G-30: Bibliographers’ Toolkit: Printed Books since 1800

9-13 June 2008

1) How useful were the pre-course readings?

1: The glossary/dictionary [John Carter’s ABC for Book Collectors] was useful in class and long-term, but not necessarily pre-course. 2: The pre-course readings were very useful: things I’ve been meaning to read for years but have not motivated myself to do so. Glad I finally did. 3: Very useful. 4: Very relevant. 5: Useful as background information. 6: They were essential for the course, but very important to be familiar with in general. 7: The required reading was essential, and the recommended supplemental reading was enjoyable and illuminating. 8: Gaskell [A New Introduction to Bibliography] and ABC were extremely helpful. I could not do our project without one of these resources. 9: Very; Carter and Gaskell are very good places to start when beginning to learn the basics of bibliography. The recommended readings are good as well, and short enough to merit reading if possible. 11: Carter and Gaskell cannot but be useful!

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: TC made attractively-illustrated booklets good for marking with notes; others also useful. 2: The materials distributed during the course were extremely useful. They sum up in a concise form a ton of information; I will continue to consult them and use them for my own teaching and research. 3: Yes, very useful to me. I will keep them as reference materials. 4: Mostly. 5: Yes, for the most part. I would have liked a list of books during the course in order to make notes as bibliographical sources were mentioned. 6: Yes, all very helpful. 7: Yes. Very useful. 8: Yes, the pamphlets about dust-jackets were particularly useful. 9: Yes, I believe all materials were appropriate to help anyone begin to learn about rare books, whether in a retail or library setting. 11: Yes, especially those on dust-jackets.

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: As an academic, I was an old bird in “Toolkit,” less engaged by commercial topics, sometimes wanting a bit of scholarly or social history themes associated with the themes (ideas are tools too), while still having the material grounding. 2: The identification exercise (illustration, bindings) and the mini research project. 3: Books from 1890-1930; dust-jackets. The intellectual level of the course was very appropriate. 4: Yes. The most relevant for me was the instruction about illustration processes, binding, and bibliography. I would have enjoyed more of that and less on dust-jackets and dealer catalogues, but some information about each was helpful. 5: Learning about the negotiations on purchasing between bookseller and library; seeing [publishers’] cloth bindings and learning how to date them. The intellectual level was appropriate. 6: Bibliographical description, and becoming more familiar with time-period distinctions was most important. The intellectual level was appropriate for students who are relatively new to book history since 1800. 7: The dual instruction format was great. To have both a top dealer and a professional rare book librarian/academic teaching together was wonderful. I learnt a great deal. 8: The topic concerning books in the marketplace was useful. I also liked how we had two different teachers with completely different ways of approaching the subject at hand. 9: Learning about rare books from an institutional perspective both from KR and my fellow students who work in libraries and institutions. It is not incredibly intellectually challenging, but I think this is entirely appropriate for a class of this nature. 10: It was very helpful to have both a rare book dealer and a director of a special collections library give their views and perspectives on book selling and buying. 11: On the institutional side, KR’s take on library acquisitions policies and practices, especially regarding her dealings with booksellers like TC; and her creation of new special collections at Cornell. On the bookseller side, TC’s take on c19 and c20 century dust-jackets, modern firsts, and pricing. The intellectual level was spot-on.

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: N/A. 3-4: Yes. 5: N/A. 6: The Jane Eyre talk [by Barbara Heritage] was very interesting and provided more information on different ways to collect, but I would have preferred to spend that time studying books more closely in classroom. Maybe the Jane Eyre talk would be a great evening lecture. 7: N/A. 8: We visited Lower Tibet, but unfortunately two of the students were unable to decide on which book they wanted to use for their topic. 9: Barbara Heritage’s presentation was wonderful and got me thinking about topics such as a text’s physical format, purpose and audience in ways I never had before. 11: Yes, my visits to UVa SC for independent research on the course project was very well spent.

5) What did you like best about the course?

1: Exposure to rare book and collections world and worldviews. Hands-on exercises in descriptive bibliography. “Museum” displays. 2: I liked the fact that it provided two perspectives on the subject: the special collections librarian and the bookseller points of view. Invaluable to get both perspectives. I also liked the overview nature of the course. 3: Everything, but if I had to pick one, learning about modern first editions 1920-1970. 4: The teachers and the blend of backgrounds of the students. It was a good survey course. 5: The information about modern first editions and dust-jackets, though that’s not necessarily why I chose the course. 6: The variety of topics, the rare book dealer perspective, which I don’t normally hear. 7: (1) The dual instruction format – great teachers. (2) The introduction/discussion of commercial and pricing aspects of the rare book trade. (3) The wonderful range of practical examples/objects made available to us. (4) Discussion, and homework, on dealer catalogues. 8: I liked the introduction to metal typefaces and especially the museum aspect about it. 9: I really loved the perspectives of the instructors, one being an antiquarian bookseller and the other a curator of rare books for an institution. For someone like me who has a bookselling background and is about to move into an institutional setting, this was very valuable. 10: The course leaders. The ability to see examples of publishers’ bindings laid out chronologically. 11: KR’s and TC’s repartee; I very much liked how they allowed themselves spontaneous, and apt ad-lib comments when either one or the other presented their respective areas of expertise.

6) How could the course have been improved?

1: More how-to handouts: list of key bibliographical sources, visual diagram (labeled) of book parts. Include history of book collecting/dealing, changes over time, variations across different nations. More on non-fiction, other genres/modes of books. 2: Sometimes I felt that there was not quite enough time to get full benefit from the exercises. Not sure what the solution for this would be because it would be a shame to drop anything. 3: Let the student know that it is not necessary to bring their copy of reading materials [i.e., Carter’s ABC]; that one will be available for each. 4: More discussion of good and bad bibliographies and what to look for in bibliographical references would have helped. We never discussed the results of that exercise. 5: Maybe some time spent looking at OCLC or some other sources online. Would like more information on how to research a book, perhaps using diverse examples. 6: The last two days, although informative, seemed a bit free-form. It was more of a panel discussion, and I felt that RBS materials could have been better utilized, and more applicable “toolkit” features could have helped me. 7: It worked fine for me. Was much better than I had expected. Great team. 8: TC is a very good speaker, but I feel that he was intimidated with his ignorance with the subject matter which caused him to be nervous. This lead to him reading directly from a script which I found odd. 9: There is not a lot of time to dwell too long in class on any one topic. Students should be aware of this and that the class is a brief overview of many topics. However, the small project was a good way to explore particular interests more in-depth, and this class is a good incentive to take the more in-depth RBS courses available. 10: It might have been helpful to compare and contrast the way descriptive bibliographies are prepared and used in the book trade versus academic libraries. Examples of effective and poor bibliographical descriptions would also help. 11: I would suggest jettisoning “bibliographical oddities,” so that a little more time may be had to discuss book collecting, or issues raised in the book history Reader [Finkelstein and McCleery, An Introduction to Book History].

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?

1: None. I’d rather handle more than less. 3: I can’t think of any improvements. I do want to say that I think it is very important to circulate the materials because there is no better way to really learn. 4: I thought the handling was appropriate, but I also felt that too much was passed around so that it was hard to focus on what the instructors were saying, and by the time something got to you, it was hard to remember its relevance, because there was so much going around. 6: Handling was fine. 7: The initial reminder about basic book handling covers it for all, whether experienced or beginner. 8: Nothing. The materials used from SC were not passed around in order to preserve the condition. 9: I think all materials were handled well. 10: None. 11: I think it best only to remind students to wash their hands before each class session, so that when the time comes, we can handle materials without worry or fuss.

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

1: The Linotype/Monotype demonstration [by TB] was enlightening. Jane Eyre: a good array and explanation. 3: Yes they were. 4: Yes; fun and educational. 5: Yes, the Monday lecture [No. 506 by Steve Beare] was interesting and well presented. 6: Yes, and I would have loved to hear some panel discussion-type events going on then. 7: Very enjoyable. I always attend all RBS evening activities and Sunday walk/evening session. 8: Absolutely. The reception is almost a must because it introduces you to the rest of the students in the class. 9: Yes, I loved the Linotype demonstration and movie night. These are also great social opportunities. There are many though, and getting to them all is difficult. 10: Yes; useful content and also a way to network with other students. 11: Yes, Beare is a lovable bear, and TB’s Audubon presentation can’t be beat.

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: I consider this a valuable use of research grant funds (would not be able to self-fund, though). Advice: check off-season [Alderman] library and [UVa] Special Collections hours; no printing-out capacity. 2: Yup. 3: I highly recommend this course. I am very happy that I started with this course and would like to take several others. 4: Yes. It’s a helpful introductory course, and helped me zero in on topics I would like to return to study in depth. A great experience! 5: Yes. 6: Yes, I got my money’s worth, and this experience has made me realize more RBS courses are needed! 7: Very satisfied. Highly recommend the course. A great introduction for beginners and refresher for the more experienced/professional. 8: Being a tyro in this subject, I feel that I came to RBS at the right time (for this course), because it is like an introductory course. Now that I have taken this course, I could come back and take a more focused course such as bookbinding or illustration. 9: I think I did. I learned a lot not only from the instructors but from my classmates and even students in other classes who came from a variety of backgrounds and experiences. 10: Absolutely. For a first-time attendee at RBS, this survey course not only gave me useful information and ideas that I can use today, it also gave me a framework by which I can choose other, more specific courses in the future. 11: Absolutely; the course provides a unique and informed introductory view of the bibliographical tools and social skills one would need to work in special collections or the book trade.

Number of respondents: 11

PERCENTAGES

Leave Tuition Housing Travel

Institution Institution Institution Institution
gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel

45% 45% 45% 45%

I took vaca- I paid tui- I paid for my I paid my own
tion time tion myself own housing travel

9% 45% 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               scholarship                home

45% 9% 9% 9%

There were 3 antiquarian booksellers (27%); 2 book collectors (18%); 1 rare book librarian (9%); 1 general librarian with some rare book duties (9%); 1 teacher/professor (9%); 1 full-time student (9%); 1 museum employee (9%); and 1 RBS staff member (9%).