Scan barcode
smusie's review against another edition
5.0
It took me a ridiculously long time to finish this book, for reasons into which I shall not go, but that is no reflection on the book itself. It is about the decimation of our libraries by fiendish proponents of microfilm. Untold treasures of periodicals and books have been lost due to the persuasion of librarians by "preservationists" that the paper would soon crumble into dust. One test that would be done to prove the incipient crumbliness of a page was called the "Double Fold" test. [a:Nicholson Baker|83846|Margery Williams Bianco|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1206640729p2/83846.jpg] has a field day with this one, as the root meaning of "duplicity" is "double fold." The test involves folding down a corner of a page, and then folding it all the way back, and repeating until the corner falls off. Not surprisingly, it doesn't take that many folds; that's why your mother/teacher/librarian always told you not to dogear your books. Baker makes up his own test, which is basically turning the pages of a book exactly as you would do if you were reading. Again not surprisingly, all the books tested in this way hold up strikingly well, even very old ones. So how can it be that so many librarians allowed bound periodicals and books to be "disbounded" in order to be photographed for microfilm, and then thrown in the trash? Especially when the microfilm was very often of very poor quality? The answer is not clear, but through no fault of Baker's. It's just one of those stupid outcomes of bureaucracy and false economy. Having actually done research on microfilm, I know from experience that it is a heinous technology, and a major cause of headaches among students. Luckily, digital technology has made it largely obsolete; however, that does nothing to bring back all the pages that have been lost. At the end of his book, Baker describes heroically trying to save many volumes of old, bound newspapers by buying them from the British Library; if only more people had cared before him about the preserving the actual objects than just the content of written works.
katieinca's review against another edition
2.0
I get why he's upset. Yay to him for pointing out issues. But he's unnecessarily snarky, often has no clear point, and occasionally seems to have no idea what he's talking about.
davygibbs's review against another edition
5.0
The sort of book that makes one feel like an expert on a very specific topic, a topic which they may never have encountered before. Not only do I feel like an expert on destructive library "preservation" tactics, I feel like quite a passionate expert. Mr. Baker is, of course, exactly right about everything, and his opponents should be ashamed. He is also an enormously talented writer--one of my favorites. Who else had a chance in hell of making this book interesting?
This book has been one more nudge in the direction of a career in librarianship. If I can care this much from the outside, I want IN.
This book has been one more nudge in the direction of a career in librarianship. If I can care this much from the outside, I want IN.
mkean's review against another edition
3.0
One of those books that's essential reading for the archives and libraries profession. Baker's charisma and passion for the subject makes his argument seem convincing, but deeper analysis of his arguments show that he doesn't know the true struggle that libraries and archivists have. (I will also note that he mostly argues against "libraries" and not true archives, both of which have different kinds of goals.) In short, it is literally impossible to keep everything, especially with the current state of funding. He argues "why not just get another warehouse?" without actually understanding how much that would cost, especially considering that it needs to be climate controlled, up to standards, etc. Baker is NOT an archivist, and makes an uneducated argument.
I do agree that microfilm sucks though, I'll give him that.
I do agree that microfilm sucks though, I'll give him that.
kebrent's review against another edition
2.0
Libraries are not book museums. The belief that they are stymies our ability to stay relevant as the information environment evolves. Print isn't going away (despite the predictions of the past 50 years) but at the same time to say that print and print storage takes primacy over all other library activities is unrealistic and ultimately short-sighted.
blueskygreentreesyellowsun's review against another edition
I got to page 50 and just couldn't take it anymore. The whole point of the book is that the author is pissed off at the destruction of physical newspapers in favor of microfilm - this is made clear on the inside of the dust jacket. My problem with the book is that the author keeps saying the same thing in slightly different ways. He gives new facts, lays bare outrageous actions and irresponsibilities on the part of librarians - things that should keep me hooked - but everything is just a variation on the same theme. This probably would have made an excellent article, but I just can't get it up for 268 pages of self-righteous outrage.
zacharyfoote's review against another edition
3.0
exhaustive (and admirable/convincing in that sense), but overlong. guillotine about 100 pages and this thing is great.
sarahfett's review against another edition
3.0
I read this book for the class Understanding Information while working on my Masters of Library and Information Science.
veloverso's review against another edition
3.0
Very interesting read- I'll say this for Baker, he's an engaging writer. There's some fascinating stuff about paper-making and preservation methods here too. Not a fan of his librarian blame-game, though.
gls_merch's review against another edition
3.5
This is Nicholson Baker's obsessive treatise on the "assault on paper". I am somewhat sympathetic to his cause where he describes how libraries in the name of "preservation" and/or "creating space" have replaced rare newspaper collections with subpar technologies. In doing so, we have lost information that isn't being captured by microfilm, microfiche, and other technologies. These early technologies led to the destruction of irreplaceable collections. He instead advocates the preservation of paper. While paper gets brittle, he argues convincingly that paper can last a long time if handled properly and our collections are not crumbling away as predicted by alarmists. Ultimately, it's a fascinating look at how money has been thrown at a problem to develop a technological solution when the traditional ways are often better. I probably differ from Baker in believing that digitization is the way to go in the future, perhaps as an ongoing technology (i.e. papers from today) and not to replace the legacy of yesterday.