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

Re: Baker



Title: RE: Baker
Baker said that original papers COULD be kept - so why not: they're better than any mfilm copy.
I didn't read him saying that these papers had to be on the open shelves for daily use; just that to make a poorly made film copy and to dimp the originals was wrong.
And it is.
Allan Goodrich/luddite
-----Original Message-----
From: Heard, Thomas <Thomas.Heard@AIG.COM>
To: ARCHIVES@LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU <ARCHIVES@LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Date: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: Baker

All,
reviews of some of Bakers' books may be found online at the NYTimes book page which goes back to 1980 http://www.nytimes.com/books/home/


In response to Daniel Traister, trying to "disagree with Double Fold on its merits" is exactly the problem I pointed out  in my response to Geri Solomon's post, and what I wish to avoid.  In reading the interview in the Sunday NYT book review, and his recent New Yorker piece Baker's argument hinges on one thing: bad microfilm.  I do not recall him advocating better microfilm to solve the problem, but original preservation.  (please point out my error here if i have made one)  If the argument is limited by Baker's assumption that original newspapers must be kept, there is nothing left to discuss -  is agree or disagree.

Baker's opinions on preservation must be viewed in the context of all of the records of culture that could be preserved.


    -----Original Message-----
    From:   Daniel Traister [SMTP:traister@POBOX.UPENN.EDU]
    Sent:   Wednesday, April 18, 2001 11:28 AM
    To:     ARCHIVES@LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU
    Subject:        Baker

    Thomas Heard writes:

    > Anybody hear much about Baker BEFORE his crusade began?

    (1) There are, as readers of this list know, lots of reasons to disagree
    with *Double Fold* on its merits. Somehow, the spectacle of *ad hominem*
    attacks on Baker himself is *not* the most edifying or productive prospect
    one can envisage of expressing disagreement with his work or his views.

    (2) The answer to Mr. Heard's question happens, in any case, to be "Yes."
    As someone else has already pointed out on this list, he is an excellent,
    well-known, and important novelist. He is, in addition, the author of an
    extremely interesting book about authorship (*U & I*). And he is a
    journalist for (among other places) *The New Yorker*. Walk into any
    bookstore. You don't actually need to do anything quite so low as to
    *read* his books if you dislike him so much; simply count what you find of
    his work vs. what you find by *any* archivist or librarian. Is there a
    clue here?

    (3) In a spirit of impatience, I might add that criticism of Baker for not
    being an archivist, a librarian, or "public" in the way in which he runs
    his self-created newspaper archive is, it seems to me, ill-judged,
    mean-spirited, and likely to be remarkably unproductive. The guy has at
    least put his own money and effort where his mouth is, and he has done so
    in an area that has nothing to do with his main business in life, writing.
    That kind of stuff counts in the arena of public perception. And should.

    Daniel Traister, Curator, Research Services
    Rare Book and Manuscript Library
    Van Pelt-Dietrich Library
    University of Pennsylvania

    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>