Brett Charbeneau
No. 24: Making a Good Impression:
Letterpress Printing for Historians and Bibliographers.
21-25 July 1997


1. How useful were the pre-course readings?

1: Extremely useful, but no substitute for hands-on work. Good for familiarization with technical vocabulary. 2: Very good. I had no trouble getting copies or completing the readings in time. As with most RBS courses, the list was exactly the right length, and emphasized crucial material, with other complementary works noted for additional reading. 3: Absolutely appropriate, wonderful pre-reading material. 4: The pre-course readings were classic ­ important basic resources. Important to have some familiarity with, if not actually read word-for-word. 5: Very. 6: The course readings were very useful. They answered many questions that I had before the course and led me to other, higher level, concerns. 7: Very useful, although some were tough going and I didn't understand until we began printing. Then they began to make sense and I was very thankful that they had been assigned. >


2. Were the course syllabus and other materials distributed in class useful (or will they be so in the future, after you return home)?

1: Yes, especially the information package which BC will compile and mail out to us. 2: Yes. 3: Yes! I am already looking forward to the teaching potential some of the material we will take home will offer. 4: Yes. 5: We didn't receive a lot of material in class; however, BC did make a list of items that we requested and plans to send us each a packet later. That's the breaks with a new course. 6: Yes. 7: Both appropriate and useful. Probably I'll refer to the readings more than the handouts (except for the layout of the job case).


3. Was the intellectual level of the course content appropriate?

1-2: Yes. 3: Perfect for what it was (that is, a cross between hands-on and bibliographical study). 4: Yes. The instructor obviously commanded considerable depth and experience in the field. One important feature was the current research of the instructor ­ always good to sense his engagement and realize that more can always be done. 5: Absolutely. 6: Yes. 7: Yes, as was the physical level ­ a hands-on course with a vengeance.


4. If your course had field trips, were they effective?

1: Visit to the Washington Press would have been more useful if the press were functioning and if it had been possible to use it. 3: Only one brief field trip ­ to the press in front of Special Collections ­ and that was just fine. 4: Yes ­ visited the Washington handpress near Special Collections for comparison with Charlotte [the wooden common press in Memorial Hall]. 5: N/A. 7: Most field trips were to the press ­ actually, Charlotte was equally a classroom. Time there and in the Pressroom and classroom were exceptionally well-organized.



5. Did the actual course content correspond to its RBS brochure description and Expanded Course Description (ECD)? Did the course in general meet your expectations?

1: Absolutely. 2: Yes. 3: Yes. This course met and exceeded my expectations ­ and mine were very high to begin with. BC is a great teacher, because he had so much knowledge and practical experience to draw from. Furthermore, his enthusiasm is quite infectious (and endearing). 4-6: Yes. 7: Yes, and it exceeded my expectations. I expected the facilities to be good, so the difference was made by the instructors, who were wonderful.


6. What did you like best about the course?

1: Informal discussions. Hands-on work typesetting and printing. Instructor very approachable and knowledgeable, generous with his time. 2: Lots of hands-on. The enthusiasm and dedication of all three instructors. BC's bibliographical show-and-tell. Carter Hailey's demo. 3: I liked the mix of processes that we were able to try with good and useful oral commentary from the instructor while we worked. 4: Confidence and personality of the instructor. 5: Actually being able to run the press and do the work and get the hands-on experience. 6: I thoroughly enjoyed the hands-on experience. 7: The instructors. BC was amazing in his knowledge and skill in printing, in his use of this in his bibliographical work, and his personality was perfect ­ encouraging, enthusiastic, and (thank God) tolerant. And the highest praise for the assistant instructors, Carol Blinn and Bill Royall. The course would not have been the same without them.


7. How could the course have been improved?

1: 1) Work on an iron c19 press would have been useful. 2) It might have been satisfying to print a group broadside ­ a little creative experimental work with type/ ornaments/ combining types, etc: our own work start to finish. 2: 1) There was too much time devoted to typesetting and working the press. By this I mean that two hours of handsetting would have been enough, and two hours of presswork. There was a lot of dead time spent waiting to proof a page or waiting to work the press (being given copies of books on the reading list to look through is not really a good use of time here: I can do that at home). 2) See #8, below. 3) The type in the cases should be better sorted. A bit too much of a challenge for a novice! 3: I cannot imagine. 5: Better scheduling. This was the first RBS course I've taken (I've taken four) that we've even had any down time. We could have accomplished more (and learned more) if time had been better utilized. 6: It might have been nice to see an actual print shop in action. The video was OK, but seeing it in real life might have been better. (I don't know what kind of expense would be involved in this, so maybe it isn't possible.) 7: I enjoyed (and learned) form all I attended (lectures, dinner, movies, Bookseller Night).



8. Please comment on the quality/enjoyability of the various RBS activities in which you took part outside of class, eg Sunday afternoon tour, Sunday night dinner and videos, evening lectures, Bookseller Night, tour of the Alderman digital/electronic centers, printing demonstrations, &c.

1: First lecture might have included an announcement about the exhibition in the Rotunda. Somehow, I didn't know it was there and I'd have enjoyed seeing more of it than I had time for. 3: All get-togethers were very congenial and low-key. (I liked the latter, surprisingly). 4: Very well-organized and aptly related to the purposes of RBS. 6: I only attended Bookseller Night (which was not exciting) because my husband was with me on this trip. But in the future, I think that I will attend the other activities because I heard only positive things about them. 7: Repeat this course. I heard a number of people asking (begging?) BC to teach it next year, and quite a few asked me about it. Perhaps a Fine Printing or Printing with an Iron Press course or component could be added.


9. Any final thoughts? Did you get your money's worth?

1: I should have been more familiar with the presses which I hope to use ­ polling students before they arrive might demonstrate a need to devote some time (an afternoon) to Washington, Hoe, Stanhope, and other presses available at UVa or in Charlottesville. A field trip to a functioning letterpress shop might have been interesting. Having Carol Blinn and Bill Royale on hand was an exciting bonus ­ both have invaluable experience. 2: I would have liked to set up part of a broadside with my teammates. Proofed it. Corrected it. Put it in the forms, cut the frisket (as for two-color printing), and set up the furniture, etc. Printed and saw problem areas and corrected these. I think I would really have enjoyed that and learned a lot, and felt a real investment in the product. I think we were capable of more than we were asked to do. And I think we were capable because BC made everything so clear and had such a positive attitude towards both hand-press printing and teaching. The course was a very positive experience and it made me feel that I could do this. It was very enabling. It was great to have the input of CB and BR. They complemented one another very well. And BC was great. Lively, funny, enthusiastic, very knowledgeable, and so willing to share. He was also quite flexible and willing to veer off into our areas of interest and go with the flow, rather than rigidly sticking to a lesson plan. It was great! 3: Definitely got my money's worth! (That is, all who paid for my being here got their money's worth!) My general advice to anyone taking any course at RBS is to do the preliminary reading so that you can be well-prepared for what the course is about. 4: An excellent experience ­ well managed! RBS is an ornament to the field of books, and much more ­ a great opportunity to encounter the people in this field and to explore key topics in depth. 5: The course could have been better if we had spent Monday morning (or all day Monday) watching a demonstration and talking about why and how things were done, and then the rest of the week working on individual or small group projects. You can only really learn this by doing it, and sometimes I felt like I had to push BC out of the way and say "LET ME DO IT." It's easy to see that he's used to giving demonstrations, not necessarily teaching. He seemed bewildered, sometimes, that we would want to do the dirty work as well. But that's what I expected to do. By TB's standards, BC was way too nice to us. 6: I really enjoyed this course and got my money's worth. Everything that I learned is applicable to what we are trying to do. The course was well structured and BC was great. He made bibliography look like fun. I would strongly recommend this course to anyone who is interested in the book making process. 7: Do so! Even if you're not planning on printing, this was an excellent course.
Number of respondents: 7


PERCENTAGES


Leave Tuition Housing Travel
Institution gave me leave Institution paid tuition Institution paid housing Institution paid travel
86% 57% 43% 43%
I took vacation time I paid tuition myself I paid for my own housing I paid my own travel
0% 14% 57% 57%
N/A: self-employed, retired, or had summers off N/A: self-employed, retired, or exchange N/A: stayed with friends or lived at home N/A: lived nearby
14% 14% 0% 0%


There were seven students: three rare book librarians (43%), two archivist/manuscript librarians (29%), one Special Collections cataloger (14%), and one student (14%).