Readers are forbidden to MUTILATE
Thu 27 Oct 2005, 10:04 pm
Coming off my Internet Librarian high, I thought my next post should be about some of the actual physical stuff we have in my library: books, journals, archives, microfilm (ok, maybe not microfilm).
At Tutt Library, we have a room of periodicals published before 1915 (the date is arbitrary; that’s how many volumes would fit in the room, giving more space for growth in the main periodicals floor (now full to burstin’ again)). The collection is remarkable, not just for what is in those volumes (serialized works of Charles Dickens and Wilkie Collins; beautiful photographs of long-dead actresses; early issues of the Colorado College newspaper), but for how those volumes look, feel, and smell.
I’m generally down with the whole “digitize ‘em all and let god sort ‘em out” mentality of Google Print and similar projects, but I think it is interesting to consider what we might lose in such a project. Here are three little ephemeral bits: old library labels on old periodicals. Do they have much research value? Probably not, though typographers and designers would likely appreciate the period work.
But, to me, they are fascinating and evocative. How did these volumes make their way from the “Cheshire Theological Institute” or “Union for Christian Work Free Lending Library” to Colorado Springs? Why don’t we say things like “privilege of a renewal” anymore? And did the person who ripped out the “Readers are forbidden to MUTILATE” stickers find it as funny as I do now?
- License:
- File under: From the stacks
- Comments? 2
I noticed at a large university library that they still kept the old card catalog in a remote corner of the stacks. At least one librarian still consulted it when doing research, even though it wasn’t maintained or updated. See, when the catalog had been digitized a while back, what they did was buy the records from another library. However, those records (obviously) didn’t include all the many-decades’ worth of pencilled notes that the local catalog cards had. I guess somebody saw value in this extra information and didn’t throw out the cards.
Comment by bentley — October 29, 2005 @ 3:06 pm
Yes, I remember my first library job in interlibrary loan at the University of Delaware. The head staff person swore that they didn’t get all the information on all the collections into the OPAC. And, of course, Nicholson Baker has been saying we need to keep them since at least 1994, when the New Yorker published his “Discards” essay in the April 4 issue.
Actually, CC’s card catalog (or some portion of it; can’t say I’ve ever really looked at it too hard!) is still in a relatively “remote corner” of our stacks on the third floor.
Comment by Steve — October 29, 2005 @ 8:17 pm