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

New Yorker



Ed Southern quotes Thomas Tanselle's Rationale of Textual Criticism:  "It
follows that all librarians and other collectors should think twice before
disposing of, or rebinding, a tattered copy of any edition of any work,
recognizing the grave significance of these destructive acts. When
they...think that something has been gained, they are of course deceiving
themselves, for the new one---even if by a singular chance it contains an
identical text---is a separate physical object, and is thus a separate
witness to the text of a work it attempts to transmit. It cannot possibly
be a 'replacement', for one witness cannot stand in for another. How
absurd, then, are those library programs (ironically called 'preservation'
programs) in which deteriorating books are microfilmed or photocopied and
the books themselves destroyed. (The microfilming [one might add:
digitizing] is often a necessity; the destruction of what remains of the
originals never is.) ....[T]he notion that a printed text can be saved by
photographing one copy fails to recognize that such a text is part of a
particular physical object and becomes something else when placed in a
different physical setting...."  Well, sure.  I agree that every time we
reformat we lose something, but I also understand that not all originals
can be saved.  BUT, then, this discussion is about NEWSPAPERS.  Thousands
of copies of my local paper are printed - how many originals should be
saved, should ANY originals be saved, should SOME originals be saved?
Certainly, I think we need to save some selective originals because of
what Tanselle is getting at, recognizing that to think of millions of
issues of newspapers as separate witnesses each needing to be saved does
not get us anywhere except painted into the proverbial corner.  Again,
this is why archivists need to devote much more energy into working on
effective appraisal strategies - and the fact that some researcher some
day might want to look at some original copy of a newspaper is hardly THE
primary rationale for what we should be doing.

Heather Willever-Farr took exception with one of my comments: "I would
suggest that a
"writer" should be able to write about libraries and archives that this
activity is not the exclusive purview of archivists and librarians."  What
I said was "He is one of those people who thinks because he reads and
writes books he is an expert on libraries."  Of course, ANYONE can write
about these topics, but that does not mean he or she has anything useful
to offer.  His writings are useful in generating discussion in classroom
situations that help us develop better solutions to the challenges facing
us -- they are not so useful in helping the profession if it turns around
and scurries back to save all those newspapers and other miscellanous
remnants of documentary evidence.


Richard J. Cox
Professor
Department of Library and Information Sciences
School of Information Sciences
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
Voice:  412-624-3245
FAX:    412-648-7001
e-mail: rcox@mail.sis.pitt.edu
homepage: http://www.lis.pitt.edu/~rjc

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>