the money. I've been waiting to take this course for 15 years and it was worth every penny—I'm just sorry I didn't take it earlier. 7: Yes, and more. 8: Yes, I believe so, although tuition is high. 9-10: Yes. 11: Excellent value.
Number of respondents: 13
PERCENTAGES
Leave
Institution gave me leave
54%
I took vacation time
0%
N/A: self-employed, retired or had the summers off
46%
Tuition
Institution paid tuition
39%
I paid tuition myself
46%
N/A: Self-employed, retired
0%
Scholarship
15%
Housing
Institution paid housing
31%
I paid for my own housing
31%
N/A: stayed with friends or lived at home
38%
Travel
Institution paid travel
31%
I paid my own travel
46%
N/A: lived nearby
23%
There was one rare book librarian, one English professor, one professor of early 19th century American history, two Ph.D. students, two book collectors, two antiquarian booksellers, one general librarian with rare book duties, and three conservators.