11-15 June 2007 in Charlottesville

1) How useful were the pre-course readings?

1: It was essential to review Bowers Principles of Bibliographical Description, not only his chapter on the collation formula, but also those chapters dealing with edition, state, issue, and ideal copy. A few of the Tanselle articles were helpful too. 2: Vital: I can’t imagine someone taking this who is not already familiar with Bower’s Principles and Gaskell’s A New Introduction to Bibliography. 3: Very useful; Bowers of course being crucial.

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: Yes, very much so. 2: Yes, very comprehensive and useful, and helpful for understanding the work of the class. The answer keys for the collations, in particular, are valuable and will be kept in my copy of Bowers. 3: Yes; the readings will be a mine of information in the future, and the answer sheets to homework problems especially will continue to be instructive.

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: Working hands-on with the books and improving my understanding – both theoretically and practically – of Bower’s Principles had the greatest relevance for me. The intellectual level was appropriate. 2: The emphasis on collational formula was extremely welcome, and the books were well-chosen to demonstrate specific problems one may encounter. This isn’t always easy stuff, but RN has a knack for making complex concepts accessible. 3: The opportunity to examine really challenging books; very well-organized and thoughtful instructor.

4) 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: The time at SC with [UVa Professor] David Vander Meulen was very well spent. 2: The chat from DVM was, unsurprisingly, engaging, interesting, and inspiring. Working with mechanical collators can never not be fun. 3: Very well spent; this was my first opportunity to view a collating machine.

5) What did you like best about the course?

1: RN. As a lab instructor he is top-notch. His command of Bowers is extraordinary – but more importantly he can communicate that knowledge effectively. Also, he focused the course not only on the collation but also on the bibliographical description as a whole, emphasizing the purpose and content of the descriptions. 2: The instructor. One cannot be in a room with RN and not learn something about books. Learned, thoughtful, and engaging – and the course was well-planned and pedagogically sound as well. I learned a great deal from RN. 3: The chance to engage very problematic and very different books, and to see Bower’s Principles applied and adapted.

6) How could the course have been improved?

1: Perhaps one or two fewer books so that we can get through them all during the lab. A more directed reading list? Somehow incorporating more class discussion? 2: One session on imposition schemes may have been helpful for discussing ways of identifying some of the trickier formats. Doing five books a day, rather than six, might help allow a little more time for considering the particular problems of each. 3: More time for post-mortem of homework; a complete index to Bowers!

7) 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?

2: Everything seemed more-or-less in order, although some of the books are rather well-loved.

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

1: Definitely! Michael Suarez’s lecture in particular was fascinating. He is an amazing speaker. 2: MS’s lecture was brilliant. 3: Quite interesting.

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

1: This was a great course. Like the [introductory] desbib course, there was a lot of hands-on work with books. Be prepared to spend your evenings working on homework. However, there was a refreshing amount of lecture on why descriptions are as they are, and why they need to be that way in order to accomplish their goals. 2: Unquestionably worth it. I imagine anyone who took desbib would find this valuable; just read deeply in Bowers before you get here! 3: Definitely worth the money and the time invested in preparation. Be sure to do the advance reading, especially Bowers.

Number of respondents: 3

Percentages

Leave Tuition Housing Travel

Institution Institution Institution Institution

gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel

33% 66% 33% 33%

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

tion time tion myself own housing travel

0% 0% 0% 0%

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 scholarship home

66% 33% 66% 66%

There were 2 full-time students (66%); and 1 rare book librarian (33%).