RBS 2004 Course Evaluation: History of the Book 200-2000

51: History of the Book 200-2000 [H-10]

5-9 July 2004

1) How useful were the pre-course readings?

1: What with getting in late, I read Twyman and a few chapters of Chappell. The Chappell was the more compelling – I’ll finish it eventually. 2: Very useful – the two shorter illustrated books gave an excellent overview. Chappell’s book would probably be more interesting / appreciated more, now that I’ve completed the course; however, I do think it should continue to be assigned. Eisenstein was fascinating. 3: The pre-course readings were very helpful and actually contribute to the understanding of the lectures. I feel they were excellent to give an overview to the subject, as they were very comprehensive and relevant to the course. 4: Eisenstein and the other two smaller volumes were great. Chappell was too technical. I would prefer a smaller text on typography. 5: Applied only days before the course actually began. 6: Extremely useful. 7: All pre-course readings were relevant and useful. The class period illustrated the readings dramatically – make sure you read it all. 8: Very useful and well chosen. The books give a very helpful foundation for the course. 9: They were useful, but would have survived without them. 10: For me absolutely necessary. 11: Very useful.

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: The time line is the strongest among those – very thorough, by the way. The RBS website should be revised and, copyright permitting, all of the materials distributed included. 2: Yes – having the timeline was very helpful and will be a good reference. 3: Extremely helpful, especially the timeline. It allows the student to research further any period in the history that we need to explore further, since the opportunity exists to research on our own for follow-up. 4: Yes. 5: Yes. The binders distributed represent quite a bit of work (especially the very detailed timeline, much appreciated), and will be a most useful reference. 6: Yes. 7: The “suggested reading list” is detailed and will be a great reading guide. 8: Very helpful – sometimes wildly engaging! 9: They came in very handy, especially the hand-outs on reference books that can be used. 10-11: Yes.

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

1: The theoretical and cultural impact of printing and books is the most compelling part for me – MD brings that in well, and while I’d love to babble and discuss those elements of the book, this was a history of the book – and an introductory history at that – not a cultural study of the book. So, oh well. 2: Personally, I was most interested in learning about illustration processes and bookbinding, Professionally, learning various terms, descriptions, and identification methods was most relevant. Intellectual level was quite appropriate. 3: I really appreciate and totally enjoyed the way the instructors taught the course. In addition to them telling the story, they showed us examples of the books for the periods we were discussing, which was a very effective teaching technique. 5: Re: intellectual level. Very good, but could have been even more demanding for my taste at times. I appreciated hearing a good deal of the vocabulary, but at times felt as though the instructors were holding back for fear of overwhelming the class. 6: The suggested readings are excellent. Appropriate depth, good selection for covering the scope of the course. 7: The most striking part of the class is the sheer number of physical objects – from cuneiform tablets to Linotype machines – that were paraded before us. Essential to learning these concepts. 8: I really was thrilled with my experience in the course – I was especially interested in the social impact of each innovation in book technology. The comprehensive nature of the course allowed rare book dealers, librarians, scholars, and ingenues to each pull away something valuable. 9: The most relevant aspect for the course for me were c15-17. Everything was well explained, but it is really a course for people who have never seen a book in their life. 10: All aspects. For me, yes. 11: The early incunabula and c16 studies were of greatest interest to me. The intellectual level was always at the appropriate and stimulating level.

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

1: Good god, we flew through so many Special Collections books it was ridiculous – there were so many left untouched, too. Not a minute wasted. And as for the Library of Congress visit – that will stick with me like the time in elementary school when astronauts came and stayed at my house. 2: Yes – the field trip to the Library of Congress was amazing! A record number of books was shown in a brief amount of time, yet I still feel like I gained a basic understanding and appreciation of the books shown. 3: Absolutely! Our visit to the Library of Congress was an extremely wonderful learning experience, which actually enhanced the course. We had the opportunity to view the Special Collections in a manner we otherwise wouldn’t have seen if we visited on our own. 4: Library of Congress visit was unparalleled. 5: The trip to the Library of Congress was once-in-a-lifetime, a very rich experience. (I was not the only one, however, to express a certain dismay about the behavior of our drivers, which was consistently alarming. We are investigating and dealing with this complaint. -Ed.) 6: The trip to the Library of Congress was extraordinary. 7: Our visit to the Library of Congress will be a lifelong memory; the books, the building, and the instruction were all amazing. And we laughed a lot, too. 8: Yes! We had an amazing field trip to the Library of Congress! It was inspiring! 9: Very well spent, a great opportunity to visit the Rosenwald collection at the Library of Congress. We have seen all the highlights of book production. We could have left UVa a least an hour earlier to see more books! 10: YES!! 11: This was a critical aspect of the success of the course.

5) What did you like best about the course?

1: In addition to being one of the most erudite teachers I’ve ever encountered, MD is one of the rare breed of people I know to have maintained an undiluted sense of child-like wonder that spreads around a classroom as fast as stomach flu. Listening to him convey that wonder is a snapshot of what education should really be – gut-wrenchingly exciting. 2: Being able to see and touch so many books and prints from the UVa/RBS collections ... and the Library of Congress, of course. The instructors were also excellent, both in lecture and in private conversation ... really, everything was wonderful. 3: The format of instruction, knowledge of instructors, and the ability to work with the books from the periods we studied. 4: Team teaching was effective and allowed us to cover more materials and see more things, but at the same time, we almost covered too much. Also, I wasn’t sure some of the time whether one instructor was representing one viewpoint and the other one representing another. So it was somewhat stereoscopic. I would suggest that the instructors focus a little more so that it is clear what the point of the class is – book in social context, valuing of book (e.g. bookseller), descriptive bibliography and identification, printing techniques, &c. This may have been affected by the diverse group of students, and although I found these arrangements interesting, it was sometimes frustrating. 5: The rare opportunity to learn how to identify – how to “read” – books and their component parts, materials, characteristics, through direct and intimate exposure to so many extraordinary examples. The segments on distinguishing illustration technique were also very well executed. 6: I liked everything about it – the quality of the instruction, interactions with other students, the field trip. I can’t choose the “best.” 7: MD and JB co-taught well together, with great senses of humor. Their examples of book making were phenomenal. 8: 1) JB and MD. 2) Visual aides – abundant, endless, enough for each student! 9: The Library of Congress and the first two days on early book production. 10: The interaction with faculty and students. The hands-on nature of instruction. 11: Hands-on experience with the rare materials.

6) How could the course have been improved?

1: If it were a semester long and I were signed up for it in the fall. It would be at 11 a.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays – that way I would do the reading, savor it for three months, and not get sleepy at the end of a long afternoon. 2: More hands-on demonstrations. If possible, a trip to a more modern press would be helpful. After the cylinder press, it’s very difficult to get a feel for how presses work. 3: I feel for the course I attended, there is no better way I can think of to teach the material. 5: I felt like things petered out a bit as the week came to a close. (Perhaps this was a result of my high expectations having been met so consistently....) Perhaps a little more focus in c19 and c20. 6: No suggestions. JB and MD are superb teachers. The instruction was very well planned. They are great team teachers. 7: I don’t think it could have been, without adding time. 9: By letting people know that if they have a certain amount of experience with books, they could better take a course which goes more in depth. 10: I am not sure I am qualified to say. 11: Make it a two-week class – maybe spend a week at the Library of Congress and a week here.

7) We are always concerned about the physical well-being both of the RBS teaching collections and of materials owned by U.Va’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: Come on – JB is ex-RBS staff and MD is head of rare books at the Library of Congress. The best thing you can do is not have butterfingers staffers like me touch anything. 2: Perhaps a short lecture could be given at the beginning of class about how to handle books? We were instructed about proper handling, but only after one class member handled a book improperly. 3: Everyone appeared to respect the fact that the materials were rare, and things were handled appropriately. 5: Evaluations from past years praise the access, handling, and staff for good reason. 6: I thought the instructors protected the materials, and the students were careful. 7: None. 9: It should be hands on and not hands off. How are you supposed to get a feel and understanding of a book if you are sometimes not allowed to touch them? 11: I felt the materials were handled with the utmost care.

8) If you attended the Sunday and/or Monday night lectures, were they worth attending?

1: Work is long; sleep is short. 2: Yes – excellent. 3: I enjoyed the Monday night lecture, but was unable to attend Sunday. I think they are definitely worth attending. 5: Both. TB’s introduction was a perfect beginning to the week, providing a sense of RBS’s mission and our part in seeing it realized. The Monday night speaker read his presentation, disappointingly, and was not engaging, though material was good. 6: Yes. 7: The lecture on Warren Chappell was fascinating, very much worth the forty-five minutes. The lecturer had a perfect radio voice. 8: Sunday’s lecture helped formulate a sense of RBS’s history and future. 9: For the first course, yes, other courses Monday night only. 10-11: Yes!

9) If you attended Museum Night, was the time profitably spent?

1: All museums have the immaculate and polished air of expert assemblage by the staff. I would have them curate my own museums, had I exhibitions or a museum. 2: Museum Night on Tuesday was interesting...perhaps more demonstrations? Paper-making demos?? 3: Yes – it was nice to see the demonstrations, and to see the books from Special Collections. 5: Museum Nights were great – Stan Nelson’s demonstration very interesting and the printed hand-outs (catalogs) alone were worth the price of admission (much more, in fact). They will be references that I’ll return to often. 6: Yes. 7: I saw type being made from molten lead; I saw a Linotype machine’s “heart.” These evenings are very valuable to the RBS experience. 8: Did not attend. 9: Yes it was. 10-11: Yes!

10) Did you get your money’s worth? Any final thoughts?

1: As many pithy responses as I have for the former part of this question, I will instead defer to the latter. While I’m no expert on the world of bibliography, this is an intriguing look at books as physical – and more importantly – social objects. It begs for more questions about the social implications of any printed matter. We cannot not live by books alone. 2: Yes – I would love to continue taking courses here. It’s an excellent experience for anyone even remotely interested in books. 3: Yes! I would highly recommend RBS! 5: Yes indeed. RBS makes every effort to make every hour of the day valuable, and is successful. 6: Yes. The course analyzed ideas, ideas, and more ideas. It was a consciousness raising experience. I am inspired to read further and return to RBS. 7: Yes, well worth it! Don’t worry about being alone or lonely, because everyone is a friend here. 8: I got my money’s worth and more. My only hardship during the whole trip involved the bad food and terrible service at every UVa area eating establishment. I never had a good meal in Charlottesville! Except for the one provided by RBS on Sunday night! 9: The money was well worth it. My commands or suggestions I have stated below. I will advise positively for other persons to take this course. Thank you. 10: Absolutely yes. 11: Yes! This course should not be missed by anyone interested in any aspect of The Book.

Number of respondents: 11

Percentages

Leave Tuition Housing Travel

Institution Institution Institution Institution

gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel

45% 36% 45% 28%

I took vaca- I paid tui- I paid for my I paid my own

tion time tion myself own housing travel

18% 55% 45% 45%

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

37% 9% 10% 27%

There were two rare book librarians (18%), one teacher/professor (9%), two full-time students (18%), three antiquarian booksellers (28%), one book-collector (9%), one circuit court judge (9%) and one graphic-designer/part-time student.