[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Dear Mr. Baker



Weeelll,

As the guy who started this thread (argument), I suppose it's worth stepping in
here to remind various & sundry that I didn't suggest he was the world's biggest
fool (though I am about to tackle two boxes full of crumbling, ratty Textile
Worlds from the 1890's, so I'm not feeling too charitable about newspapers right
now).  I do think his tone was a) unnecessarily haughty, suggesting that we
don't know what the hell we're doing, and b) refused to recognize the realities
facing most of us in our day-by-day professional lives.

Somebody else (Ed, I believe) quoted an individual with this long diatribe about
how we've created "new witnesses", losing the essential realities contained in
the bindings of the materials.  My short answer is, "too bad".  I personally
don't have time for the deconstructionist academic crap about creating our own
realities and whatever else (there's a damn good reason I never finished my PhD
- I get irritated too easily by certain snooty types) - I have a job to do, and
some things get lost.

Much like we all have to make tough accession/toss decisions about _what_ we
keep (is this bunch of memos more important than that set of notes), we also
have to decide _how_ we keep it; that means, sorry to say, life sucks &
sometimes you don't get things saved the way you want it, and perhaps we should
be grateful it gets kept at all.  Baker and his ilk believe they should have it
all saved & preserved as it is; I agree, but reality doesn't always match my
desires, and if we lose the physical artifacts (bindings, actual pages,
"circular reading"), at the very least, the data remains.

I don't argue that the physical is valuable, it certainly is, but I can't afford
what it takes to save everything, much less in the original.  The archivist
remains, like it or not, gatekeeper and selector of what becomes part of the
historical record.  It's not fair, and it gives us more power over history than
what perhaps we deserve, but Baker & co. need to realize the role we play in
saving by format is no different than saving by information.  Stuff gets lost,
and that may suck, but it's the only way to do our jobs properly.

Diatribe Complete.

DS



What a hopelessly defensive bunch of people archivists and librarians can  be.
Not only is this an unattractive personal characteristic, it can be very
damaging to the professions as a whole.  We should listen to what our "users"
think  ... not condemn them outright for having contrary views.

Nicholson Baker is a very fine writer, who has had the temerity to suggest that
not every decision made by librarians or archivists is an excellent one.

How dare he suggest that the card catalog (one of librarianship's great
technological advances) had value as an historical document, as well as a useful
tool.  I happen to agree with his basic point.  Perhaps it was just a
coincidence, but I believe that the Harvard University Libraries stopped
pitching out their old library catalogues after Baker's (controversial) article
appeared in the New Yorker.  Not every library could keep its old catalogue ...
but, again, some should and, fortunately, some have.

A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List!

To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to listserv@listserv.muohio.edu
      In body of message:  SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname
                    *or*:  UNSUB ARCHIVES
To post a message, send e-mail to archives@listserv.muohio.edu

Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html

Problems?  Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <rschmidt@lib.muohio.edu>