21: Introduction to Descriptive Bibliography
8-12 March 2004
Terry Belanger and Richard Noble
Coordinating Instructors
Lab Instructors
Julia Dupuis Blakely
Gerald Cloud
David Whitesell
Curator of the Course Museums
Melissa Mead
1) How useful were the pre-course readings? How successful was the advance use of the videotape, The Anatomy of a Book, as a teaching tool?
1: Pre-course readings were essential and appropriate. Doing the readings carefully greatly improved my ability to work through the lab material. 2: Good grief. The importance of the readings cannot be overstated. The videotape was very worthwhile. I was lucky to have it available to me through my library – very convenient. 3: Pre-course readings were important, though I think I could have used a better orientation to the Bowers book. (On second thought, I had a reprint of Bowers without the Tanselle introduction, and discovered later the note that one ought to read Tanselle’s introduction. You might want to emphasize that one should purchase an edition of Bowers with the Tanselle introduction.) The videotape was useful. 4: The Belanger article, Gaskell, and Bowers all absolutely essential. Videotape workbook also helpful. 5: The pre-course readings were absolutely essential. “The Anatomy of a Book” was great and a very useful advance resource. I enjoyed it – the humor is subtle. Keep insisting on both! 6: Very useful. The course would have been meaningless without them. The videotape put things together which they were not after reading alone. 7: I found the video very helpful, the facsimiles as well (though some more instructions on using them would help in the beginning). The order suggested for the reading was excellent. I never read Carter all the way through, but skipped between relevant entries and skimmed the remainder. I only read 5, 7, 12 in Bowers, the descriptive bibliography essay, and the summary section, and entry in Gaskell, but it was quite enough to start with. One point that should be emphasized is that we’ll need to use Bowers as a reference work fluently – pointing out the insufficiencies of the index right away might help with this. 8: The pre-course readings were necessary to getting full value from this course; while you can’t really learn how to do descriptive bibliography from them, you need to read the books to acquire the concepts and vocabulary. The tape was a big hit (but it could benefit from a workbook set of instructions on the best way to play with all of those sheets). 9: The pre-course readings, videotapes, and facsimiles were all very useful. While initially overwhelming, thay began to make sense collectively when read in the order suggested, and they prepared me well for the lectures and exercises at RBS. N.B. As the advance materials from RBS indicate, you really do need to do them ahead of time. 10: The video is an easy, quick beginning point if you’re new, or a pleasant refresher if it’s been a while. The other pre-course readings improve immensely one’s ability to absorb and enjoy the course. In fact, you will begin well behind without doing them. I think, to the greatest degree possible, one should be familiar with Bowers’s methods; however, a great deal of this will make sense only once you start describing books yourself. 11: Pre-course readings were essential. It is also essential to have Gaskell and Bowers with one at all times during the course. The “Anatomy of a Book” was very useful; it demonstrates in a way that a book cannot. 12: I found the readings indispensable. Videotape useful to a point. For me, however, I would need more opportunity to do the folding of sheets in the various formats. 13: The readings were useful. 14: The advance use of the videotape was very helpful, as was TB’s piece on descriptive bibliography. Carter helped fill in many gaps in vocabulary, and advance reading in Gaskell was good for technical/historical background and psychological preparation. While some familiarity with Bowers does seem useful for students entering the course, much of his work was difficult to understand before having begun the homework sessions. 15: Extremely useful. Videotape was good to kick things off with format. Having the collational formula follow on tape as an introduction showing an experienced person approaching a few books would have been a benefit before we dove into the individual effort of collecting our homework sessions.
2) Were the course syllabus, exit reading list, and other materials distributed in class useful (or will they be so in the future, after you return home)?
1: I believe they will be useful. It was certainly helpful to have such a comprehensive bibliography as a reference tool. 2: They were. They are. And I’m betting they ever will be. I like the fact that contact information is listed for all (or most) participants. I tend to dither over little slips of paper with email addresses or partial phone numbers on them. Glad not to have to do that here. 3: The syllabus was clear and easy to understand, as well as the other materials (all had a clear purpose). I’ve not looked carefully at the exit reading list, but especially appreciate its arrangement with the index at the end. 4: Yes – exit list is a great reference. 5: Yes – I am very pleased with the workbook and its contents. The exit reading list is impressive, and I look forward to chipping away at it. I plan to keep the workbook for future reference. Thank you for pulling all of it together for us. 6: Yes. 7: The entire packet will be invaluable in the future, especially with my notes from the museum, homework, and so forth. It’s also set out very clearly and often entertainingly, and obviously a labor of love. 8: Yes, in a big way. I plan to work through the exit list gradually, and I will be referring to the lab pages occasionally and the museum pages frequently. All the handouts were on point, helpful, and generous. 9: Definitely! 10: I think both the syllabus, with all its information, and the exit reading list will be very useful for years to come. That is one contributing factor to making Descriptive Bibliography a good selection as a first RBS course. 11: Everything proved very useful. I am very thankful to have the reading list. 12: Yes. In the future, I shall know what to read when questions come along as I catalog. 13: Yes. 14: Yes. Everything distributed has been (or certainly will be) very useful. The course packet is particularly informative, clear, and well-organized (and enjoyable to read) – It’s a reference I’ll always keep on hand. 15: Excellent! I recommend augmenting them with available online/digital resources, as well as any advance notice of pending important works to watch for (including updates/revisions to core texts).
3) Was the intellectual level of the course content appropriate?
1: Yes, absolutely. 2: Yes. 3: I entered the week with a fairly good (though not advanced) knowledge of 16th-18th century book history and some cataloging experience, though I’m not a professional cataloger. For me, the intellectual level was about right. 4: Yes – students are adequately prepared after doing required readings. 5: Yes – I was nervous at first, but found that I could tackle most of it. It is no easy task to absorb all this material in this short a time frame – but an incredible amount can be accomplished. A solid platform to jump from! 6: Yes. 7: Absolutely. The cohort (three people) was well matched as well, so our homeworks were complementary. 8: Yes. 9: Yes, entirely – although sometimes the way in which it was delivered in lecture was overly pedantic and even condescending. There seemed to be a resistance on the part of the instructor to questions and discussion on the part of students. To be fair, this may have been a function of lack of time to squeeze everything in, but it left me feeling that the instructor was underestimating our preparation, knowledge, and curiosity on the subject. 10: I would say the intellectual level varies in its demands, depending on the participant. It was appropriate for me. 11: Yes. 12: Yes, and when it reached for the stratosphere, it was nice to have a challenge. 13: Yes. 14: Yes. Very challenging for beginners (of which I am one) in a very positive, constructive way thanks to the course’s and course materials’ good organization and the instructors’ teaching abilities. 15: Yes.
4) To what extent did the Museums contribute to the success of the course? How could they have been improved? How useful to you were (or will be) the copies of the museum labels?
1: The museums were very helpful in providing hands-on examples to see and handle. 2: Quite a lot for me. Gaskell described many things/processes that I could not envision. The museums made these items/processes a 3-D reality – the fact that I could touch type, print matrices, that fabulous paper mold, made the museums even better. I especially appreciated the “Examples” museum. Seeing (and hearing it pointed out) why and how a bibliography is good or bad was fantastic. 3: They were an added, unexpected benefit, and will serve as helpful guides for me in the future. For the late museum, it was helpful for me to have spent an hour reading the catalog before the museum. I especially appreciated the [Examples] Museum, though I would have liked a bit more time with it, and possibly a few more examples and a bit more commentary on some of the bibliographies. 4: Museums were useful for answering specific questions throughout the course. 5: The museums were quite informative and a good balance to the lectures, because you can go at your own pace and actually touch items. I do wish I’d had a better sense of where to start. Also I wish I’d read the description beforehand. 6: Printing was highly interesting and gave me no time for the binding. But binding has never interested me. But I cannot say “It has had its chance” as the landlady did whom TB referred to. 7: Seeing physical examples of many variant problems, special cases was very helpful, especially if used in a self-quiz format (i.e. it tested for the core problems of each text). The bunches of book sheets were particularly phenomenal, as those resources are unparalleled through much of the world. 8: Incalculably. Many of my favorite moments in the course were in the museums. They are one of the unique attributes of RBS that make this course so meaningful and relevant. 9: The museums add a lot to the course. They help to contextualize the history of the books we are describing in homework/lab, as well as to demonstrate the uses (and misuses) of descriptive bibliography. One thing that would make them even better, however, would be some actual explanation and demonstration of certain key items (e.g. the type mold, form, or binding process – or, ideally, the printing process, with an actual press). I had expected more such hands-on demonstration/practice, and it would go a lot further than reading yet another written description toward getting students to understand the processes involved in bookmaking. 10: This is a wonderful feature of the course. Such a well-described and tactile display of artifacts and examples is beyond what most exhibits can offer. 12: The descriptive bibliography museums are necessary to prevent the course from being “book-learning.” Air is H2O, but you have to breathe it to really know it. The catalogs have good stuff for future reference. 13: They were very helpful. I would have liked to be advised earlier of the need to read the descriptions in advance (and have time to do so). 14: The museums and their catalogs should be considered indispensable for the course. They increased my knowledge of many important areas substantially, worked to remind students of why we (at least many of us) are “here in the first place,” and contributed to a wider and fuller understanding of descriptive bibliography (á la Gaskell). 15: Over the top/excellent/superb...! Having more time to spend in museums would be beneficial.
5) How successful were your format-and-collation labs? How effective was your lab instructor in conveying the material to be covered? How could the labs have been improved?
Julia Blakely: 1: My group improved tremendously over the course of the week. Our lab instructor was top notch, and her instruction was the best part of the course. She was knowledgeable and always willing to answer questions. 2: The labs were extremely successful – my answers for the homework assignments less so... JDB is very good at encouraging brave guessing and correcting the ensuing mess. 3: Very successful. About the right amount of work, and the right amount of attention (with one instructor for three students). 4: Labs were great, lab instructor was great, I think three-four students per lab is ideal (there were three in my lab). 5: Our labs were absolute successes. The lab instructor created an excellent balance between motivating us to accuracy, yet giving us freedom to take risks. This was one of my favorite parts of the day. 6: I am a slow learner. To boot I was painfully aware of my language problem. If I did not get as much out of the labs as I had hoped, it is because of my shortcomings. The lab instructor was thorough, clear, and patient. Gerald Cloud: 7: The labs were very instructive and built well upon the lectures and previous museums. There were perhaps too many 19th century books without formats, though working with them did demonstrate their own idiosyncracies. 8: Very successful – but they consumed just a bit too much time. Two suggestions: somehow get one book under our belts so we can get it in the right ballpark before we spend hours on our first set of books; and for the occasional quarto in fours that goes to 5N, tell us that we can stop at a certain point (which you pick to be beyond the points of interest in that volume). 9: I though the labs were one of the best parts of the course. They gave us the chance to check and discuss our work with the books, and, more generally, to raise questions not addressed elsewhere. GC was a very good instructor – with a little more experience, he’ll make a truly great one. I really appreciated his openness to questions. 10: The small-group format works. Everyone gets to pour out their ideas. No one is a spectator. Mistakes are treated as opportunities to learn. Needless to say, I learned a lot! David Whitesell: 11: They were very successful. Failure is a good teacher. In this case, it taught that one cannot spend too much time examining a book or coming to conclusions based upon those examinations. 12: Insofar as I fear for my own competence, format and collection labs were successful. I feel more cautious, which I hope will make me more careful. I certainly know Bowers better. DW is a good lab instructor, and I have no ideas for improving the labs. 13: Labs were useful, lab instructor very helpful. 14: Very successful, and the lab instructor was excellent. The answer sheets are an excellent resource for future reference, and the Friday catch-up time proved to be absolutely necessary. I believe it would have helped, however, for the lab group to do one brief practice problem for upcoming homework (but not at the cost of losing a book for homework). 15: These were very successful. Since skills improve with the volume of format and collations performed, I recommend the use of much shorter books (i.e. fewer leaves) to demonstrate the individual scenarios. Given that may be difficult, even giving the students instructions such as “for gatherings M through 3N, assume all OK for purposes of this exercise” would free up valuable time for other collations.
6) What did you like best about the course?
1: Lab time, without a doubt. I learned the most and really enjoyed the time as well. 2: The fact that it made me read Gaskell – I certainly wouldn’t have finished it on my own. 3: The opportunity to link working with the physical objects with contact with good instructors. 4: Labs and homework. 5: I liked the intensity/total immersion of the course. It was great to be able to push out the rest of the world/life and just focus on bibliographical description for five days! The lab, lecture, museum, homework routine worked well. 7: As one of the core (or perhaps the core) classes of RBS, I appreciated the variety of students who nonetheless were united in their single purpose of getting to the heart of the physical book in a new way. The instructors weren’t bad either. 8: The museums – bibliographies and the books in them; boards and the leathers on them; papers and the things that made them – all the rich side-by-side comparisons that you can’t find anywhere else. The really gnarly forensic bibliographical analysis necessary to really “get” some of the more tasty books in our boxes. 9: The lectures by TB and the labs, plus the museums (with the caveat given under question four). 10: What impressed me most was how much ground we covered. 11: The collation and format homework and labs. 12: Use of books to apply Bowers, i.e. the application of principles. 13: Small-group lab discussions. 14: I enjoyed museums and labs most but consider everything to have been an important component. 15: Being able to see and touch the assemblage of artifacts, along with their related books in each area of the book arts. It would take years, indeed, would likely be impossible to self-teach in these areas to get what we were able to learn in one week.
7) How could the course as a whole have been improved?
1: I wish there was some way to either reduce the amount of homework or increase homework time, but given the amount of material and structure of the day, I don’t think it feasible. 2: Museum Night coincided with the most labor-intensive homework for the course. 3: I think you’ve struck the right balance between reading, exercise, lecture, etc. 4: I would have liked to have listened to TB more, perhaps share lectures with RN (although RN was great). 5: Sometimes the lectures begin to feel too long... and I didn’t always feel that I could ask questions. 7: More TB lectures! RN is wonderful and eloquent, but having a dialogue throughout would have emphasized the many facets of this study even more. 8: Have us write and then correct one collation formula in class before we have to do one by ourselves. Consider having the opportunity to ask questions at the conclusion of the larger lectures. Add more content to the smaller lectures – they tended towards repetition of the reading, and could instead be elaborations of the reading material. 9: See [my response to] numbers three and four. In addition, I think it might be better to assign three to four rather than six books to analyze per night for homework. Not only would this decrease the stress and fatigue of students, but it would allow more time in lab for discussion of what the description of the book can tell us about its context and production. 10: Cushions on the Clemons Library seats. Lots of time on my bum. 12: More time with understanding how a sheet of paper becomes foilio, quarto, etc. 13: The books we used for homework were often so long that the counting became busywork that did not necessarily improve our understanding of formulas. Might be more effective to do formulae with all elements each night, simply increasing the complexity of problems. 14: I wish I could offer a good tip, but it’s clear that the course has been refined and improved over a number of years by a number of people. I suppose I would be careful not to change much if anything should be changed at all. 15: Have a lecture on collational formula and house rules, conventions, clarifications, Bowers updates, etc with an experienced person walking through their methodology and thought processes (talking out loud as they go) in advance of our collational homework. I perpetuated some misunderstandings through my first box (1/3) which could have been easily avoided with the above suggestion, or by testing for understanding sooner.
8) If you attended the Sunday and/or Monday night lectures, were they worth attending?
1: Yes, absolutely. 2: The print lecture I enjoyed. The history lecture I didn’t enjoy as much. 3: I wasn’t greatly impressed with the Sunday lecture. 4: Yes. 5: Yes! I felt like I was indulging myself in a special treat. 6: More interesting than useful, but I am glad I attended. 7: Yes, especially as a first-time RBS student. TB’s call to RBS and the history of it was helpfully situating and amusing to boot. The historical relativism lecture was less relevant to the course than Justin Howes’ fascinating history of “Egyptian” typography in the early 19th century. 8: Yes – both lectures were interesting, especially Justin’s. TB’s lecture on Sunday was a very interesting (and necessary) intro to RBS. 9: Did not attend. 10: Yes, very much so. Thank you. 11: Yes. It is always interesting to hear from someone with a much broader perspective than oneself. 12:-13: Yes. 14: Yes – Monday’s lecture didn’t contribute much to my knowledge of rare books, but it was interesting and enjoyable (and ultimately germane) enough to have been worth attending. 15: They were very interesting, but given the short time frame, I would have personally preferred to have more discussion centered around illustration processes, binding, or even another Museum Night (see comments below).
9) If you attended Museum Night on Wednesday or Thursday, was the time profitably spent?
1: Yes, certainly for Descriptive Bibliography – Museum Night was very useful. 2: Yes, although it’s a shame that Museum Night coincided with the most labor-intensive homework for the descriptive bibliography course. 3: Yes. 4: Yes! 5: Yes, though I felt pressure to return to my homework, so it was hard for me to relax, and I didn’t get to take as much time as I would have liked. 6: Thursday bibliographies. I did not even see a handful of the bibliographies; they required a lot of time before I found my way into them. But once I did that, I was very happy. 7: I already understood many of the illustration processes from my art historical background, but TB’s explanations of the Audubon quarto sheets and facsimiles and the sheet music printing process pre-1950 was beyond fascinating. 8: Yes. 9: Yes – although, again, a few formal explanations and demonstrations of the equipment and materials would really help those of us who have a hard time visualizing how things work from written explanations and inert objects alone. 10: This was a particularly interesting component of the week. 11-12: Yes. 13: Difficult to schedule around – homework was so time consuming that when I was at the museum, I was very weary and very hungry (no time for dinner beforehand) so I was unable to get as much out of it as I would have liked. 14: Very much so. The music printing section was especially interesting and useful. 15: This was my favorite part of the week. I wish it could have been more than two hours long as there was not enough time to even see it all. Perhaps offering it for an entire afternoon and moving daytime homework to the 7-9 slot would be a possible way to give it more time, which it well deserves, especially as this was the only way to learn about introduction to illustration processes aside from the full course.
10) Did you get your money’s worth? Any final thoughts?
1: I got my money’s worth and then some! For those who are considering this course: come prepared! Do the readings! And expect a workload that will keep you in the library until at least 7 PM. But you will learn a lot, and it’s well worth it. 2: Oh yes, most definitely got my money’s worth here. Too bad I can’t forward to you a little of the college tuition I paid. 3: Yes. 4: Definitely. Read TB’s article first, then workbook and video, followed by Gaskell and finally Bowers. Bring all books to RBS. 5: Definitely. 6: Not quite, for reason I explained in question five. 7: Yes! (Even if I’d paid it myself!) Before enrolling think carefully about whether you can spare a week (or more) every year until you run out of courses – that’s one of the few difficulties in taking courses such as these – stopping! 8: Yes, we did things and learned things that are impossible elsewhere. Anybody interested in the appreciation of the history of books (librarian, scholar, dealer, or collector) will find this course interesting and valuable. It will deepen your relationship with books. 9: Yes (especially since I was not paying out of my own pocket). Despite my suggestions above, I think this is a very well-designed and executed course, and I would recommend it to others who are seeking an introduction to descriptive bibliography for professional and intellectual reasons. 10: Nothing worthwhile is cheap, and the information from this course will go a long way. That being said, it is not as if money were of no importance, and I must be honest and admit cost (tuition, travel, lodging) makes my visits less frequent than I’d like. 11: Yes. Obviously one must do the reading beforehand. It would be a good idea to take notes when reading Bowers – the index is inadequate. 12: Yes. 13: Good experience, useful course. 14: I did get my money’s worth (even as it set me into quarter post-graduate debt). TB’s personal attention to students (and his job placement session) rounded off the experience in a very important way. 15: Top value for the dollar. Highly recommended! Thanks to TB, RN, the lab instructors, and the Rare Book School for all your efforts. Much appreciated!
Number of respondents: 15
Leave Tuition Housing Travel
Institution Institution Institution Institution
gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel
40% 60% 54% 47%
I took vaca- I paid tui- I paid for my I paid my own
tion time tion myself own housing travel
13% 33% 33% 47%
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 exchange home
47% 7% 13% 6%
There were five full-time students (33%), four rare book librarians (27%), two antiquarian booksellers (12%), one archivist/manuscript librarian (7%), one general librarian with some rare book duties (7%), one teacher/professor (7%), and one retiree (7%).