Subject: Nicholson Baker article
Editors The New Yorker 4 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Dear Editors: Re: Nicholson Baker article entitled "Deadline: The author's desperate bid to save America's past" in the July 24, 2000, issue Collecting, preserving and providing access to the written word is a core activity of all libraries. Unfortunately, the chemical 'vice' of certain formats, such as the acidic and impermanent newsprint on which most of the world's news is printed, limits what libraries can retain in original format. The Library of Congress, along with other libraries, has implemented preservation strategies to slow the natural decay of collections, and in cases where the original is of inherently poor quality or too damaged to be used, to transfer the disappearing information onto a more stable format that can be preserved for future generations. In asserting that newsprint will last indefinitely, Mr. Baker is overlooking several decades of scientific research that contradicts the linchpin of his argument. Library of Congress experts shared that information, as well as more recent unpublished scientific data, with Mr. Baker when he visited the Library in December 1998. Microfilming, while not perfect, has proven to be an effective technology for rescuing brittle paper and for facilitating shared access to endangered research materials. Microfilm created in accordance with international standards has succeeded in preserving millions of newspaper pages that would otherwise have crumbled into uselessness. It has also enabled innumerable numbers of readers in distant locations to gain access to the content of newspapers that they otherwise could not have used. In recent testimony before Congress, the eminent historian, James McPherson explained that in doing his research he had tried to use 19th century newspapers in the Johns Hopkins library, and as he "turned these precious but highly acidic pages, some of them tore and crumbled in my hands no matter how carefully and delicately I handled them." He continued, "I was horrified by the experience of damaging, perhaps destroying the very sources that nurtured my knowledge. Here I was, in one of the world's greatest libraries defacing its rare and valuable resources!.... Intellectually I knew why these pages were crumbling, knew that it was not my fault. But emotionally I could not escape the feelings of guilt and shame." Mr. Baker would have your readers believe that the Library of Congress, in a clandestine manner, routinely discarded perfectly useable newspaper volumes in a zealous search for shelf space. This is both ridiculous and insulting. Librarians must make decisions every day about how best to acquire, preserve and make permanently accessible the record of human creativity; but they cannot keep everything, or keep everything in its original "container." For example, the Library of Congress retains all newspapers in hard copy from the 17th and 18th centuries. The Library also collects and retains original newspapers about historic events, such as the sinking of the Maine, published since the 1830s. Those decisions are based on many criteria, but pre-eminent among them is that knowledge must be preserved in a way that makes it usable by successive generations. Even though the Library of Congress and other libraries do not have the luxury of preserving and storing hundreds of thousands of rapidly deteriorating newspapers in their original format, we welcome help from people like Nicholson Baker who apparently can afford to do so. Winston Tabb Associate Librarian for Library Services Library of Congress, LM-642 Washington, DC 20540-4000 (202) 707-6240 Dottie LaValle-Hagag LIBN/OC/PAO (1610) LM-105 202-707-6203 *** Conservation DistList Instance 14:22 Distributed: Saturday, October 14, 2000 Message Id: cdl-14-22-004 ***Received on Friday, 6 October, 2000