Reading for 20 November 2006
"Double Fold" by Nicholson Baker
Preface
Nicholson Baker sounds like he might be a man with an axe to grind. He has already written articles and papers critical of the way libraries maintain their collections. I am hopeful that he does not see himself as an adversary of the library -- someone who is critical and contrary just to be critical and contrary. On the other hand, he does come right out and admit that he's not impartial, which I appreciate. This is one of those "consider the source" moments, and he makes it a bit easier to do that.
Chapter Three -- Destroying to Preserve
I think it's deplorable that libraries dump collections without public input. It perhaps should be something that's put up for voting -- a large list of everything the library wants to discard over a year would be printed and posted on the Web, and then people could have a say as to whether their library keeps these items or dumps them. It's not a perfect solution, but then the public could at least know that precious items are being gotten rid of. And they might have the awareness of space drummed into their heads and start funding the library more if they want to keep these items available. I also think it's horrible to use deterioration as an excuse to get rid of items when what you really want is the space they take up. As mentioned, there are ways to preserve these items, and they seem to be much more durable than traditionally thought.
Chapter Four -- It Can Be Brutal
How did anyone ever think that it was a good idea to put newspapers on microfiche? More than that, how did they convince themselves that it was an excellent idea to then get rid of the paper copies? This is what I don't understand. People today actively avoid items that are on microfiche and microfilm. They don't enjoy looking at them, for many of the reasons listed in the book, plus the fact that they aren't usually cataloged in the same fashon as the rest of the library and they're kept in funny cases. A lot of the time you have to get someone's help with them. I think these are aspects to microfiche that are good to keep in mind when getting too excited about digitization. There are human as well as technological drawbacks to new techniques.
Chapter Five -- The Ace Comb Effect
And this was what was really bothering me about the pitching of so many newspapers. What about the multiple editions in one day? This is something that has affected me personally. When I was eight, my next-door neighbor was murdered in a preserve in the city I grew up in. My mother and I went and looked in the newspapers that day to read the article about his death. Now, when I go to the library to look up his death, I can't find anything because the article was only in the later edition published that day. It's extremely irritating to know that something should be there but isn't (or is there and is completely obliterated). And this was in the 1990s, when you'd think that librarians and microfichers would be sensitive to these problems and do something about it.
Chapter Seven -- Already Worthless
I can't believe this! Why is it that people who have been entrusted with conserving valuable relics from our past so intent on destroying these same items? Why is there no reverence for the fact that these items have survived and can teach us a lot more if they still physically exist?
And the idea that lost information is somehow acceptable in trade-off is irritating. The part of me that values the object (I guess it's book lust, as Nancy Pearl would put it) is truly incensed that this would be thought appropriate. Are we, as a profession, under such pressure to adapt to the new that we forget about our most important missions? Perhaps.
Chapter Nine -- Dingy, Dreary, Dog-eared, and Dead
I wonder how much of this technophilia is librarians in general and how much is just the people who ended up in control of the Library of Congress. It seems that this story of expecting technology to answer all the problems involving space was much more a matter of the people at the top being a little loony for the next shiny toy. As for the people below, it seems like they fall into some categories that don't exactly make me proud: carry it out even though you don't like it; don't even reflect on the topic; and just as nutty as their superiors. What I'm getting from these chapters is this: even if you have to do it as a part of your job, if you feel there's a moral or ethical issue involved, speak up. Talk to your supervisor. Write papers. Make presentations at professional conferences. Really make yourself a gadfly so that others will take a look and start to take the topic seriously, as opposed to accepting the status quo.
"Double Fold" by Nicholson Baker
Preface
Nicholson Baker sounds like he might be a man with an axe to grind. He has already written articles and papers critical of the way libraries maintain their collections. I am hopeful that he does not see himself as an adversary of the library -- someone who is critical and contrary just to be critical and contrary. On the other hand, he does come right out and admit that he's not impartial, which I appreciate. This is one of those "consider the source" moments, and he makes it a bit easier to do that.
Chapter Three -- Destroying to Preserve
I think it's deplorable that libraries dump collections without public input. It perhaps should be something that's put up for voting -- a large list of everything the library wants to discard over a year would be printed and posted on the Web, and then people could have a say as to whether their library keeps these items or dumps them. It's not a perfect solution, but then the public could at least know that precious items are being gotten rid of. And they might have the awareness of space drummed into their heads and start funding the library more if they want to keep these items available. I also think it's horrible to use deterioration as an excuse to get rid of items when what you really want is the space they take up. As mentioned, there are ways to preserve these items, and they seem to be much more durable than traditionally thought.
Chapter Four -- It Can Be Brutal
How did anyone ever think that it was a good idea to put newspapers on microfiche? More than that, how did they convince themselves that it was an excellent idea to then get rid of the paper copies? This is what I don't understand. People today actively avoid items that are on microfiche and microfilm. They don't enjoy looking at them, for many of the reasons listed in the book, plus the fact that they aren't usually cataloged in the same fashon as the rest of the library and they're kept in funny cases. A lot of the time you have to get someone's help with them. I think these are aspects to microfiche that are good to keep in mind when getting too excited about digitization. There are human as well as technological drawbacks to new techniques.
Chapter Five -- The Ace Comb Effect
And this was what was really bothering me about the pitching of so many newspapers. What about the multiple editions in one day? This is something that has affected me personally. When I was eight, my next-door neighbor was murdered in a preserve in the city I grew up in. My mother and I went and looked in the newspapers that day to read the article about his death. Now, when I go to the library to look up his death, I can't find anything because the article was only in the later edition published that day. It's extremely irritating to know that something should be there but isn't (or is there and is completely obliterated). And this was in the 1990s, when you'd think that librarians and microfichers would be sensitive to these problems and do something about it.
Chapter Seven -- Already Worthless
I can't believe this! Why is it that people who have been entrusted with conserving valuable relics from our past so intent on destroying these same items? Why is there no reverence for the fact that these items have survived and can teach us a lot more if they still physically exist?
And the idea that lost information is somehow acceptable in trade-off is irritating. The part of me that values the object (I guess it's book lust, as Nancy Pearl would put it) is truly incensed that this would be thought appropriate. Are we, as a profession, under such pressure to adapt to the new that we forget about our most important missions? Perhaps.
Chapter Nine -- Dingy, Dreary, Dog-eared, and Dead
I wonder how much of this technophilia is librarians in general and how much is just the people who ended up in control of the Library of Congress. It seems that this story of expecting technology to answer all the problems involving space was much more a matter of the people at the top being a little loony for the next shiny toy. As for the people below, it seems like they fall into some categories that don't exactly make me proud: carry it out even though you don't like it; don't even reflect on the topic; and just as nutty as their superiors. What I'm getting from these chapters is this: even if you have to do it as a part of your job, if you feel there's a moral or ethical issue involved, speak up. Talk to your supervisor. Write papers. Make presentations at professional conferences. Really make yourself a gadfly so that others will take a look and start to take the topic seriously, as opposed to accepting the status quo.
posted by Julia Faith | 9:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home