Robert Stanton’s Bibliography Class

Brendan Rapple

22 May, 2006

Information OverloadPlus ça change…

“We have reason to fear that the multitude of books which grows every

day in a prodigious fashion will make the following centuries fall into a

state as barbarous as that of the centuries that followed the fall of the

Roman Empire. Unless we try to prevent this danger by separating

those books which we must throw out or leave in oblivion from those

which one should save and within the latter between what is useful and

what is not.”

Adrien Baillet, 1685

Journal of the History of Ideas 64.1 (2003): 11

Google Library Project (Dec, 2004)

Google working with Stanford, Harvard, Oxford, Michigan, NYPL to

digitally scan books from their collections

include the content into the Google index

allow users worldwide to search this content in Google.

M. Gorman and “The boogie-woogie Google boys”

“. . . books in great libraries are much more than the sum of their parts. They are designed to be read sequentially and cumulatively, so that the reader gains knowledge in the reading” Michael Gorman, 2004

Gorman considers that the results of a Google search will be an array of disconnected, frequently meaningless parts of books.

http://www.infomotions.com/serials/colldv-l/05/att-0054/M Gorman___Google_and_God_s_Mind.pdf

Erroneous to Generalize about Book Reading?

“Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed and some few to be chewed and digested; that is, some books are to be read only in parts; others to be read, but not curiously; and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.” Francis Bacon, "Of Studies“, 1612

Journal of the History of Ideas 64.1 (2003):13-14

How Important is the Medium?

"The context cannot but condition the process. Screen and book may exhibit the same string of words, but the assumptions that underlie their significance are entirely different depending on whether we are staring at a book or a circuit-generated text.” Sven Birkerts

“. . . the possibilities offered by digitization increase the number of collections accessible from a distance but also reinforce the idea that there is an equivalence between media and that a text is still the same regardless of its form: printed, microfilmed, or digital. That notion is fundamentally wrong because the processes through which a reader attributes meaning to a text depend, consciously or not, not only on the semantic content of the text, but also on the material forms through which the text was published, distributed, and received.” Roger Chartier, Languages, Books, and Reading from the Printed Word to the Digital Text

The Evolving Book

The book, that paper medium, product of a dated technique, has become a reductive matrix that we have to reform; to let go of the linearity and the fixity of its pages, to allow text to reveal itself by other means, in other contexts with other possibilities of expression”

Jean-Pierre Balpe, 2004

Any Reactions To . . . ?

Minority of authors specify how their words will appear on the page.

Reading the text for content, and not an examination of the physical nature of the artifact, is why most scholars consult books.

For most a facsimile of the printed book is a perfectly acceptable alternative to the original copy.

Different ways to access authored content: Read Hear

George Herbert, "Easter Wings / The

Temple" Cambridge, 1633

Hrabanus Marus "De adoratione crucis ab opifice /

De Laudibus Sanctae Crucis" Augsburg, 1605

Materials Commonly used by Literary Scholars

Books – scholarly and more popular Periodicals Conference Papers/Proceedings Dissertations/Theses Microforms Media Manuscripts Bibliographies Book reviews Encyclopedias Maps Many other types of resources too

The above may be found either in print or electronic format (or maybe in both)

Electronic Texts

Some are quite basic – just the text.

Some e-texts are typed, some are scanned.

OCR (optical character recognition) is often used.

Increasingly PDF is used.

Sometimes HTML markup language is used.

Great Number of Literature Web Sites – But . . . .

Regarding of the multitude of American literature in digital format, David Seaman writes:

“This richness, however, is scattered and fragmentary: Some material is publicly accessible, and some is subscription based; some is full of insights from scholars, and some is the work of hobbyists; some is accurately digitized, and some distractingly not so. And nowhere is all this material gathered and categorized, revealed, and reviewed.

Around this mass of material and its somewhat uncoordinated activity swirl all the fears and debates about the value of digital scholarship; the role and nature of peer review in this arena; the stifling effect of current copyright (especially in regard to so-called orphaned works, whose owners are impossible to find); the need for easier and more-powerful tools to capture, enrich, and analyze this material; and the excitement of new research and teaching possibilities.” A Kaleidoscope of Digital American Literature

What is Available Full-text Online?

A great deal!

However, bear in mind that the preponderance of texts are earlier ones, that is ones that are not constrained by copyright.

Twentieth-century literature, with exceptions, is relatively neglected especially for freely accessible (OA) texts.

Many digital projects are created/maintained by professionals and others as a labor of love and/or service to the profession.

However, without secure funding and full integration to a campus, such efforts may only last until the goodwill of their progenitors runs out.

Certain Reluctance Persists . . . . .

Literature scholars appreciate benefits of digital resources.

However, many are leery of using digital texts (with the exception of e-journal articles) as the “text of record” in their published scholarly research.

Bibliographic Databases in Humanities

Not always of great use to humanities scholar.

Humanities scholars often stress primary sources -- generally covered less well by bibliographic tools.

Some Humanities databases do not include abstracts.

Humanities concepts and terminology less standardized than those of science -- less susceptible to effective management through a controlled vocabulary.

Science databases often updated more frequently -- scientists require more current literature.

Humanities and Scholarship

Studies reveal that 70%-90% of citations in science are to materials fifteen years old or less.

The figures for humanities citations are 40%-45%.

“Having retrospective coverage may be more important to the humanist than having access to current material” (Sue Stone, 1982)

In most sciences 3%-10% of citations are to books, 90%-97% to journal articles.

In humanities, however, 60%-75% are to books.