Double Fold: Libraries and the Assault on Paper

Citation

James, S. (2002), "Double Fold: Libraries and the Assault on Paper", Library Review, Vol. 51 No. 9, pp. 483-484. https://doi.org/10.1108/lr.2002.51.9.483.8

I applaud in another review the publication of CD‐ROM versions of famous manuscripts, and enthusiastically welcome the general movement to provide online access to a whole host of otherwise rare or fragile materials through digitization programmes; these are designed to make our documentary heritage, major and minor, readily accessible to all comers. One of the many reasons in favour of these programmes is to marry two apparently inherently contradictory goals: greater access and use coupled with long‐term physical protection. Once materials are digitized, very few people need to handle the originals which can thus be longer and better conserved. But normally we do not expect to throw out, or sell on, the originals. Their greater virtual accessibility is likely to mean an even greater appreciation of the value of the originals.

There are, however, materials in our libraries we no longer need for a whole host of reasons: what to do with them? Some have no market value and since they have no short or long‐term value to our libraries may be safely pulped; others we may try to move to other, now more appropriate, homes. Decisions have to be based on the aims and functions of each individual library, as well as on the nature of the materials in question. Major issues are raised in this book ultimately affecting all kinds of library. These issues were around when preservation microfilming got under way after the Second World War, and Baker argues persuasively that they were brushed aside in favour of the new technology which may, or may not, outlast the original printed materials. So many issues arise from Nicholson Baker’s closely referenced polemic; in an impassioned and gripping book he addresses some of them, but leaves others in the air, or does not address others at all.

We do not expect to find gripping popular paperbacks about our profession, but that is what we have here. The history of preservation microfilming and the US librarians, civil servants, entrepreneurs and others involved with it is told in some detail and is certainly made into a gripping and engrossing story. Prejudices, vested interests and the like are raised and some once eminent characters if not quite assassinated, certainly thoroughly blackened. The story starts and finishes in the British Library with its disposal of runs of printed volumes of US newspapers; that brought the subject to Baker’s notice and his attempts to preserve, or have preserved by others, these printed runs led to this book. And to its author’s credit he was prepared to put his money where his beliefs lay and make his own bids for many of the volumes sold by the British Library.

The book is so passionate and tells the tale at such a pace that it is difficult not be drawn along and in by Baker’s obsession. For such a racy account it is still meticulously referenced from start to finish: 270 pages of text are followed by 60 of notes, a 19‐page bibliography and a 17‐page index. Even so, the issues he raises, even if restricted to the national and major research libraries, would really need an even longer volume to pursue those he touches on only obliquely, as well as those he does not raise. Should a national library collect everything and keep it forever? Easy to say yes, less easy to find space, means and resources to do the job properly. What is the role of the government paymaster (or other paymasters) in all this? Remember the Treasury’s disgraceful treatment of the British Library over the St Pancras site? Just who are the villains of this piece?

There are alternative strategies for national collections, many of which are being explored in different countries and their findings shared; much of this is happening in Europe, and in the UK itself (both nationally and within the constituent countries where, for example, Scotland is exploring various approaches) and elsewhere, especially in countries where, as in the UK especially, there is a much longer and stronger history of library co‐operation than in the USA. None of this is raised in this book, where the aim is fixed on a specific target and from a single viewpoint, but with the inference that what has happened with newspapers has happened or is happening more widely with other materials. Should the British Library keep runs of foreign newspapers when the UK Government has decreed that it must severely limit its storage space, and surrogates are available (leaving aside arguments about the suitability of those surrogates)? And if it is to dispose of material, how else should a public body do so other than by public bidding? We are all accountable for public funds and resources and if the Government imposes auditing, best value and other financial regulations we flout them at our peril, no matter how laudable our motives might be and no matter what nonsenses the regulations might lead us to. Public accountability is a very hot topic just now, in the private as much as the public sector and in the USA especially. In its manner of disposal of the newspapers (whether a wise move or not in the first place) the British Library appears to have been guilty of nothing more than properly following procedures and regulations imposed by government.

Still, the numerous issues are enormous – more so even than Nicholson Baker allows. He hits on some vital targets and issues, but ignores or is unaware of others. His cast of villains is pretty big but should really be a lot bigger still, and should start higher up the administrative ladder. But this is a book we will all benefit from reading and pondering – and it has the added benefit of being eminently readable. Great or small, the question of the preservation of our material documentary culture and the role and suitability of surrogates, touches us all.