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

Re: New Yorker (hopelessly defensive...)



Title: RE: New Yorker (hopelessly defensive...)

This wide ranging and thought provoking New Yorker article and discussion have been equally interesting for what they have and have not included. 

In the case of the article (which I have skimmed but not read fully) I am wondering the following:
1. The article seems to me to be positioned as an essay -one man and his quest- rather than a news piece.

2. Sharing, not just saving, should be considered in any discussion of microfilming.  More people have access to papers/books because they have been filmed and distributed, and because they can   actually be used more than once without falling apart.

3.  In addition to filming isn't it now possible to scan with a machine that works from above like a microfilm machine, in color without even pressing the bound item between glass plates?  (no I do not mean you would only scan and not film and then throw the original away and be stuck with a soon obsolete electronic format - so lets avoid that discussion) 

4.  Collectors [ and others :)  ]sometimes work in their own little vacuum without knowing that library and archival collections exist-did anyone notice in the article any mention of repositories that ARE saving graphic collections like comics? (Bowling Green U, LOC ...)  Collectors I have dealt with look at things from a very personal perspective - it only matters to them that they can see and touch and use something- it does not occur to them that there is a difference between "Saving" something for yourself and in the short term,  and "Saving" something for posterity and for a wider audience.

As far as the list discussion goes, I think that Sally Gibson made a good point that Archivists and Librarians "can be" as she said "defensive".  I think this is shown in this very New Yorker thread by the fact that most people posting have been quick to dismiss Baker (as a nut basically) rather than respond to the challenges he raises.  I think this defensiveness was also apparent in the recent "Patriot" thread.  Where the dismissive responses focused most on the affront to historical accuracy and were the opposite of what a doctor friend of mine once said about the TV show ER "is it accurate, no.  Is it entertaining - yes".

1. What about his assertion that on big filming projects no one really knows if everything has been captured before the originals are discarded. only Dan S ("some things get lost") seemed to be addressing this specific point:


I think its better to address his accusations specifically.  You can't show his arguments are wrong just by saying "Baker is wrong".  Talk about irony, Baker says archivists and librarians are wrong for throwing out newspapers... Not so assert archivists, "He's wrong, not us!"

I've go on way too long, for anyone who has made it this far, thank you for attention.

Tom Heard