David Whitesell and Richard Noble

G 40: Introduction to the Principles of Descriptive Bibliography

25-29 July, 2011


Lab Instructors

James Ascher, Gerald Cloud, Vernica Downey, Haven Hawley, Eileen Smith


Curator of the Course Museums

Melissa Mead


Printer in Residence

Haven Hawley


1)      How useful were the pre-course readings? How successful was the advanced use of the DVD, The Anatomy of a Book: Format, as a teaching tool? Please indicate if you applied and were accepted late for the course, and thus did not get the list or DVD in time.


1: The pre-course readings were invaluable and indispensible, though I really didn't "get" much of Bowers until I had a book in hand. 2: The pre-course readings were essential. The DVD, which I viewed prior to the course, was very useful, as it helped me to conceptualize book production more robustly. 3: Yes. 4: I really liked the video—I thought it was very useful. I think it's important to know that your classmates will have likely had a hard time with Bowers as well, and that it will all become clearer during the week. 5: Pre-course readings were essential. One would be lost without doing the necessary prep work because we hit the ground running. 6: The pre-course readings are ABSOLUTELY ESENTIAL. You CANNOT BEGIN to determine format, collation, &c. without an intimate reading of Bowers, especially. Gaskell, the videos, TB's article filled in holes, but Bowers is the basis and must be read closely before the class. 7: Pre-course readings were absolutely essential, and the videotape was a useful teaching tool. 8: Pre-course readings were essential—even if one can't grasp every point on Gaskell and (especially) Bowers, it's vital to have read them so that they're fermenting. Don't despair—the concepts come into focus as you handle the books, but you have to have done the reading first for that to happen. 9: TB's articles in Book Collecting: A Modern Guide, the DVD, and Gaskell were the most helpful, in that order. I used Carter when a word came up that I was unfamiliar with. Bowers was complicated, and I often put it down after reading two to three pages. I found it much more helpful to refer to Bowers after I had time to examine a book along with its collational formula. And reading/watching the "shorter" materials first is always a good ice-breaker into such an intense reading list.10: Familiarity with Gaskell and Bowers essential. The DVD was useful—I was accepted late and travelled a long way, so only had the chance to watch it on arrival at UVA—but I will review this. 11: Pre-course reading essential and video excellent for getting one broadly oriented. Would have been lost without them. 12: Extremely necessary. Video very informative as introduction. Readings were helpful. A bit overwhelming as this is not my field but it all came together during the week. 13: The Anatomy of a Book was an essential part of the readings, as well as having the chain-line papers. The readings are essential to the daily work activities, especially Bowers chapters five and seven. 14: Very useful. I did not know about the video. 15: The reading and video were key. It's a lot of information to take in in a short time—so it's good to have an idea of what's going on with a hand-press book before you arrive. 16: The video made visualizing the text easier. Bowers was a bit tedious to get through but is necessary work to wade through. 17: Pre-course readings were very useful. I watched the video after a first reading of Gaskell and afterwards I was able to return to specific sections of the book with as much clearer understanding of what he was describing. 18: Reading Bowers and Gaskell in advance was extremely helpful—and crucial. 19: I am not sure reading all of the Gaskell is necessary—quality of time vs. quality of reading, &c. Bowers is difficult to digest without the object, but I am not sure how you solve that. The video is excellent, well-done. 20: Very useful. I had actually purchased a number of books a year ago from the list for this course and others. Unfortunately I had not re-read the list until it was too late to pre-order the DVD, but RBS staff had my copy for me at registration and I watched it that night. 21: The preliminary readings were vital, i.e., one would be lost from the start of the course without having completed them. The DVD was helpful and interesting. 22: Pre-course readings were essential. Bowers became much clearer through hands-on work, but it was still helpful to have the background. The video was somewhat helpful, the accompanying workbook even more so. 23: The readings are necessary as well as the videos. You have to have a basic understanding of the chapters to appreciate the instructors' further interpretation. 24: The reading was helpful even though I didn't actually absorb much from Bowers and will need to go back through it later. I think it would have been useful to also read part of Bowers on ideal copy. The format video was helpful and the Making of the Renaissance Book was fantastic. 25: I applied late and I was admitted just two weeks before the course started. I read Gaskell and some of Bowers. I found Gaskell much easier to read. I could not watch the DVD due to lack of time.


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, and yes. I will refer to them often, I expect. 2: Yes. Everything was appropriate and useful. They are excellent reference tools, which I am sure will be of use to me in the future. 3: Yes. 4: I was really impressed with all of the course materials. It seemed like a great deal of thought had been put into them, and I know I will use them in my work. 5: Superb. And, in fact, they were a huge help with homework. They will definitely come in handy in the future. 6: Yes, absolutely. As to the exit reading list, we'll see. I expect it will be very useful. 7: Yes, and yes. 8: Absolutely, I will be digesting the exit reading list for some time to come. 9: Absolutely. I referred to the workbook (and the museum book) often while working on homework. I also took extensive notes. The exit reading list is very intimidating due to the wide selection of readings, but I'm very excited to start with Moxon; type and printing I am very interested in. 10: I hope so! 11: Yes, and yes. Looking forward to diving into exit list reading. 12: Yes. Extremely useful. 13: The materials were useful, though I didn't have much time in evenings to prepare for museum. I will be spending months reviewing the excellent resources list. 14: Yes. Extremely. 15: The amount of documentation collected since RBS started is so helpful. There's no way to read it all while we're here, so I'll be working through it when I get home. 16: Yes. I am pleased with the exit reading list. This will really help in building up my own library. The syllabus and workbook were pretty thorough. There could perhaps be a little more about pagination in the workbook. 17: They were both appropriate and useful, and I expect that they will continue to be so. 18: The workbook and exit reading list were very helpful and I anticipate consulting them regularly in the future. 19: Yes, they are invaluable (see answer to number 10). 20: Yes! I'm going to be keeping ILL staff busy for quite some time. 21: The materials distributed were well-written and helpful as auxiliary aids to the texts, labs, and homework. 22: Yes, absolutely. I fully expect to consult them frequently in the future. 23: The museum lists are extremely helpful in providing examples of what is covered in Bowers and Gaskell. 24: Tremendously! I'm sure I will refer back to the workbook and will be using the reading list soon. 25: They are very helpful, and I like the summary on very important concepts. As reference books I will use the material in the future.


3)     To what extent did the Desbib Museums and their catalogs contribute to the success of the course? How could they have been improved?


1: The museums provided the opportunity to handle specific categories/types of materials on a wide scale, which is important to understanding the specific elements of the books we worked with. 2: The museums were extremely valuable, as were there catalog entries. They functioned as a supplement to the homework, and were great concrete examples of the abstract concepts discussed in our readings and in class. 3: Very. 4: I really enjoyed the museums—they helped me put some things together and I think I saw some unique items (e.g., books in sheets) that I might not have been able to see otherwise. 5: This is what makes RBS so unique and important. The examples—carefully selected—and the hands-on aspect of the course made all the difference. 6: They were a wonderful adjunct to the class, providing three-dimensional context to the "nouns" we dealt with everyday. I would have liked to have had more time to fold paper. 7: The museums and catalogs were absolutely wonderful. I anticipate the catalogs being particularly useful upon my return home. 8: I fear the museums were the aspect of the course I explored least fully. But the fault is mine, not the exhibits—those were extraordinary. I don't know that it's feasible, but more time with the museums might be beneficial. 9: I was in the Blue Legion, which had homework after the museum. The first day, after I was able to see several examples of collational formulas and the corresponding physical book at the museum, I finished my homework by 5:00. The Orange Legion was not so lucky, with the museum after—homework. 10: The museums were very interesting, and helped to break up the course, in some ways, from the school—like setting of the labs and lectures, &c. 11: Yes—though would be improved if a tad less self-directed. 12: Very helpful. The museums brought the field to life. 13: The museums demonstrated principles used in lab. You cannot do bibliography without doing the work that goes into making the bibliographical object. 14: I enjoyed them, but the morning lecture and museum could've been condensed more as they often overlapped. 15: I loved the museums and being able to touch the objects. 16: The only improvement I could see is maybe extending the time—somehow. There was so much useful material to explore. 17: I thought the museums were spot-on and I appreciate MM's friendly and welcoming curation of them. A very few of the catalogue entries, such as the one on Hazlitt, appeared to reflect personal biases towards specific bibliographical projects. Overall they were very good though. 18: The museums were terrific and very thoughtfully organized. 19: Museums were amazing, though I would have preferred more student-to-student and student-to-teacher interaction in them. After silent lab study, collaborative work would be nice. 20: Enormously—the only thing I would've liked to see earlier was the set of binding-in-progress blank books (part of Thursday's museum). 21: They provided a rewarding hands-on experience. 22: Occasionally, I felt reluctant to stop collating, but I was always grateful I was required to go to the museum once I got there. The vocabulary museum was essential—I wish we could have had more time with that one or had the chance to return later, especially since this was my first time writing formulas. 23: The museums and catalogs provided a more practical understanding of how books were made, which you can't always understand from the readings. 24: The best part—I only wish we could have had more. 25: Some aspects of printing are very technical. I could have not understood fully without visual examples in the museum.


4)    How successful were you format-and-collation labs? How effective was your lab instructor in conveying the materials to be covered? How could the labs have been improved?


James Ascher: 1: JA was brilliant, and an extremely effective teacher. The labs were very successful—I wouldn't change anything. 2: The format and collation labs were successful, largely because of their size and scope. JA was very articulate and his explanations for particularly strange phenomena in books were cogent and engaging. Labs were perfect. Nothing should be changed. 3: They were great and where I learned the most. 4: I thought the labs were great and JA was a very effective instructor. 5: They were very successful. JA is an excellent instructor. He not only is very knowledgeable, but he explained difficult concepts in an easy to understand fashion. 6: Very successful. JA was absolutely fantastic in explaining the collations and where we went wrong. For me, I think slightly fewer books per day would allow more TIME to focus on each book. I felt I rushed myself sometimes just to finish. Gerald Cloud: 7: Labs were amazing. GC did a terrific job. No improvement necessary (or even possible!!!). 8: The labs were the heart of the course, for me. The lab instructor was masterful. I can see nothing to improve, or even alter. 9: I always felt like I had a good handle on all of the books I worked with. I was a chemistry major, so sometimes I felt like I almost had an advantage over others—the collational formulas, how the sheets are folded almost seemed second nature after I first learned them. GC is an amazing lab instructor—he answered all of our questions thoroughly. The descriptive printout of each book were also incredibly helpful. I wish that they were handed out halfway through each examination of the book (after everyone checks their formulas) so we could look at the notes section together and take our own notes on the sheets. 10: Our instructor was very experienced and this helped. I enjoyed our group and think we worked effectively in these labs and all learned a lot. 11: Labs were perhaps most useful portions of the class. Labs and homework could be improved perhaps by including one book in each box that includes a correct formula/description as example. Vernica Downey: 12: Pertinent to understanding the discipline. Reading and doing are completely different activities—the former built a framework, the latter made it understandable. 13: The labs were successful in teaching the formula, but I could have used more time with the books, reviewing them after a known formula. I could have benefitted from more "ideal" copies: there were many books that took up too much time, and not all extant books have these issues. 14: Very. VD was knowledgeable and good at provoking thoughtful discussion. 15: Our lab instructor was amazing and she was really patient with us. I can't believe how much we learned in one week. 16: All was well except the challenge of the books on Wednesday. I felt I needed to rush to complete the assignment. Haven Hawley: 17: Best part of DesBib—a real pleasure. 18: The labs were critical—if anything, I would say they could even have been slightly longer. HH was very effective in explaining some of the difficult parts of DesBib. 19: They were difficult, but the payoff of learning by trial and error was discernable in my own work. I do think one fewer book/night and more time to check your answers would be better. Eileen Smith: 20: Very—it would have been helpful to have the first lab where we went over an example of how to write the foreign language. The workbook was very useful there, as I find Bowers too digressive. 21: They were very successful. The instructor was extremely knowledgeable and clearly explained the material. 22: The labs were incredibly helpful. Things always felt much clearer afterwards. It might be helpful to have references to Bowers sections on the answer sheets, like the quasi-facsimile exercise. 23: The labs were explained really well, with plenty of time for explaining difficult examples. 24: Very useful. I wish there would have been more time for more books. 25: The collation labs were great. ES is very patient, very clear, and she is able to connect to students and understand their level of knowledge so that explanations can be customized to each of our needs.


5)     What aspects of the course were of the greatest interest or relevance for your purposes? Was the intellectual level of the course appropriate?


1: Yes. I have a particular interest in paper and papermaking. 2: Learning to collate and about bibliography as a discipline was most interesting and relevant. Yes, the intellectual level of the course was appropriate. 3: Learning the collection. 4: I think learning to collate properly will probably be the most useful part of the course for me professionally. I thought the course was appropriately challenging but not overwhelming. 5: I loved the homework and lab and struggling over the work with my labmates. It was challenging, but we all learned so much in a very short time. This practice will prove invaluable as I work with my own collection. 6: Getting to put my hands on problem books to collate was the most relevant to me. It allowed for us to deal with a broader range of Bowers and apply more principles.7: The intellectual level of the course was spot on. Absolutely everything was of interest and relevance for my purposes. 8: Hands-on time with the books and the (illegible-ALAN) of details of format in labs, the lectures, however, were also extraordinarily rich and engaging. 9: I plan on going to get my MLS, so the collation was my purpose for being here. However, the type and printing day was my absolute favorite for my own interests. 10: The homework/labs are the heart of the course, really. The workload is a little on the high side but rewarding in the long run. 11: Intellectual level very appropriate. Was most interested in broadening my experience, meeting others in the trade (broadly defined) and training in the discipline of bibliography. Excellent on all counts. 12: Yes. Labs and museums. Readings were well selected. Discussions of conflicting ideologies were interesting. 13: Seeing and handling artifacts was of most value to me as a new student, as well as lecture components that put "bibliography" in historical contexts. Level of content very appropriate. 14: All. Specifically I enjoyed the lectures. 15: The collations and lab/homework were the most relevant to my work, but I loved RN and DW's lectures. 16: There was not any one thing that was of greatest interest or relevance. I feel like I could have spent much longer on the subject and have really only seen the tip of the iceberg. 17: The content level was appropriate. I felt as though the material conveyed in the final two lectures might have been done so even more effectively if the instructors had assigned us Mackenzie's "Printers of the Mind" and then led a discussion on it, rather than just summarizing in lecture form the limitations of Bowers's project. 18: The intellectual level of the course was perfect for me. I was very interested by the history of the discipline; by details of paper, binding, printing and composition, &c., from the museums, lectures, and demos; by actual collation experience—lots of things! 19: I came for the technical knowledge about book construction, and this is exactly what I got. I have already mentally applied this to my dissertation work, and will do so in practice when I am home. 20: For my purposes it is impossible to single out any particular aspects—it was all useful. And it was so lovely to be in a class where everything does not have to be broken down into the lowest common denominator in words of one syllable! 21: Labs and homework; yes. 22: It was all relevant, but it was especially nice to talk about how to relate bibliographical information to cataloging issues and practices. 23: I wanted to know the elements of descriptive bibliography and see examples of what is acceptable. Each element was covered in the labs with plenty of time allowed for clarification. 24: The labs and the discussion of applying it to library cataloging. 25: All aspects of the course were interesting. For my purpose the collation and binding will be more useful. Intellectual level was fine.

6)     What did you like best about the course? 

1: Everything. Which is not the answer you want, but it is true nonetheless. I really loved this course. 2: I enjoyed RN's dissection of Bowers, DW's lectures, homework, and lab. 3: LAB. 4: I really enjoyed being able to get a sense of the tactile components of books—the press, the paper, &c. 5: Homework and lab sessions. 6: A bit like my answer to number 5, the ability to touch and inspect problem books and apply a vast range of Bowers' principles. 7: Peculiarly, the homework and then talking about it the next day—I learned so much in the process. Also, RN's talk about "ideal copy" was hugely instructive and enjoyable. 8: The small cohort format. 9: I can't even begin. I think I've explained that enough above. Everything. Living on the Lawn is also nice. 10: The rapid hothouse environment towards bibliographical competency! 11: Though at times monotonous, the actual handling of the books. And their subsequent discussions. 12: Labs. Interaction/discussion with lab instructor. 13: I liked the museum and lectures best. 14: Lectures. 15: Lab in the morning going over the homework—we had a great cohort. 16: I liked and appreciated the patience and attention the staff gave me so as to really delve into desbib. I also really liked the museum as it put desbib into a grounded context. 17: This was, across the board, a superb course and I'm grateful for the opportunity to have taken it. I learned a lot not just about format and collation formula, but about book production as well. The course lives up to the standards and the distinctive excellences of the two preliminary books that it assigns. 18: The real hands-on work of attempting to describe—and learning from my mistakes with hand-press books. 19: The collegiality and encouragement of the faculty and fellow students. It was a great environment to learn a new (and difficult) topic. 20: Lecture/homework labs/museums—all of it! 21: The hands-on homework collating experience. 22: Exposure to hands-on materials in collating combined with visual learning via the museums. I also really liked the historiographical discussion of the field on the last two days. This drew it out of the purely technical side. 23: The museums were the best part. RBS has an amazing collection! 24: The museums, the lab time, and that ES applied it to MARC. And the lectures on paper and type. 25: Collating books.


7)    Did the instructor(s) successfully help you to acquire the information, knowledge, and skills that the course was intended to convey? Y/N                                                                                  


1: Yes. 2: Yes, most definitely. 3: Yes. 4: Yes, I think they all did an excellent job. 5: Absolutely, JA was great. 6: Yes, as much as he could have. JA is awesome. The skill will come in more practice. 7: Yes. 8: I believe so. 9: Yes. 10-11: Yes. 12: Yes. Primarily lab instructor. RN and DW were very generous with their talents and knowledge during museums and elsewhere. The lecturer seemed a bit unfocused. 13: Yes, I gained these things (and as given in the course information). 14-16: Yes. 17: Yes; I much appreciated the insights and instruction provided by RN and DW. The lectures conveyed expertise with wit and good cheer and helped to situate DesBib in reference to larger disciplinary and methodological contexts. 18: Yes—definitely. 19: Yes, but they often disagreed in details. While this underlies the inferential aspect of bibliography, it at times created confusion. But the balance is that they were all wonderful, true experts. And my instructor was especially a model of patience, knowledge and pedagogy skills. I will use some of what I learned from them in my own teaching. 20: Yes. 21: Yes, very much so. 22: Absolutely. 23-4: Yes. 25: Yes, she was very good.


8)     Did you learn what the course description/advertisements indicated you would learn?


1: Yes. I learned more than I anticipated. 2-5: Yes. 6: Yes. Although we never dealt with the privileges. No big deal. 7-25: Yes.

9)    Did you learn what you wanted to learn in the course?


1: Yes. See above, question eight. 2-5: Yes. 6: Yes. I have to remind myself that the course is called "Introduction to the Principles .... " NOT "How to Become Fredson Bowers in Five Days." 7-8: Yes. 9: Yes. And whatever I want to learn more about is in the exit list. It is a very intense week. 10-12: Yes. 13: Yes, but bibliography is a wide subject area, and many topics that I thought might, weren't covered. Then again, it's only a week. 14-17: Yes. 18: Yes. My understanding of hand-press period books is so much greater now, after these five days, than it was after ten years' work with early books. 19: Yes. And more. 20: Yes. And then some! 21-24: Yes. 25: Yes, but I would have wanted to have more context about the developments of the book in history/society.

10)    How do you intend to use or apply the knowledge or skills learned in this course?

1: Hopefully in future employment as a rare book librarian. For now, I want to collate all the old books in my father's collection and look for web marks. 2: I intend to collate books in the future. 3: In cataloging rare books. 4: I will use this information to catalog books in my job. 5: Yes, Definitely. 6: I wanted to fold more paper to learn more about imposition schemes. 7: The knowledge and skills learned in this course will inform my teaching, as I teach a book history course and would like to incorporate some of these ideas into that course. Also, I will use the knowledge and skills learned in this course to give my research on more modern topics a bit of historical depth. 8: 1) Study of editions of a particular text I expect to edit. 2) Study of a particular author with a problematic canon (vexed problems of attribution). 3) Better incorporating questions of print into literary cultural studies classes I teach. 9: I think this will be a great help for my MLS. Also, for the immediate future I will use it to market myself as I look for a job (because I need one when grad school starts!) 10: I hope they will enrich my work in book history and related disciplines through greater knowledge of how to use books as evidence. 11: I am pondering several bibliography-ish projects, and though of a later date, the approach taught here will be very useful. Also hope eventually to handle/sell more hand-press books. 13: I intend to produce investigations of specific printers as part of my study of books. 14: Varies. Helpful for reading and understanding catalogs. 15: I do some rare book cataloguing now for a private book collector, and I hope to get a full-time job when I graduate. 16: To describe and compare books at my library. 17: I intend to apply the knowledge to expand and deepen my research into nineteenth-century literature and culture. 18: In my research in American cultural history; in my future work as a bookseller/rare book librarian; in my collecting. 19: It is critical for my dissertation on early modern books. I needed to understand both the theory and practice for my own research, reading and scholarly writing. Now I can (I think or hope that, anyway). 20: Go back to work with confidence! 21: In special collections. 23: I intend to create better bibliographic records and to write a descriptive bibliography of a gift collection. 24: In my library cataloging work. 25: I will work with the Elsevier Collection (not sure about the specific tasks yet).

11)    How could the course have been improved? If you have a suggestion for a new course (and—equally important—a person who could teach it), please contact the RBS Program Director.

1: I don't know (sorry ... it's been a long week)! 2: I think that museums and morning lectures which were generally on the same topic, could be condensed in order to collate more books. Also, more discussions of the state of the discipline would've been helpful. 3: I wish homework consisted of only four books to have more time to spend on each one without working until late. 5: I think a nuts and bolts hands-on course, using a printing press and working through some of the issues that come up in the course would be great. 6: No suggestions. 7: There were really only two parts of this course that could have been improved, in my opinion. I took very little away from the lecture session on quarto-facsimile transcription Also, while I really liked DW's contribution to the final course lecture, RN's intellectual history of bibliography seemed to come at the wrong time for me; it didn't really go where I hoped the final lecture would go. 8: It sounds as though DesBib is subject to continuous review, tweaking, and refinement. Whatever you're doing is working. 9: I think I've said that above with regard to notes in lab. 10: The lectures might have been somewhat more streamlined (i.e., shorter). 11: Last day lecture/full class: distribute what was read to us (bibliographic history) so it is less lecture and more discussion—had I read those earlier would have gotten more out of it. 15: Make it two weeks so we could stay at UVA longer! 16: Nothing comes to mind. 17: See answer to question 5. Although the size of the course does impose scheduling constraints, it might have been nice to meet once or twice more with the entire group. 19: I would like to see a book or material on RBS House Style as a digestion or criticism of Bowers. HH referred to it, but I would like to know what it is. How about "The Application of Bibliographical Description" or the things about the visual the course does not teach. 20: More time? I'd love to see a two-week course, but for most working people that is difficult. 22: I'd like to hear a little bit more about bibliography and new media—where is the field going? How will it adapt? Not as a focus, but a greater peripheral discussion. 25: Adding some more information on book preservation.

12)    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?

1-2: N/A. 3: It was fine. 4: I thought everyone handled the materials appropriately. 5: Not sure. 6: No suggestions. 7: None. 9: I am a person that has always protected my own things (I guess I'm possessive), so I was very careful with everything I handled. I think everyone else I saw was just as careful as I was as well. 11: None. 12: A brief presentation (however elementary in view of the makeup of the class on how to handle books. I saw some aggressive use. 13: None. 18: Was impressed with the stewardship and care in handling materials generally. 19: Unless there is a concern that the material is being over-handled, I am not sure how to comment. 20: To the list of "please do nots," add: Do not lick your fingers to moisten them to turn pages (yes, I saw this), as human saliva is both germ-laden and acidic. 22: A short demonstration on the first day of how books should and should not be handled. 25: Instruct about techniques to handle/preserve books. I think that books stored in boxes will be damaged easier. Maybe some protection clothes around them?

13)    If you attended the optional evening events (e.g. RBS Lecture, Video Night, RBS Forum, Booksellers' Night) were they worth attending?

1: I'm sure they were, but I didn't have time ... homework (on most nights). 2: I had no time for evening events. 3: Yes. 4: Yes, I enjoyed both lectures very much. 5: Lectures were great. 6: Yes. They provided me a larger context to this rather minutely-oriented practice. 7: Both RBS lectures were excellent—Leah Price's better than TB's, perhaps because it seemed more relevant to my set of interests. Booksellers' Night was also very good. 8: Certainly. 9: Absolutely! I did not go to the lecture Wednesday, I stayed in the library because I absolutely did not want to be there until 10 pm. I wish, though, that I had seen Leah Price's talk. 10: RBS lectures were very interesting. Booksellers' Night not so much. 11: Absolutely. TB's talk was amazing and clever. The second talk was engaging, if a bit too academic and intellectual. 12: Yes. 13: Yes, lectures are always worth attending. 14: Yes. A highlight. 15: TB's lecture was good, but I didn't have a lot of time to go to evening events—I was in homework. 16: The lectures were worth attending. The Booksellers' Night—a few of the shops were closed; Daedalus comes to mind. You might want to note that. 18: Despite the limited time, the talks and Booksellers' Night were fun, interesting and well worth attending. 19: I could not because I was under the weather, though with Descriptive Bibliography I am not sure how one has time. 20: Definitely! 22: I was too busy doing homework. 23: Yes! 24: I didn't have time to attend anything other than the first lecture. 25: Yes.

14)    Did you get your (or your institutions) money's worth? Any final or summary thoughts, or advice for other persons considering taking this course in a future year? (If you have further RBS praise or concerns, please speak with Amanda Nelsen or Michael Suarez.)

1: Yes. 2: Yes, definitely. I think people taking the course should do the reading and ask lots of questions. 3: Yes. If it wasn't for the high cost of travel expenses, I would be sure to come again: we will see. 4: Yes, I thought the course was well worth the money. 5: Yes. 6: In 72-point font, YES. To prospective students; read and study Bowers. 7: Yes. 8: It would have been a bargain at twice the price. Though I hope that won't give you too many funny ideas. 9: Yes. I've learned so much this week, and I will apply for the scholarship to Advanced DesBib. I'm on a roll. 10: Yes—I think this course is extremely worthwhile as an exercise in professional development for a variety of different professions and disciplines. 11: Money's worth? Yes. 12: Yes. 13: I do think I got a value on the topic material, but it was expensive for me. 14: Yes. I would have liked to keep the kit. 15: Yes, this was a real bargain compared to the cost of my MLS classes! Advice: stay on the Lawn, do the reading, don't expect to sleep. 16: I sure hope so. 18: Yes—absolutely. This course does just what it says and is remarkable for it. Do the reading beforehand and be prepared for long days! 19: More than the money's worth. Because it is baptism by fire, come well-rested, ready to work and leave time on the front and back end to see Charlottesville. There is not time for tourism. It's tough, but it's worth it. 20: Yes, and I hope to be back next year. I've already been reporting throughout the week to my director, and she is very happy with what I have reported. 21: Yes. 22: Absolutely. Don't panic when reading Bowers—it is unintelligible in parts for a newcomer without experience, but it becomes clear quickly in class. 23: Definitely. This is an amazing course that is worth the five intense days. 24-25: Yes.

15) Would you recommend this course to others?

1: Yes. 2: Yes, the course if very compelling. 3: Yes. 4: Yes, definitely! 5: Yes. 6: I already have. 7: Yes. 8: Loudly, emphatically, and with annoying frequency. 9: Absolutely. 10-11: Yes. 12: Of course! 13: Yes, I recommend it as a starting point for advanced studies. 14: Yes. 15: Yes yes yes. 16: Yes. 17: Fully and without reservations. 18: In a heartbeat. 19: Yes, if it relates to your study or work. You can disagree with the methodology of bibliographic description (Bowers) but you should know it to either argue against it or come to a new understanding of its possible applications. 21-22: Yes. 23: Of course. 24: Certainly. 25: Yes.

Number of respondents: 25





Institution gave me leave




I took vacation time




N/A: self-employed, retired or had the summers off




I am self-employed

Work has nothing to do with RBS course






Institution paid tuition




Institution paid tuition ___%




I paid tuition myself




Exchange or barter




N/A: Self-employed, retired or scholarship






















Institution paid housing




Institution paid for ___% of housing




I paid for my own housing




N/A: stayed with friends or lived at home







Institution paid travel




Institution paid ___% of my travel




I paid my own travel




N/A: lived nearby









There were 5 full-time MLS students (20%), 2 part-time MLS students (8%), 1 recent MLS graduate (4%), 4 full-time Ph.D. students (16%), 2 auction house employees (8%), 1 rare book librarian (4%), 3 general librarians with some rare book duties (12%), 3 English professors (12%), 3 antiquarian booksellers (12%), and 1 digital collections manager (4%).

Where did you stay?

Brown College: 9 (36%)

The Lawn: 10 (40%)

Courtyard Marriott: 1 (4%)

Hampton Inn & Suites: 1 (4%)

Red Roof Inn: 1 (4%)

Other: 3 (12%)