Michael Winship
H-50: The American Book in the Industrial Era, 1820–1940
26 July–1 August 2013

Detailed Course Evaluation

1)    How useful were the pre-course readings? Did you do any additional preparations in advance of the course?

1: Very useful. It might also have been worthwhile to assign something like Gaskell or ABC for Book Collectors, and some class time had to be used catching some students up on basics. 2: The pre-course readings made some lectures redundant. 3: Quite good, though some a bit dated. 4:  The Lehman-Haupt was extremely detailed, and it would have been helpful to have a better sense of which part to focus on. 5: Very useful. Additional preparation included previous knowledge but nothing specific for the course. 6: Very useful. They gave me time to reflect on course topics as they relate to my plan to bring what I learned back to my workplace. I reviewed general history of the era. 7: I found the pre-course readings very informative—directly pertinent to my research and teaching. However, I did not see their pertinence to the course itself, which seemed to presume that students had done no reading at all. 8: The pre-course reading load was very heavy, but very useful. I think better completion of this reading within the class would have helped instruction move more quickly. 9: The pre-course readings were very good although I did not have quite enough time to complete it all. I plan to finish sections after the course. 10: Readings were not discussed at all. The instructor didn’t act as if anyone did read. Odd because I had heard the class was discussion-based. 11: I thought the readings were useful, though we covered a lot of it again in lecture. There was quite a bit of overlap and texts weren’t used in class. 12: The selection from The History of the Book in America was quite good.

2)    Were the course workbook and other materials distributed in class appropriate and useful (or will they be so in the future, after you return home)?

1: No workbook. Bibliography and other handouts were great. I would have liked copies of some of the slides shown in class. 2: N/A. 3: I would have liked a paper workbook with the examples MW showed on the screen. 4: Yes. The bibliography will be useful. 5:  The bibliography will be very useful. 6: Very. The bibliography and URLs will help build a collection of these works in my library. 7: There were few materials distributed in class. I do plan to refer to the list of web resources when I next teach on book history. 8: The bibliography will be very useful for future research. Video links will be helpful teaching aids. 9: I did not have time to concentrate on the materials distributed in class. I just glanced at them but plan to follow-up in the future. I believe they will be helpful. 10: I will definitely look up and use many sources mentioned in class and on bibliography. I will probably share many of the videos mentioned with colleagues and students! 11: URL list and bibliography were especially useful. 12: Yes. Great bibliography and also useful links to YouTube videos.

3)    Have you taken one or more RBS courses before? If so, how did this course compare with your previous coursework?

1: Yes. Two. Intellectually, they are quite comparable. I learned a lot, but I must say that some of the other students in this course did not seem to have any native interest in the subject of the course and were incredibly disruptive, which has never happened to me in an RBS course before. 3:  Yes. Jim Green’s. It is very similar in content and format, very different pedagogically. 4: Yes. This course was more lecture-based than my previous course. 5: Yes. 6: No. 7–8: N/A. 9: Yes. I have taken three RBS courses prior to this one. All the courses have been provocative and instructive including this one. 10: Yes. This course was okay, not as good or satisfying. 11: I have taken two courses previous to this one. I felt this course was very lecture heavy and not as hands on or discussion oriented. 12: Yes. Both were excellent.

4)    What aspects of the course content were of the greatest interest or relevance for your purposes?

1: Much of the course was relevant, though some of the technical stuff was review. MW’s explanation revealed new insights. Information on the publication and distribution of books was great. Loved talking about pbtes—methods of bibliographic analysis, &c. 3: Publishing, distribution, selling, and reading, and the social and cultural history. 4:  The history of copyright was the most interesting. 5: Plating and its impact on the trade and book distribution. The second one is not what I applied for, but it turned out to be very important and interesting. 6: First, publishing as an industry and the way that it emerged from the craft, trade, and hand-press era. Second, concrete evidence of the products made and sold. 7: The final discussion of readers and distribution was most relevant to my own work. These talks seemed to open to more conversation among the group, which was welcome. 8: My interest is in production processes and economics. 9: This course helped me become much more aware of not only the creativity of books but also the production. I think it has given me a solid basis on which to build knowledge when reviewing c19 books in my daily working life. 10: I enjoyed both the technical history and process information (though this felt very introductory to me) and social history, networks, distribution and publishing information, but most students wanted the latter. I would have preferred more information on the latter. 11: Publishing, serialization, distribution and reader reception. 12: Description of technological advancements.

5)    Did the instructor(s) successfully help you to acquire the information, knowledge, and skills that the course was intended to convey? Was the intellectual level of the course appropriate?

1: Yes, and yes. The intellectual level of the instruction was consistently high, though at times the other students seemed intellectually disengaged. 2: Yes. The methodology gained was incredibly useful. 3: Yes. 4: Yes. It was appropriate. 5: Sort of. Many details were conveyed but main patterns were a bit vague. Also, the course really focused on c19. Intellectual level, yes. Perhaps a bit more review than I needed, especially in the wake of the reading, but review is also good. 6: Yes, and yes. 7: I was expecting far more of a seminar environment in which students’ ideas and concerns would help guide the course. The predominately lecture-based course did not work for me. If anything, this course was not challenging enough—only listening was required. 8: Yes. The course offered the information I anticipated. Some material was a review for me, but some was new and very useful. 9: I think the instructor has helped me to acquire the intended skills and information of this course with a good balance of explaining basics when necessary and keeping other parts at a higher intellectual level. 10: There were very mixed messages given to students about asking questions (MW encouraged questions but often did not make it easy or safe to ask questions) and about pacing (MW wanted input on priorities and said he would be flexible but then felt stressed about covering material). 11: This course was very interesting and informative, but I did expect more attention on readers and readership and social history questions. 12: Yes, the intellectual level of the course was appropriate.

6)    What did you like best about the course?

1: MW’s expertise and flexibility. 2: MW! Amazing teacher. The Walt Whitman lecture was one of the most useful things I’ve ever encountered in a class. 3: Hands on with books. MW’s hints at research/historical methods, though would have wanted more. 5: MW knows everything about everything. 6: The informal but scholarly treatment of the subject atmosphere. 7:  The few hands on activities. When we worked to organize editions of Lucile for instance. 8: I enjoyed learning about typecasting and book distribution. 9: Clarifying the development of production processes. 10: The Thursday and Friday topics (publishing, distribution, authors, readers, networks and markets). 11: Looking at rare books, plates, and samples, the discussion on imposition and description, and the Walt Whitman publishing history. 12: MW’s depth of knowledge and his offbeat, eccentric personality. What a guy!

7)    How could the course have been improved?

1: Perhaps applicants to the course could be asked to submit a CV or specify the extent of their bibliographic knowledge with the application to help MW plan for the level of classroom discussion. Also, I would have liked a little bit of homework—never though I’d say that! 2: Some of the technical aspects of print from the first two days might be reduced with readings. 3: Many thoughts. First, more time with social, cultural, business history, less with bibliography and printing methods. Second, MW might be more open to student questions. Third, MW might disagree less and frame topics better. 4: We could have spent a little less time on technology (maybe half a day less) so that we could spend more time discussing readers and readership. 5: I really think this one course should be 2 or 3 courses broken either at 1900 or by focus—say, technologies of the industrial period versus the book trade and associated socio-cultural phenomena like reading. It seemed like too much to cram into 5 days and, at times, MW seemed frustrated with our questions because he was so worried about covering all his territory. 6: Warmer and larger quarters. 7: I wish the course had proceeded from the readings rather than retreading them, that students had been given an opportunity to bring their expertise to the conversation, and that there had been more time for conversation rather than lecture. 8: The class ran behind schedule especially in the early days, creating an atmosphere in which it was unclear whether questions and discussion were productive. 9: I liked the fact that the instructor showed that history is not static, and new developments are fluid, but I think a few more dates are helpful than were given as dates provide punctuation points to change. 10: First, eliminate the introduction to descriptive bibliography topics (format, edit, issue, state and editions). It was not useful in this course. Second, the scope of the course needs to be redefined in two ways: time period, we barely covered c20; class could be split into two courses: production processes and technology history and the publication, distribution, author, and material. Most students in this class were more interested in the latter but it was the minority of class time. Third, more discussion! It was hard to be lectured at for six hours, especially because MW is not very precise or full of details. I respect his humility and resistance to overarching narrative and resistance to make unfounded claims, but MW was often too vague. People need a narrative first in order to deconstruct it. 11:  The course would have been improved if the instructor had facilitated group discussion and allowed us to discuss our interests more. The instructor asked for topics but did not necessarily touch on them. 12: The schedule was a bit rigid in its topics—some more flexibility would have been welcome. Not a big problem though.

8)    Did you learn what the course description/advertisement indicated you would learn? Additional comments optional. Y/N

1: Yes. Anyone who answers no to this question did not read the course description, I suspect. I did, and I got what I wanted. 3–6: Yes. 7:  8: Yes 9: No. This course turned out to emphasize more the development of industrial book production than in the course description. This was good from my point of view. 10: Yes, sort of. See notes about defining the course. 11: Yes, for the most part. As I mentioned before, I had hoped to learn more about the social implication of publishing, distribution, and book making.12: Yes.

9)    Did you learn what you wanted in the course? Additional comments optional. Y/N

1:  Yes. Packed with information and resources. If you actually want to learn about c19 American books, this is the best class. 3: Yes, and no. More history, less bibliography. 4: Yes. 5: Yes. Mostly. Would have liked more coverage of c20. 6: Yes. 7: No.  8–9: Yes. 10: Yes, mostly. I would have liked more depth on Thursday and Friday topics. Also, more depth on technology history too (it should be a separate course maybe). Not descriptive bibliography stuff. It is introductory and not useful. 11: I really was interested in readers and readership, which was not covered much. 12: Yes.

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

1: In my dissertation and in my research more broadly. I supposed my interests are more transatlantic, but the course provides such an excellent foundation for how to look at books, how to understand their production, and what to do to research them. I can imagine many applications of the knowledge I have learned. 3: Academic research on cultural history. 4: My knowledge of book history will help me to understand the importance of different editions of books and how book were made when working with the collections in my library.  5: First, background for two current research projects; second, background for classes I will be teaching this year; third, a better understanding of the collections I work with. 6:  First, I plan to use this information to enhance history of the book and holdings studies at my institution. Second, I plan to apply knowledge and skills acquired to collection management and description tasks. 8: I plan to apply this knowledge to my library, archives work, and to future research.  9:  Absolutely. I know what further reading I would like to pursue and I have been shown and sensitized more to what I need to be more aware of in my daily work. 10: First, to teach undergraduates and faculty about book history. Second, for personal research projects. 11: I will use this when working with researchers and in my own research on reader reception. 12: This course will help further my research by giving me a strong background in the production and transmission of books in c19 America.

11)  If your course left its classroom, was the time devoted to this purpose well spent?

1: Yes. We had two very excellent SC visits and one impromptu show and tell of RBS print equipment, including a tabletop press, Vandercook proofing press, Washington press and linotype distributing bar. 3: Good times in SC. 4: Yes. Our SC visits were delightful. 5: Yes, although I wish there had been opportunities to look at materials more carefully—fewer books, more close-up examination. 6: Yes. SC visits and lectures will undoubtedly be highlights of my trip report. 7: I enjoyed the trips to SC—these test cases did help illuminate aspects of the course materials that were otherwise abstract. 8: Yes. Trips to SC clarified physical and textual differences among editions, printings, and states.  9:  The review of editions was extremely valuable and illuminating in SC. 10: See suggestions on improving the show-and-tell SC model in Question 13. 11: SC and press demonstration—both excellent! 12: Yes. We went to SC on two occasions and both trips were very productive.

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

1: Got some ex-Vince Golden books on Booksellers’ Night—so I’m pretty happy! 3:  N/A. 4: Yes. 5: Yes. I loved the paper museum; movie was great; lectures were good. 6: Yes. All related to my class or my work in some way. 8: Yes. The Video Night was most relevant to me, but I enjoyed learning from the speakers as well. Booksellers’ Night was very pleasant. 9: Yes. I attended every evening event and each one added a valuable dimension to the week. 10: Really glad Linotype was a real (and good) film, not just a series of instructional videos with low production quality. Wednesday RBS Lecture was great. Monday RBS Lecture misjudged audience and was not a good speaker. 11: N/A. 12: Very much, although the first lecture was too specialized to be of general interest.

13)  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: MW seemed nervous about passing around materials in the small classroom but was very good about reminding students how to handle books. 3: Good. 4: None. 5:  6: More instruction space. 7: I was very disappointed at how little we were able to interact with SC materials. I understand they are fragile, but four (plus) hours watching someone handle book is dull. We are professional scholars. 8: No suggestions. The materials were handled well. 9: I wish I had realized that the items the instructor showed each day would only be out that day. I wanted to look at something another day and it was not available though I understood why it could not be left out. 10:  Many students expressed frustration at not being able to touch SC materials. Conditions concerns need to be better explained. Also, the resulting show-and-tell pedagogy needs to be somehow more interactive and improved. 11: N/A. 12: There were no problems with this.

14)  Did you (or your institution) get your money’s worth? Would you recommend this course to others?

1: Yes, and yes. I whole-heartedly recommend this course to scholars of the book in all professional capacities who are interested in c19 and c20 books. 3: Yes. 4: Yes. I would recommend it. 5–6: Yes, and yes. 7: I would not recommend this course. 8: Yes. Though the experience is not inexpensive, it provides excellent education. 9: Yes. 10:  Not sure. I think big tweaks need to be made regarding scope. 11: Yes, and yes. MW is an accomplished and impressive scholar. I learned many new and useful things this summer! 12: I would recommend this course to others. I would also like to take a course on periodicals and serialization with this instructor.

15) Any final or summary thoughts, or advice for other persons considering taking this course in a future year? (If you have further praise/concerns, please speak with Amanda Nelsen or Michael Suarez.)

1: MW’s sense of humor takes some getting used to, but he is vastly knowledgeable and in fact quite humble. If you, too, are humble in turn, you’ll learn a lot in this class. It is a fantastic class and so very rich. Worth the time, worth the energy, worth it to take. 3: I would love a whole course on the second half of this course—publishing, distribution, and reading history and research methods. An RBS style history of the Bible—since Gutenberg or over its entire history – would be an amazing course. 6: Keep up the good work. 9: The class reading is necessary to do as the instructor made references that were not necessarily discussed in depth during the course as he was giving us more in depth information on other events and processes. It would be interesting to learn more about the development of serialization. 10:  As I said in Question 7, the scope of class needs to be redefined, especially as there are other general book history courses. This should feel more specialized than it did. MW’s idea about serial and periodicals class is an excellent idea!!!

Aggregate Statistics

Number of respondents: 12

Leave

Institution gave me leave: 7 (58%)

I took vacation time: 1 (8%)

N/A: self-employed, retired, or had summers off: 4 (34%)

Tuition

Institution paid tuition: 7 (58%)

N/A: self-employed, retired, or scholarship: 5 (42%)

Housing

Institution paid housing: 6 (50%)

I paid for my own housing:  2 (17%)

N/A: stayed with friends or lived at home: 4 (33%)

Travel

Institution paid travel: 6 (50%)

I paid my own travel: 2 (17%)

N/A: lived nearby: 4 (33%)

Which one category most closely defines what you do for a living, or why you are at RBS? (Please check only one category)

Conservator/binder/preservation librarian: 2 (17%)
Student, Ph.D. (humanities): 3 (25%)
Librarian with some rare book duties: 2 (17%)
College, assistant professor: 1 (8%)
University, assistant professor: 1 (8%)
Other: 1 (8%)

How did you hear about this course?

RBS website: 3 (25%)
RBS printed schedule: 1 (8%)
Work colleague: 3 (25%)
Word of mouth: 2 (17%)
RBS faculty or staff recommendation: 2 (17%)
Other: 1 (8%)