[PADG:1377] FW: Which books do we save - and which do we destroy?

["Schnare, Robert, Prof." <schnarer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Colleagues: Another article on Baker.

Bob Schnare

>  
> 
> Which books do we save - and which do we destroy? 
> Boston Globe, July 1, 2001 
> By Adam Pertman, 
> The attacks have become so persistent, the language so vituperative, the
> sentiments so intense, that it sounds at times as if a grave national
> security issue is being debated, or a potentially explosive political
> scandal is being exposed. 
> ''I'm very concerned that what he's doing ... could result in Congress
> cutting funds to vitally important programs,'' one participant says of the
> instigator of this raging controversy. ''I think that would be a tragedy
> of the first order.'' 
> Another detractor adds: ''He has concocted something that smells and
> tastes of a vast conspiracy, and there just isn't one. ... He says he
> wants to help improve the situation, but God help us if we get many more
> people who want to help like him.'' 
> The monumental issue at hand - hold on to your missile-defense shields -
> is whether librarians are doing enough to preserve old books and
> newspapers. 
> It's not a question that has stimulated much public interest before, or
> generated this level of discourse even within the field itself. But, in a
> paradigmatic example of how an artful, persuasive writer can transform a
> seemingly mundane subject into a captivating and controversial one, author
> Nicholson Baker is altering reality for America's libraries. 
> Baker's microscopic examination of library archiving practices, detailed
> in his best-selling book ''Double Fold: Libraries and the Assault on
> Paper,'' essentially concludes that the professionals charged with
> preserving the nation's literary heritage have done worse than fail in
> their mission. He asserts that, in their zeal to save space by discarding
> decaying books and relegating most old newspapers to microfilm, they have
> systematically deprived future generations of precious, irreplaceable
> resources. 
> ''I think the job of the great research libraries is to keep the things
> that we, the public, want and read; I don't think that's a zany idea,''
> says Baker, who was interviewed by phone from his Maine home. ''These are
> things of the highest importance to world history.'' 
> This simple notion, that virtually everything printed is worth saving
> somewhere in its original form (abetted by Baker's stinging portrayal of
> some respected librarians as nefarious, ill-informed, or perhaps even
> conspiratorial), is the spark that ignited the library world from the
> moment ''Double Fold'' was released several months ago. And, if anything,
> the fireworks have grown hotter and brighter ever since. 
> Last month, for instance, some graduates of the Simmons College Graduate
> School of Library and Information Sciences boycotted the Boston school's
> annual Alumni Day because it featured a debate in which Baker was offered
> the opportunity to present and defend his views; most alumni flocked to
> the event, however, forcing the organizers to broadcast it to an overflow
> crowd in an adjoining room. This same level of
> interest/repulsion/curiosity - whether to hear Baker out, use him for
> verbal target practice, or both - also led the American Library
> Association to feature him as a principal speaker at its annual conference
> last month in San Francisco. 
> Baker sounds almost nonchalant as he addresses the barrage of
> often-personal attacks aimed his way almost every day at his appearances,
> on Web sites, at universities, and within venerable institutions such as
> the Library of Congress. As he counters his critics point by point, he
> insists his positions eventually will lead to a fundamental shift in
> archival policies across the country. 
> ''The first reaction is anger,'' says Baker, unwavering in his belief in
> his cause. ''But I think the intent and the specifics of my arguments will
> prevail.'' 
> It is a measure of just how far apart the two sides are that they cannot
> even agree on the scope of destruction. Baker insists that it is so
> widespread that virtually all original copies of books and newspapers are
> being systematically scrapped; library archivists maintain that they try
> to save all that they judge to be critical original documents. There is
> just no room, nor any need, to save everything, they say. 
> Even Baker's critics give him some qualified credit. ''It's important that
> we listen to him, I think, because he's onto an important issue, has
> identified some problems, and has gotten quite a lot of people to focus on
> it: How do we best ensure long-term access to our cultural heritage?''
> says Duane Webster, executive director of the Association of Research
> Libraries. 
> ''But there are a lot more difficulties than constructive aspects to his
> diatribe.'' Indeed, it is Webster who - giving voice to many library
> professionals - warns that Baker's efforts could lead to cuts in library
> funding, which would be a ''tragedy of the first order.'' 
> Webster also complains that even to the extent that ''Double Fold''
> accurately reflects reality, it misleads readers by ignoring the
> technological and functional improvements librarians have made to correct
> admittedly faulty past practices. 
> Other academics and librarians worry that, at a time when libraries
> nationwide are experiencing staff shortages, fewer students will be drawn
> to the field if they believe Baker has accurately portrayed it. (But even
> some of the author's severest critics differ on this point; some theorize
> more young people might find librarianship alluring if they perceive their
> roles partly as reformers or saviors.) 
> Baker does have some rank-and-file allies in his campaign to save the
> printed-on-paper word. Moreover, many librarians acknowledge their initial
> negative responses to him may be rooted in resentment that their work -
> which so rarely gets attention of any kind - was portrayed so negatively
> when someone finally thrust it into the public arena. 
> ''I'm actually embarrassed for some of the reactions some people in my
> profession have had, because they've been just so defensive,'' says Jinny
> Nathans, an archivist at the American Meteorological Society in Boston and
> an avowed fan of both Baker's book and his message. 
> Nathans spent a recent Tuesday helping to organize the contents of the
> American Newspaper Repository in Rollinsford, N.H., which is essentially a
> warehouse Baker established with his own money to house more than 7,000
> bound, original copies of 19th- and early-20th-century American newspapers
> that the British Library had planned to auction off. 
> Nathans's volunteer work illustrates a telling subdivision within the
> largely negative professional response to ''Double Fold,'' which itself
> contrasts sharply with the overwhelming praise it has received from
> reviewers. That is, Baker has won more fans among the library profession's
> rank-and-file, who deal directly with the consumers of information, than
> among managers, who make decisions about such matters as policy and
> budgets. 
> Members of the latter group have been most vocal in characterizing Baker
> as poorly informed, for instance, about the evolving pressures on
> libraries - including ones as massive as the Library of Congress, for
> which he has particularly high (and unmet) expectations. Critics say Baker
> doesn't begin to appreciate the fact that libraries are being asked to
> perform more and more functions, ranging from providing computer access to
> the public to sponsoring reading groups for schoolchildren, and don't have
> the resources to devote to saving every scrap of paper. 
> Besides, they argue, it is not necessary to archive an original copy of
> most books and newspapers, since researchers typically are more interested
> in the contents than the format of a publication. 
> ''Baker lacks any sense of the tradeoffs in the real world,'' says Shirley
> Baker, the vice chancellor for information technology and dean of
> libraries at Washington University in St. Louis (and no relation to the
> author). ''He has the luxury of saying this is really what it ought to be
> in the perfect world, because he doesn't have to face any compromises.'' 
> Most pointedly, the critics (and even some who back Baker's basic premise)
> take him to task for one of his bedrock assertions: that paper doesn't
> deteriorate nearly as quickly as most archivists claim. As a result, he
> says, many more books and newspapers could be stored relatively cheaply
> because they do not require all the climate controls and other
> precautionary measures that libraries generally use. 
> ''He's given us a good read that has gotten everybody agitated and
> thinking about what libraries do and should do. That's good,'' says Jim
> Matarazzo, dean of the Graduate School of Library and Information Sciences
> at Simmons. ''But he keeps finding the exceptions that are in good shape
> and presents them as the rule. They're not. The fact is that paper
> self-destructs, and that's the reality we have to deal with.'' 
> Whatever side anyone takes in this debate, nearly everyone in the
> librarian/archivist community agrees they have rarely felt an earthquake
> the magnitude of the one they are currently experiencing. 
> And the aftershocks appear certain to last a long time. The ranks of
> Baker's supporters appear to be growing as he speaks about the
> preservation issue publicly, using words and adopting a tone that are
> decidedly more nuanced and conciliatory than those he employs in his book.
> 
> The best evidence that Baker's crusade will last, and will have at least
> some demonstrable impact, is that even his most strident detractors
> invariably acknowledge that he has accomplished something positive by
> focusing heightened attention - from in and out of the library world - on
> a critically important issue. 
> ''He makes stilted, one-dimensional, one-sided arguments and he's written
> a book that's based on stereotypes and misunderstandings,'' says Richard
> Cox, a professor of archival studies at the University of Pittsburgh. Cox,
> who scoffs at Baker's claims of a vast conspiracy to abolish original
> documents, relentlessly berated Baker during their debate at Simmons
> College on Alumni Day and has gone so far as to write a book challenging
> nearly every aspect of ''Double Fold.'' 
> In response to questions, however, even Cox concedes that Baker's work has
> ''redeeming qualities.'' Most notably, he says, it is prompting librarians
> ''to think more openly and more pro-actively about the selections
> business,'' and is stimulating a public discussion about the profession's
> concerns and realities. And that has never happened before.
>