Richard Noble and David Whitesell

G-10: Introduction to the Principles of Bibliographical Description

26-30 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: Very useful. 2: They were absolutely useful, even if I sometimes had difficulty recalling where I'd read something in Bowers. (Thank goodness for the RBS-produced index!) 3: Useful and, indeed, essential for the course. The suggestions as to reading order were particularly useful. 4: Critical. Suggested order of readings made a kind of logic sense beforehand and became crystal clear over the course of the week. 5: Essential but I wish the preliminary advice on reading had said more straightforwardly to watch the Belanger DVD before approaching Gaskell and particularly Bowers—a bang, bang, bang, list—Read TB's article; watch DVD; read Bowers intro, 5, 7, 9, 12; and read Gaskell would have made proceeding systematically through the information easier and made Bowers seem much less daunting. 6: Bowers (of course absolutely necessary) failed to teach in many cases; instead it confused and frightened me. Please let RN get a new edition out there. I was regretting the money I paid until Tuesday morning (first lab) when things began to clear. 7: Essential. The readings are the backbone of the course. 8: Very useful, if long. 9: Readings were perfect—Gaskell, Bowers, Carter are pretty standard. 10: My brain does not process Bowers. I would prefer a step-by-step, expanded layout ahead of time, such as was given in the packet. Gaskell was excellent. 11: 100% essential! Without the pre-course reading, I could not have benefited from the classes in a meaningful way. 12: Essential. There is no possible way you can follow the course properly without reading Gaskell & Bowers before coming. 13: Very. I learned this the hard way, unfortunately; I completed only the minimal amount of reading before the class and I deeply regret it. I could keep up, but I could have had a much richer experience than I had. Plus these books are fascinating! 14: It was essential to get a sense of them before class, but they needed (and received) proper illumination from the instructors. 15: Very useful. Foundational for the work we did. 16: I think more direction in the reading could be provided. To some degree one must just get through it, but, in terms of order I would now (after taking the course) recommend: 1) the video, 2) Gaskell p. 311-60, 3) Belanger article, 4)Bowers chapters, 5) rest of Gaskell, 6)ABC/rest of Bowers. I also think that it would be helpful to get the binder as part of the pre-course materials. 17: The pre-course readings were very useful. I read Gaskell, Bowers in toto prior to arrival (I'm a grad student, could take the time), I highly recommend this. 18: The Belanger article and video were very helpful, as was Gaskell. Bowers was difficult reading, and should be assigned and used as a reference tool. 19: They were essential. I would highly recommend reading Carter first to get a good grasp of the vocabulary of the course. 20: It would have been helpful if the DVD was added to the tuition (or optionally so) and sent immediately upon registration. 21: Not simply useful—absolutely necessary. You're expected to jump right in understanding the basics of Bowers. 22: Pre-course readings were absolutely essential! 23: DVD and Belanger were great ways to start. Gave some context helpful to the more challenging Gaskell and Bowers. 24: Vital. You'd be lost. However, order of the pre-course reading list should be made more clear. Please list DVD first, then ABC, then Gaskell, and then Bowers on the list rather than in reverse!

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: Extremely useful—beautifully organized, generously prepared. 2: Yes. I found both the workbook and the museums book helpful. In particular, I found the sample collations to be a great resource in trying to learn the "grammar" of collation. I'm certain that I'll refer back to them in the future. 3: Yes. The materials in the workbook and the descriptions of the museums are invaluable. I will often refer to them and could never have assembled anything like it myself. 4: Yes! 5: Absolutely. The evident care that's gone into the construction of the Descriptive Bibliography workbook, and the many generations of student feedback it clearly reflects, are invaluable. The collation shortcut tables and index to Bowers are essential aids to completing the coursework efficiently. 6: Very much so, though I think RBS should create a sliding signature/leaf counter like Eileen Smith's "candy" aid. 7: Yes; I'm going to keep Gaskell and Bowers at the ready. The workbook will be an excellent aide-memoire of core concepts. 8: Yes, very useful. Especially the list of further readings, sorted by topic. 9: Yes. They provide a great overview, a digest of sorts of the above references. 10: The materials were extremely helpful. I will definitely add them to my shelf of resources and will turn to them often as I work. 11: They were immaculately organized and consequently of great help. I will keep these materials at my office for reference. 12: Very useful. An excellent resource for undertaking further reading. 13: Some more than others of course, but on the whole, most definitely. 14: Yes. 15: The museums and workbook have been an excellent set of resources, and I expect to refer to them in the future. I would recommend having the articles RN read to us at great length in our last lecture given to us instead. 16: I would have benefited from a list of pages in Bowers and Gaskell to review for the next day—even if it were an inordinate number, it would have provided direction and aided efficiency. 17: Yes. The syllabus was useful. 18: Yes. 19: The syllabus and museum packet will be quite useful as reference sources when I return home. The bibliography is a treasure. 20: The workbook was most useful and will definitely continue to be useful as a reference tool. 21: Yes, the materials in the workbook and museum will be an invaluable resource as I pursue my research. 22: Yes, as to both. Believe it or not, I actually intend to use them and go back through Bowers on my own. 23: Very helpful and thorough; information relevant to the course, and information to which I'll return in the future. 24: Yes. The workbook in particular has great practical examples—especially the vital Bowers index (as he couldn't be bothered to do a decent one himself ...).

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: All aspects of this course were relevant; the level was appropriate. 2: The hands-on collations were both the hardest and most rewarding elements of the course. I think these were the most relevant to me precisely because I am not a bibliographer or cataloguer, and so may never have the chance to grapple such matters in great detail again. I've now had my boot camp! 3: Since I am a literary scholar with an interest in the book, not bibliographer or cataloguer, I was most interested in the museums and lectures covering multiple aspects of the book—printing, binding, paper, &c. However, actually doing the collations turned out to be surprisingly interesting and is a fabulous way to learn about the structure of books. 4: Almost every element had some relevance. I particularly admired the beautiful give and take between technical and theoretical aspects of descriptive bibliography. 5: A deeply satisfying experience, particularly the lab portion—James Ascher was a patient and approachable instructor. Clearly great thought goes into the makeup of lab groups in which the students interact with each other and share similar interests. 6: Yes, some of the reading material assumes more inside information than a beginner has. Format and collation, printing demo, bibliographies, binding, papermaking ... pretty much all. 7: Without a doubt the lab sessions were most pertinent to my work, since I collate books for sale and must be certain of my conclusions, and be able to explain them! 8: Description of books from the c18 century onwards. I would have liked a bit more coverage on these later materials, but I understand the importance of starting in the hand-press period. 9: The labs were the most useful and where I learned the most. 10: Being a cataloger, format and collation was my primary interest. 11: Issues of printing; finding a way to describe certain aspects of a book's composition that would be organized and meaningful to a researcher/scholar. 12: Homework and labs. It's clearly where the learning gets done. But the lectures were illuminating and the museums were just outstanding—I don't think there's anywhere else where you would get such a well-thought learning resource. 13: The collation homework had the greatest relevance; I felt that the descriptive bibliographies and examples museum had the least. That museum was certainly useful, but it lasted too long; and I felt that I could have used more time collating. 14: The collation formula was what I came to learn and did. The intellectual level was about right for the cross section of students. 15: The time with out lab instructor, going over our work, was most useful to me. This was when practical applications became clear. 16: The labs and hands-on components of museum were best. Lecture-wise, DW was learned and attentive, answered questions well, and used show and tell to great effect. Unfortunately, I was surprised that though his erudition and skill is beyond question, RN's lectures lacked focus or direction. They felt like ex tempore musings. 17: Yes. The course was well calibrated. I became better informed, sensitized to the physical makeup of books, the materials, processes of which they are composed. I will say, despite what I said above, that the course could have been a little more ambitious—title pages, contents in homework, for instance. Probably, I should just take advanced DesBib for this and other further education. 18: The information about book production techniques was most useful for me. The level was appropriate. 19: Collation. Yes, this was an intellectually stimulating course from start to finish. 20: Yes. Examination of the physical structure of the book. 21: I came hoping to gain a better understanding of the physical structure of the book, the materials that compose it, and the process by which it is composed. The museums were particularly helpful for this purpose, as I would otherwise have no access to these artifacts. 22: Learning and beginning to develop proficiency with the bibliographical terms and conventions for expression were my primary objectives. Learning about actual historic printing practices was fun and more than I anticipated. Intellectual level of the course struck me as perfect. 23: Will help me directly in my work as a cataloger and has prepared me to move ahead as a rare book cataloger. Intellectual level appropriately challenging. 24: The understanding of the mechanics behind DesBib was highly relevant and why I took the course. The philosophical debates around DesBib are what I find intellectually stimulating.

4) What did you like best about the course?

1: Many modes of learning all worked well to establish and reinforce course subjects. Individual work was beautifully supported by small group labs, and so on. The direct application of the homework at various sessions (e.g., lab, lecture, museum) was effective—extraordinarily so. 2: I thought there was a good balance between lab work, lectures, and museums. I was also impressed with how carefully all aspects of the course had been thought through and prepared—meticulous! 3: The wonderful combination of activities and teaching strategies: lectures, individual work, work with an instructor and a small (three-[person]) lab group, and museums. The helpfulness of all the instructors and their willingness to engage in discussion. 4: Honestly? Homework. Really. The lectures were quite good. Some were simply inspired and may directly influence upcoming project design. 5: Labs and homework! No abstract lecture or seminar on "the history of the book" that visits Special Collections once or twice can compete with the hands-on experience of working through 18 bibliographically interesting examples in the course of a week to understand how these things are actually made and what it all means! 6: This week, though paid for by my job, has been so stimulating, especially in providing a deep immersion into book history, that I could do it next time on vacation time. 7: Lab. My group was "on the same leaf" and we helped each other resolve common (and commonly encountered, at work) issues. Gerald Cloud is great. 8: Homework and lab. It was really great to get to handle and examine the homework books. Being able to really stick your nose in, and treat the books a bit more roughly than one would in a special collections library setting. That was really useful. Also, Chris Adams was a great lab instructor—really supportive and knowledgeable. 9: See above. 10: The museums were excellent. The hands-on approach to things we normally only read about was most helpful. Hats off to Melissa. The homework with lab instructors everywhere was excellent. Each one that I sought help from taught me something important and lasting. I loved Haven Hawley's printing demo. It brought everything all together. 11: The labs became more and more interesting as the week progressed—the museum on printing was exquisitely done—the lecture in the a.m. always helped to clarify the course content. 12: Its hands-on approach and the enthusiasm that the cooperation among instructors transmitted. It is extremely well organized. 13: HOMEWORK. I want more. It takes one a couple of days to develop note-taking skills, and one must revise them each day to keep up with new homework requirements; I really felt there wasn't enough time, but the time I did spend with the book was the most useful, with RN's lectures a close second. He provided much-needed perspective and theory which was a little last day alack ... but all excellent. 14: Lab, debating bibliographical issues. 15: The hands-on approach-lab work, homework, and museums. The opportunities to see and hold the tools and products of bookmaking, papermaking, printing, and binding; and the chance to work through many books in labs. 16: Lab and homework in content and structure. 17: The course was carefully designed so that all of the parts (labs, lectures, museums, homework) complemented, reinforced each other. This is difficult to do well and a great credit to RBS and instructors. 18: Handling so many artifacts and books in one week, and working with my lab cohort and instructor. 19: Museums were more exciting and informative than I had imagined. Melissa was terrific! 20: Looking through the books and the discussion of the homework. 21: I like the diversity of activities—small lab meetings, self-guided museums, lectures. This allowed me to learn about what interests me most, while gaining exposure to everything else. 22: Getting my hands on the materials. 23: The small size of the lab groups was perfect, giving adequate time for review of and comments on work. The grouping of these groups, according to background and interest and matching them with a particular lab instructor, was particularly helpful. 24: Lab. Christopher Adams was wonderful at encouraging us, listening to our garbled explanations, and parsing a route through while maintaining the ever-important sense of humor that made it that much more rewarding.

5) Did the instructor(s) successfully help you to acquire the information and skills that the course was intended to convey?

1: Yes. Both RN and DW are deeply learned. Their pedagogical styles, however, are different. Each topic eventually became clear, but the mode of discussion of some points should have been managed better. The two, individually and collectively, provided supremely effective guidance. They are both generous and accomplished. Consequently, this has been a very exciting week of intense instruction. Gerald Cloud was excellent in every lab and homework session. I learned a great deal from his patient, lucid instruction. 2: Yes. RN and DW's lectures gave us the lay of the land, and Haven Hawley was both immensely supportive and knowledgeable in lab. Haven made us feel free to make (intelligent) mistakes and because of this I learned more than I would have otherwise. The instructors were terrific all around! 3: Absolutely. Great care was also taken in composing lab groups so that instructors could focus on our individual interests. Our instructor was wonderful—very attuned to each of us and willing to engage in very stimulating cross-disciplinary discussion. 4: Thoroughly. Lead faculty and lab instructors (James Ascher) were all extraordinary. DW and RN are each extraordinary on their own, but combined are even more so. All lab instructors are very helpful. 5: Without a doubt—the chance to meet the lab instructors (and the like-minded students in your lab group) is a prime reason to take the course. 6: Yes. 7: Absolutely; the lectures were invaluable for digesting the texts, and the labs for practical application. 8: DW was a very effective and responsive instructor. I really enjoyed it when he spoke. 9: Yes. Everyone was incredibly knowledgeable! 10: Eileen Smith was superb. Her depth of expertise was amazing. DW was down to earth and used clear and concise explanations. 11: Yes—because I came in as a novice. I will need to review certain elements of BOWERS ... but I feel well equipped to do that after this class. 12: [Eileen Smith] was knowledgeable, helpful and encouraging, willing to explain difficulties and focus practice towards the particular interests of each of us. 13: Yes. I do feel that now I should go back, reread Gaskell and Bowers, and read about a dozen other books and articles, and then collate a book a day for practice ... but I believe I have been given the information and skills necessary in an introduction. That is, I have been shown what it is I do not know and need to learn. 14: Yes, always following up on questions that couldn't be answered right then. 15: Yes. 16: Christopher Adams and DW, absolutely! 17: Yes. Gerald Cloud was outstanding; RN and DW were both very informative, each in his own way. 18: Yes. The lab instructors were extremely helpful and patient. I also learned a lot from my classmates. A bit more basic explanation and instruction for writing formulas at the start of the class would have been helpful. 19: This was a hard-working team who clearly spent a great deal of time on what they wanted to teach us. Their efforts were apparent and successful. 20: I want to particularly highlight my TA. Christopher Adams was knowledgeable, kind, encouraging, and responsive. We had a great cohort and I very much looked forward to this part of the day. 21: Yes. My lab instructor, Gerald Cloud, was particularly patient and helpful in going through formulae. 22: Yes. Eileen Smith was both patient and resourceful. 23: Absolutely. [My] lab instructor was well versed in [the] subject, and also applied the material to our particular contexts (cataloging, in my case). I'm leaving with a good theoretical foundation, and also the knowledge of how to apply practically. 24: Yes.

6) Did you learn what the course description/advertisements indicated you would learn?

1-3: Yes. 4: Yes and no. I didn't know enough about what I was getting into, but I couldn't have before taking the course. 5: Yes. And then some! 6: Yes. I wasn't completely sure what it was exactly, but with Descriptive Bibliography how do you explain it better? 7-24: Yes.

7) Did you learn what you wanted to learn in the course?

1: Yes. Additional work in issues, states and variants would have been welcome, but I realize there must be limits set for the week, which is already rigorous. 2-3: Yes. 4: Yes, but it has also become clearer to me that there are other aspects I need to study. 5: Yes. Take it! 6: Yes. If I can take binding next year and find that it "finishes the story," then I say yes. 7: Yes. I would have liked more time on plates and their relevance in the collation formula, However I realize illustrations aren't the focus of this course. 8: Yes. Again I would have appreciated a bit more on c19 and c20 century books. 9-12: Yes. 13: As I learned what I had wanted to learn I realized I wanted to learn more, so I have ended up with a craving—but perhaps that is a much better type of education than any other. 15: Yes. 16: I would have liked more time with the books. I know there are many logistical constraints: an hour in the morning to return to homework; time on Thursday (as an option during the museum segment) to go back—both to review and/or perhaps a selection of books with answer keys to cement—truly—what was learned in lab—a little more boot camp, if you will, having drilled the basics a final practicum. Especially given the utterly unhelpful components of Friday lectures by RN. DW's show and tell group practicum was perfect. 17-24: Yes.

8) How do you intend to use or apply the knowledge or skills learned in this course?

1: In all scholarly projects I'm currently working on—both literary criticism and a reference work. 2: It will help me be more savvy about rare books in general—their identification, description, and the process by which they were made. These are all vital things for an aspiring curator. 3: In my case, the applications will emerge slowly. As a literary scholar, I appreciated the crash course in the book as a material object. 4: Extensively in research. To a more limited degree in teaching (probably at least one dedicated book history course with descriptive bibliography unit). 5: I'm just at the start of an English Ph.D. likely to have a strong reception history component. DesBib gave me a rapid orientation that will allow me to approach this project in a more manageable and intelligent way, as well as the ability to draw on the existing bibliographic scholarship more fluently (and critically) than I otherwise would have been able to. 6: Rare Book Cataloging. 7: At work: bibliography is an essential component of cataloging for sale—you can't sell what you don't understand thoroughly. 8: Not entirely sure. Bibliographical concerns will no doubt be central to my Ph.D. thesis on the rise of the novel in the eighteenth century and Romantic period (exact dissertation topic still TBA). I decided to take the course now in order to have these descriptive bibliographical skills, with an eye to applying them at some point in the future. 9: For both work and school. 10: In my job as a cataloger or rare books. 11: I will apply these new skills in my reference work with library patrons and have a much deeper understanding of the books I work with each day. 12: It will hopefully strengthen my future research skills (on the antiquarian interest of Philip Perry, Rector of St. Alban's, Valladolid (1720-1774), the origin and dispersion of his own personal library). 13: I intend to expand upon them as much as I can until I come to a rational decision about what they are best used for. (An introduction to the history of the academic controversies in this field does not help me answer this question straightforwardly!) 14: I can now right the formula and cc in the back of our books at the shop! My knowledge of book anatomy has greatly expanded. 15: In better understanding my collection so that I can assist my users more thoroughly. 16: My scholarly work and teaching history of the book. 17: In my ongoing work on English literature I will be more aware of variant editions, states, the need to think carefully about books as physical objects. 18: In study of rare books at home institution. In graduate school research. In developing lessons for college students. 19: I intend on using this information to enhance my cataloging records. 20: Although the books I make are not generally in codex form, the more I learn about book structures, the higher the quality of my work. I am also joining a volunteer DesBib group at my university. 21: To better understand what I'm looking at when I visit a text in the rare books reading room; to better compare and analyze the structure of the book as a media object in comparison to other media (I split infinitives defiantly.) 22: As a conservator, it enforced my understanding of the printing/folding aspect of book creation. This will also increase the clarity of communications with curators and librarians. 23: I plan to continue study in this area, not just to apply to my work, but also simply to continue to develop a "fluency" in this "language." I look forward to returning to Bowers and Gaskell having practiced some of what they teach. 24: I will be utilizing my knowledge within my own collection specifically in response to other scholars, who often contact my library for comparison collections.

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.

1: Perhaps an additional, optional session for individual homework on Thursday. I would have liked reviewing some of our assignments after our lab sessions. 3: The first museum was fascinating, but provided far more materials than I could absorb in an hour and a half. Whereas the time felt right for subsequent museums, I really needed more (three hours?) to sink into the first one. 4: I felt exhausted all the time, and yet wouldn't want to see a reduction of homework. I sometimes felt monitored and/or distracted by museum. I got a lot out of them, but I definitely felt monitored and not really free to explore ad lib. (what, how much, how long to look). 5: The museums were generally very helpful but did sometimes feel a bit rushed—the Monday and Tuesday museums in particular, I wish there had been a chance to re-visit or linger just a bit longer, given the number of stations. 6: More time in museums! New course idea: possibly Intermediate Descriptive Bibliography? I've learned a lot but don't feel confident enough to take Advanced DesBib. 7: The course is a well-oiled machine. My only complaint is the timing of the museum visits. It happened that my legion had homework session followed by the museum—in the late afternoon—a difficult time of day to play auto-didact, and an inconvenience to break up homework. 9: 1)See number 10. There was another tour arranged by RBS of Special Collections but it only covered the infrastructure of the building (though the librarian who gave the tour was very nice). 2) I think that the time slot for museums might fit better somewhere else (3:30-5 was when we had it); it was hard to interrupt homework and then return to it after. 11: It might be helpful to have one or two 30 minute Q&A sessions where students with specific questions could sit down with an instructor or lab instructor and have a discussion on x, y, or z! 13: More homework! And a little less of the DesBibs and examples museum. 14: I wish all homework sections could be at the end of the day, it was hard to come back to the work. 15: Less lecture time, and more lab and homework time. Perhaps lectures could be collapse into brief talks at start of museums, since thematically the two complement one another.16: Better classroom—too crowded when all DesBibbers needed it. 17: Aside from what I've said in question seven, I can think of no improvements. The design and execution of this class were both outstanding.18: See number five. 19: It's perfect. Well thought out and planned. 20: I would split the Monday night museum into two parts. It would have been nice to have more time to explore those exhibits, even if it meant less time with other exhibits. The lectures did not seem coordinated with the work we were doing in the labs. 21: I would be interested in seeing—or at least getting a taste—of how bibliography is changing in the "digital age" during the course. 24: More lab time—we didn't get through the six books, and by catch up you were out of the mindset or couldn't remember why you had done what you'd done. Perhaps shorten the lecture time and expand lab (which might be tough with such a large group).

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: N/A. 2: N/A. Though the printing demonstration was amazing. I feel fortunate to have had the opportunity to have printed my own pages. 4-7: N/A. 8: The museum sessions were great. The explanatory text was often really interesting, although there were usually too many stations to get through in the designated time. I wish we had longer! 9: We did not visit Special Collections as a class but my cohorts and I arranged for our own tour. I highly recommend considering something like that as part of the class—they have an amazing collection! I feel like I would have missed out if I hadn't taken a tour and seen some of their treasures (e.g., Faulkner's MS to The Sound and the Fury, first edition of Leaves of Grass, and another Faulkner—one of six copies of a manuscript of a play he wrote and illustrated himself in 1950!). 10: N/A. 11-12: Yes. 15: N/A. 18: The museum sessions were excellent—it was great to be able to handle so many artifacts. 19-20: N/A 23: The museums were a great way to see examples of topics discussed in the lectures, and to see a variety of examples in one place. 24: Also, I liked the philosophical discussion at the end about the ideal copy and Bower's notion of it—that, for me, brought DesBib back into the wide world of the socio-cultural life of the book/print, rather than its sequestration.

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: Perhaps more space. Alderman 317 got a tad cramped during the evening homework hours. 5: A tough one since the books do show signs of repeated handling, but in general the instructors were quite good at showing us the proper etiquette for that sort of thing. 6: A book handler Nazi? Tongue in cheek, but I saw one student flipping at light speed through leaves, prying at covers and threads, and when she was finished, the table was littered with debris from the books in great abundance. 7: RN's comment on the first day said it all: "Don't take a book where it doesn't want to go." It seemed to me people took care. 8: White gloves? 9: No. 13: Haven Hawley told us on Thursday that when we examine a book like this we are contributing to its destruction. That should have been emphasized much more. Those books are already in bad condition, which makes it worse; but I saw books handled in an irresponsible manner several times—because people were too lazy to use foam or pencils, and because one believes it is ok to sacrifice these books—if only these—to our educations. I don't think it is. If the instructors agree they should make it clearer. 14: The books are well worn, but they should be. Everyone was respectful. 18: An instruction session at the start of the course about how to handle books—demonstrate what is and is not OK. 19: All necessary precautions are taken, and I am not sure what else could be done without sacrificing the learning process. 20: None. 21: Gloves when handling type—I'm concerned about lead rubbing off on people's fingers! Bigger tables at museums without workbooks, spills/knock-overs were a threat. 24: There always seemed to be enough materials to deal with that was suitable for teaching—and with DesBib, you need something that has lived! I was not concerned about material handling.

12) If you attended the optional evening events (e.g. RBS Lecture, Video Night, RBS Forum, Booksellers' Night) were they worth attending?

1: Yes. 2: I attended the first lecture and Booksellers' Night and enjoyed both. The rest of the evenings were devoted to homework. 4: I only attended the RBS lecture, to the detriment of getting homework done. Worth it, though. 5: If you're taking DesBib, do not plan on attending the evening events. You might have time for a couple, but really, you need the evenings to wrestle with the books—that's why you're there—otherwise lab will just not be useful. Booksellers' Night was a fine idea, a map of the downtown mall with participating "late" locations marked would be a valuable addition to the Vade Mecum, though. 6: I left before Q&A for both (lectures) to do homework, but enjoyed both. 7: Attended both (lectures), and enjoyed both. Not immediately relevant to Descriptive Bibliography, but interesting. 8: I attended Ian Desai and the film night—both were great. I also went to Steve Beare's talk, which was not as stimulating. I would have appreciated something a bit more scholarly. 9: Only had time for Booksellers' Night. It was fun. 10: Did not attend. Spent all extra time doing home work. 13: Absolutely. The lecture and forum were refreshing changes of perspective and attention that both helped me keep my sanity AND reminds me that the gutter is NOT the only thing I should be looking at. 14: I attended Ian Desai's lecture which was wonderful, loved Bookseller's Night. 15: I saw part of the lecture and also part of the Forum and found each to be worthwhile. I wish that I had more time to see them both from start to finish. 16: RBS lecture and Booksellers' Night, yes. 17: Ian Desai is an awesome, brilliant dude; thanks for bringing him in. Homework &c. kept me from the other events. 18: N/A 19: I would rather do homework. 20: Did not go to Video Night—the others were great. 21: Unfortunately, was unable to because of the amount of homework! 22: Yes. 24: The Monday lecture was great, but the other two nights, I was deep in homework. Perhaps those in DesBib need to be made aware at the outset that the chances of getting to movie night or Forum are slim-to-none (we need to eat!).

13) Did you get your (or your institutions) money's worth? Any final or summary thoughts, or advice for other persons considering taking this course in a future year?

1: This is a wonderful program. This particular course is an intense and exhilarating week, which will be of continuing and immediate value to me in all forms of scholarly pursuits. I recommend RBS without reservation; this course will be of great benefit to many. 2: RBS was a tremendous experience and I hope that I will have the chance to return very soon. I learned a ton, and I loved having the chance to meet Special Collections librarians and other rare book people from around the country (and beyond). 3: Yes. It was absolutely worth it. I spent about 10 days in preliminary readings and would suggest that prospective students set even more time aside if they don't have previous experience in the field. 4: Yes. Extra: James was an ideal leader for this cohort. The cohorts generally (perhaps ours in particular) were "ideal gatherings." 5: Yes—as I said there is no better way to rapidly orient yourself to the study of the book and what bibliography actually means, that I know of. Do the reading before you come, but if you find Bowers challenging, don't fret—remember, you are in a select group of people who have been chosen to take this course—your lab instructor and your classmates will be a tremendous resource to you in figuring out how these formulas work and what they can do. 6: It was an incredibly rich week ... enough worth the money that I'd consider paying for it myself if I could. That said, please don't raise tuition beyond what poor bibliophiles can afford! 7: Yes; I would highly recommend the course, and I would hope to return for another next summer. 8: Yes, although RBS is expensive. 9: Perhaps a morning opportunity for doing some homework? By six at night, we were all rather bleary-eyes; being able to sleep on it helps—what was puzzling the day before is suddenly clear with fresh eyes. 10: Yes. Definitely. 11: Every penny was well spent. The class was extremely rigorous ... we all worked solidly from 8:30 a.m. until closing time at 10 p.m. It was exhausting and invigorating at the same time. The weather, fire drills and amount of walking were a challenge—I would highly recommend the class to any colleague! Amazing! 12: Absolutely. Thanks to everyone involved. 13: MOST DEFINITELY. This course straightened out threads of thought that have been tangled for the entire course of my involvement with rare books. I have taken three RBS courses, and they have all been brilliant, but this course was relevant to me on an introductory intellectual level as no other courses have been. If every instructor took a few minutes to step back and consider the problems in the field but then said, "yes, this is worth it, and here's why," I think books would have a much more secure future. To me, this course does everything that Rare Book School is famous for. 14: Yes, full bibliographic immersion, it was an invaluable experience. 15: Yes, of course. I always do. 17: I'll be back. 18: Yes. I would recommend the course. 19: Yes, I did. My only advice would be to read the pre-course readings and at least become familiar with the material as much as possible. Above all, learn the vocabulary first. 20: Yes! 21: Absolutely. 22: Absolutely! 23: Absolutely worth the time and money. Hope to take another RBS course including Advanced Bibliographic Description.24: Lab homework review should be extended, which means in a.m. and p.m. session for the two groups may differ. But 90 minutes is not enough for six books, especially towards the end. The cohort size of three is perfect, however. I think my institution definitely got its money's worth! I would never have gained this much knowledge nor the ability to practically apply it simply through a reading (however intensely) of Bowers alone!

Number of respondents:24

PERCENTAGES

Leave

Institution gave me leave

54%

I took vacation time

4%

N/A: self-employed, retired or had the summers off

38%

I am self-employed

Work has nothing to do with RBS course

4%

Tuition

Institution paid tuition

46%

I paid tuition myself

25%

Exchange or barter

4%

N/A: Self-employed, retired or scholarship

25%

Housing

Institution paid housing

46%

Institution paid for ___% of housing

25%

I paid for my own housing

38%

N/A: stayed with friends or lived at home

12%

Travel

Institution paid travel

42%

Institution paid ___% of my travel

25%

I paid my own travel

38%

N/A: lived nearby

8%

1 no answer

 

There were three rare book (catalog) librarians (13%), two antiquarian booksellers (8%), six teachers/professors of literature/poetry/art history (25%), two full-time students working towards M.L.I.S (8%), five full-time students working towards Ph.D. other, &c. (22%), two general librarians with some rare book duties (8%), one general librarian with 50/50 rare book duties and conservation duties (4%), one book artist (4%), one conservator/binder/preservation librarian (4%), one cataloger with some rare book duties (4%).