The Australian Library Journal
volume 50 issue 3

Trusting librarians too blindly? A review-article

Manuscript received August 2001

Introduction
Double Fold is not likely to leave many readers indifferent. To judge from the large range of reactions (offensive and defensive) in the United States, just the opposite is true[1]. Indignation, disbelief, occasionally self-righteous ripostes, and even muted fury are not hard to find. The Association of Research Libraries writes of 'purposeful misrepresentations', for example[2]. Baker has, in effect, touched a most sensitive nerve in librarianship: its own self-perception. But the reactions of those outside the profession show that public perceptions of the profession have suffered a grave shock and a severe loss of confidence in librarians' trustworthiness as 'guardians of the book'. To review the book through the prism of these reactions is tempting, but the present article will only briefly attempt this, noting a few important pieces in passing. Perhaps the least useful reaction encountered is that of James Billington, the present Librarian of Congress (reported in The New York Times of 7 April 2001): 'I take offense at the implication that there was a wide conspiracy going on at the Library of Congress (LC) from people who have probably not run anything in their lives'. But Billington (who has not read the book) had admitted in the same interview that 'This is the first time I ever heard that such a thing [as described by Baker] happened.' 'I'll look into it, and we can get an answer, I guess'[3]. Do those words inspire confidence?

Nicholson Baker has a growing reputation as a sophisticated novelist and essayist. He is also a notable prose stylist. Such qualities are detectable in the book under review. Double Fold consists of thirty-eight chapters (some quite short), an epilogue, copious notes (271-334), a valuable bibliography (335-353), four pages of coloured illustrations and a good index. The illustrations from the New York World show features of the newspaper which microfilm cannot capture. Baker has conducted a large amount of research, including often revealing interviews, and has a good familiarity with library literature, especially in the form of the LC Information Bulletin and annual reports of bodies such as the Council on Library Resources. There are ample quotes from all these. The depth of research and critical apparatus help establish the author's serious credentials.

Despite the trappings of scholarship, Double Fold is not, strictly speaking, a scholarly work because of its style and rhetorical skill, its personal tone, and, above all, because of its spirited argumentation in favour of certain values and practices. It is a work of advocacy and the reader becomes much aware of the author's personality. Had it been simply standard scholarly research (sine ira et studio is the traditional phrase) very few would feel inclined to read it. Instead, what we have is a highly readable, often entertaining, passionate and unconventional exercise in pricking the bubbles of certain orthodoxies. The reviewer was strongly reminded of the style of Tom Wolfe when reading this work: there is the same use of irony and satire, a lively use of telling adjectives, a snappy pace in the writing and a judicious sprinkling of colloquialisms and the vernacular with telling effect. There is a lot of energy and life contained in the writing and the reader cannot escape their influence. Non-library reviewers have more than once commented on their reaction (tears, for instance) from reading. Nicholson Baker has shown the unsettling power of a skilled stylist. Perhaps there are other books in our field that are similar in this respect, but this reviewer cannot think of any.

The assault on paper: the theme of Double Fold

This isn't an impartial piece of reporting. I've tried not to misrepresent those whose views differ from my own, but I make no secret of my disagreement; at times, a dormant prosecutorial urge awoke in me, for we have lost things that we can never get back.(x)

These words from the preface are clear statements and the words about losing things - mainly runs of now rare newspaper files converted to microfilm, with the originals being sold off or pulped by their library owners - are taken very seriously. The problem is that technological conversion did not fully replace the original files. Baker graphically documents the ravages caused by librarians succumbing to the siren song of technology as an answer to the problem besetting (and still besetting) most libraries: uncontrolled growth coupled with diminishing finances, and the deterioration of works printed on paper from about 1870 onwards. In naming names Baker makes it abundantly clear that some leading librarians were in such influential positions that the rest of the library community in the USA simply fell in behind them. The following quote gives a good idea of what the damage was:

Nancy Kraft, a librarian at the State Historical Society of Iowa, estimates that about one third of her library's reels of pre-1960 microfilm of Iowa newspapers (seven thousand reels...) 'represent files that will have to be refilmed' - and many can't be refilmed, she says, because there is no original left to work from. (45)

The enthusiasm for microfilming as a means of preservation was widespread in the decades from the late 1950s. Standards were not available to guide the procedures for some time. Nowadays digitisation is seen as a new means of preservation although it is still under development and assessment. Improvements in microfilm technology have also altered the position dramatically from what Baker denounces. The impact of what was promised with regard to microfilming and what actually happened provides some of the harrowing pages of Double Fold. Chapter 3 ('Destroying to preserve', 22-36) goes into the origins of major microfilming of newspaper files. In particular, the role of the Library of Congress in proselytising 'the idea of destroying to preserve' (26) receives sharp words. Newspaper volumes were 'disbound' and issues microfilmed in such a way that the volume was generally no longer usable. But the microfilm was not an adequate replacement and in fact there were some grievous technical problems that were only later recognised. Quality control was found to be lax, pages were missed and the microfilm itself was found to be subject to deterioration. Some types of microfilm were even a possible fire hazard. It is hard to credit, for example, that the New York Public Library microfilmed and then discarded its complete set of the rare New York Sun, but somehow six months of 1862 were missed. This microfilm was widely acquired and a researcher 'was unable to locate any extant originals of the Sun that could supplement what the film lacked' (53).

Microfilming of monographs also took place on a grand scale. Once again the originals were sometimes destroyed or damaged so that a perfect microfilm could be obtained. Baker's chapter 10 'The Preservation Microfilming Office' (at Library of Congress) examines, after some heroic detective work (cf. 100-101), earlier practices there of this 'destroying to preserve' type. Things have improved since the 1980s, he states, but readers would be worried about the mindset that allowed the guardians of the book to adopt (but not without some internal opposition) such questionable policies. Baker then questions LC's discard policies for duplicates and unwanted materials. He consulted Bibliofind to learn that a number of LC duplicates were on sale from dealers who had acquired them: one item he lists had an asking price of $US12 500! (103). Stories like these undermine trust in great institutions when they are found to be acting in this manner.

It must be admitted that Baker makes some extreme statements against the Library of Congress: he sums up his charges against LC by writing 'It is a strangely secretive place, under-scrutinised by comparison with other federal bureaucracies, its maladministration undetected by virtue of its reputation as an ark of culture. The library has gone astray partly because we trusted the librarians so completely' (104). Unfortunately, we learn in Double Fold facts about the British Library providing collateral support for these words about trust. We will have cause to consider the word 'secretive' in more detail later on.

A considerable portion of Double Fold is devoted to the question of 'brittle paper' and its ultimate deterioration. Baker goes into details concerning the role of Verner Clapp as an advocate of microfilming as a suitable means to preserve endangered holdings. Clapp became chief assistant librarian at LC, but left later to become the first president of the Council on Library Resources where he exercised enormous influence from 1956-1967. Clapp placed much reliance on William J Barrow whose de-acidification and lamination techniques enjoyed high regard at one time. In his The future of the research library (1964) Clapp states (87):

From the investigations of W J Barrow it is now known that few of the books in the first half of this century can be expected to be of much use by its end. The problem of deterioration which is thus presented must be met on two fronts - by rescuing the books of the chemical-wood paper period (roughly from 1870 to the present), and by promoting the use of permanent/durable papers for the future.

This book, which in some ways reads today as a rather old-fashioned treatise, nevertheless contains much that is still valuable and makes it clear why Clapp enjoyed such a fine reputation. The march of technology rendered some of his ventures redundant, but his diagnosis of the ills of research libraries was not too far off the mark.

Also of great interest in Baker's exposé is the account of how money in astonishing sums was given by some of the great American foundations to support preservation by means of microfilming and other processes which have proved unreliable or deficient. Baker's forays into library preservation history and the history of the production of paper gives detailed accounts of such personalities as Fremont Rider, whose predictions about exponential growth of research library holdings (made in The scholar and the future of the research library, 1944) were influential in promoting research into microfilming and other forms of miniaturisation. The parts played by the Council on Library Resources (under Verner Clapp and later William Haas), by its successor, the Council of Library and Information Resources, and by the Commission on Preservation and Access under Patricia Battin, are dealt with very fully. Baker conducted interviews with a number of the persons engaged in these activities, especially with Patricia Battin. Some of them would feel aggrieved by the way these interviews have fuelled Baker's savage (but not altogether unjustified) attacks.

The Commission on Preservation and Access also commissioned the film Slow Fires on the risk to libraries from the deterioration of paper. This film (not seen by the reviewer) comes in for harsh treatment as an exaggeration and misleading depiction of the real position regarding books 'crumbling to dust'. This claim about crumbling to dust caught on in a big way, being strongly advanced by Patricia Battin who did admit to Baker that she may have overstated the case (258). But she did have a remarkable record of getting funds from Congress and charitable foundations for preservation projects in major research libraries. This political flair in fundraising gave her an extremely high profile. Most librarians would find no grievous fault in that. The National Endowment for the Humanities, for instance, gave away $US115m. for libraries to microfilm both newspapers and books. In 1999 President Clinton gave Battin an award for 'saving history', an event Baker regards with an ironical eye.

A critic of aspects of the Commission on Preservation and Access is the noted scholar and bibliographer, G Thomas Tanselle whose views are cited with approval by Baker. Tanselle points out that the word 'preservation' in the Commission's name 'was never intended to refer to preservation of physical objects containing texts, but only to texts abstracted from objects' (223). He also speaks of 'loss produced intentionally in the name of preservation ...' (Ibid). Baker's assertion (212) that there is a 'direct correlation between the spread of preservation administration as a career and the widening toll on old books' will not endear him to those in this career. How true is this assertion? The reviewer does not know, but is prepared to believe that we would all be the better for having a fresh look at the matter, unimpeded by too much deference to what at times might seem librarianship's own species of 'political correctness'.

Double Fold uncovers a position unknown to the world at large and which Baker documents fully. The interpretation of the facts (the discarding of books and the reasons for this) is controversial. One point of considerable interest is the relationship of librarians to the books in their charge. Are they just so many 'cakes of soap', or is there more to it than that? What are the professional ideals and responsibilities demanded of librarians and, by extension, of those who educate them? Points of view clearly diverge widely, not least among librarians themselves. Baker's book should cause readers to re-consider more critically the facts of history, but there is also room for more introspection about the calling of librarianship. Indeed, the first question is whether it is a calling or just a job. Many may believe these questions long since settled, but Baker's book may unsettle some cherished beliefs in this regard. It is important to note that those most nearly touched by these considerations are librarians in large research, state and national libraries. Serious further discussion needs to define much more finely the types of libraries and librarians involved in the issues Baker deals with. The role of archivists too should not be overlooked. But very worrying to the library profession as a whole must be the implication that librarians cannot be trusted with books and that they are gullible and too prone to succumb to the blandishments of technology and the claims of its salesmen. There is an interweaving of past conduct and present day realities, which are not always easy to unravel in Double Fold.

'Dingy, dreary, dog-eared, and dead'
A great part of Double Fold deals either directly or indirectly with the impact of technology on library practices. In some ways we hear echoes of the controversy unleashed in the late 1960s by Ellsworth Mason's campaign against the use of computers in libraries. Mason, Hofstra University's librarian, published two articles which aroused much opposition and comment, and which, in hindsight have proved him a false prophet. But was he entirely wrong?[4] Baker does not refer to Mason, but he would be sympathetic to much that he had to say. But Baker himself is not, however, simply an opponent of modern technology in libraries. He stresses its benefits several times in his book, and he is evidently adept at using it for his research and writing. Nevertheless, he expresses scepticism about the way librarians adopt and exploit it to the detriment of books and serials.

Verner Clapp, who used the words in the above heading in referring to books in public libraries, is the exemplar of the librarian who saw the application of technology in librarianship as the means to overcome problems in the accumulation of holdings and also as a means of elevating the image and status of librarianship. Through the employment of computerisation and automation, librarianship could be seen as in the vanguard of progress and 'mixing it with the big boys'. It is in this light that we can understand some of the connexion between the Library of Congress, Clapp and the CIA. This organisation had undertaken much work in developing microfilming for its own purposes. The application to library and archival needs was soon recognised, and sometimes implemented in libraries by persons who had worked for the CIA. Clapp, when at LC, had CIA connexions and employed a number of men from that body. It would seem unwise to read too much into this fact. Indeed, Baker's book has been criticised for over-stressing a CIA connexion with LC and microfilming. But it does come as something of a shock to see Clapp, one of the great names of post-war American librarianship, treated so negatively by Baker. Clapp and others of his generation certainly recognised that the unchecked growth of the great American research libraries could not proceed unheeded, but the results of his efforts to tackle the problem are what Baker castigates. Clapp was, as Baker explains, 'not a believer in "merely more of the same - ever and ever larger bookstacks and ever and ever more complicated catalogs"' (31). Here we find views stated which have proved basic to the course of librarianship in the twentieth century.

Clapp's words about 'dreary books', referring to an experience visiting a small public library, seem to Baker to point to a fault in attitude in a librarian. The lack of regard for the individual book by those employed to be the guardians of books is one of the central concerns of Double Fold. There are contradictions and shifts in professional perceptions and practice, which emerge from a reading of this complex book.

Artefacts, digitisation and other themes
Nicholson Baker has found an ally in Thomas Tanselle whose book Literature and artifacts (1998) contains several essays in line with Baker's thinking. Tanselle mentions approvingly Baker's 1994 New Yorker article on the discarding of card catalogues after they have been converted to electronic form (102-103). Tanselle as a scholar in bibliography believes that the physical form of literary works is integral to the full understanding of the work. He argues strongly against the belief that 'most verbal texts can be moved from one physical setting to another with no loss' (ix). He states further:

Over the centuries there has been a wide-spread belief that copied texts are the equivalent of the texts in the objects copied from. This attitude reflects both an intuitive recognition that verbal works are intangible and a failure at examining the implications of that understanding - a failure, that is, to see that visible texts are inevitably affected by the processes that made them visible. (x)

Tanselle's work is a sophisticated explication of this belief and it is obvious that his views and those of Baker are closely related. Matters of principle as well as practicalities may, of course, conflict. Scholarly needs are not the only needs libraries cater for. The points Tanselle raises deserve careful scrutiny and above all greater notice than they may have received by librarians generally. Baker's passionate desire to consult the original 'artefacts' may at times seem over-strained, but it has some intellectual (in addition to emotional) justification as Tanselle can demonstrate. Baker has several times denied that he believes libraries should collect 'everything' (such as every edition of a daily newspaper), but he does say in an interview with Library Journal: 'I think librarians at large research institutions have to respect what the librarians before them saw fit to collect'[5]. Decades ago no one would have expected it was necessary to express such opinions, or is this an idealisation of the past?

Double Fold concentrates its attention on microfilming, but digitisation, the method of preservation now enjoying a vogue, is not neglected. Baker's chapter 35 ('Suibtermanean convumision') gives examples of the results which optical character recognition can produce from digitised texts. The heading he chose for the chapter is part of a reading he got from such a digitised text. He gives details of a project undertaken by Cornell University Library to digitise files already microfilmed. This involved destruction of the originals (249-253). Once again, the generous Mellon Foundation supplied funds for the digitisation. Of course it is useful to have texts accessible on the internet, but until professional and technical issues have been truly sorted out, this seems another case of enthusiasm preceding common prudence by a country mile. Digitisation has still some way to go before it can be accepted as the way of the future. It is being oversold at present for reasons which, as Baker demonstrates, are little concerned with the preservation of the originals.

Mention should be made of the use of the word 'conspiracy' by critics of Double Fold. Earlier in this review the word occurred in a quote from the present Librarian of Congress. Baker has been accused of implying the existence of 'conspiracies' by his mention of CIA involvement with LC. This reviewer did not find the word used in Double Fold and believes that the charge against Baker is unfounded. Baker has also responded to the accusation in his interview with Library Journal mentioned above. What seems clear is that the policies at LC had a persuasive power among libraries by virtue of its pre-eminence. This is not unusual in library affairs. 'Overselling' rather than 'conspiracy' seems a more appropriate word to describe Baker's charge against the librarians he names.

Responses to Double Fold
(i) From non-librarians
Even a cursory search of the internet will reveal a very large quantity of publications and comment on Double Fold. The number of reviews in American newspapers alone is considerable and indicates that the book has captured public notice, as indeed it should. Letters to The New York Times are numerous and major reviews occurred in the prestigious New York Review of Books and The New York Times Book Review. Many of the responses from librarians have been critical of Baker, but those from the non-professionals have been positive and alarmed, which is only to be expected of a work of such profound impact with its serious charges against a profession so long considered virtuous and attuned to society's needs. The lengthy review by the leading historian Robert Darnton is especially noteworthy because it is a detailed analysis by a specialist in book history, one well informed about research materials and needs, and, moreover, a friend of libraries [6].

Darnton's review, (entitled 'The great book massacre') in the New York Review of Books (26 April 2001), is perhaps the single most important non-professional analysis of Double Fold. It is itself a fine piece of writing, sharp in its focus and perceptive in pointing out weaknesses in Baker's argumentation. His analysis of Baker's style of writing is acute and he identifies a number of rhetorical devices which employ novelistic skills to secure the requisite reactions from readers. Darnton creates some telling phrases of his own ('expensive solutions to misconceived problems') and states that librarians 'preferred to spend vast sums in order to comply with the orthodoxy of their profession: microfilm and discard'. He also mentions 'library pseudo-science' with regard to Fremont Rider's famous claims about exponential growth of research libraries' collections. Although critical of various details in Baker's case, Darnton supports his general thesis: 'In short, Baker is correct to condemn the de-accessioning of newspapers; and he could have made his case still stronger if he had worked with a more adequate notion of history'. As a postscript to his article, Darnton reports that the Council on Library and Information Resources has issued a report which 'represent[s] a repudiation of the policies that [Baker] condemned and that were propagated by the former Council on Library Resources'. This review is discomfiting the library profession because of the eminence and authority of its author. Irrespective of the justice of what Darnton says, the review is a clear indication of the power of Baker's book.

Another review worth noting is that by David Gates in The New York Times Book Review (15 April 2001). This piece, more graphic than Darnton's in describing the reviewer's personal reactions to Double Fold, explains how the book made Gates 'hopping mad' about Baker's revelations. He believes that 'If there's justice in this world, he'll rattle some cages. I know: big if'. The same issue has an interview by Dwight Garner with Baker, containing good background biographical information. Australians may be more familiar with a review by Alexander Star, reprinted from the New Republic by the newspaper The Australian (6 June 2001). Star gives a very fair summary of the content of Double Fold, but focuses finally on an aspect of the work which troubles other reviewers as well: is everything worth saving? This question arises because of Baker's wish to have as much original print material as possible retained. Possibly the argument is a bit misleading: As pointed out in an earlier section, Baker above all wants libraries not to discard items they have collected in the past for a variety of reasons. He does not argue that libraries should necessarily collect 'everything', but his text is at times unclear on just this point.

A general perception seems to run through these reviews that confidence in the judgment and trustworthiness of librarians has been deeply injured. This alone must give cause to librarians to consider what is at stake. The confusion generated by the terms 'preservation' and 'conservation', called by one reviewer 'creepy doublespeak', is also commented on by various reviewers.

Nicholson Baker was invited to the 2001 ALA conference and the discussions there hopefully threw some light on these questions. It is encouraging to see that the profession is not avoiding the issues raised by someone outside its ranks.

(ii) Responses from librarians and archivists
It is perhaps too early to expect authoritative and searching responses (as distinct from shallow dismissals of someone who 'has not run anything in his life', to paraphrase James Billington). What is noteworthy, however, is that a number of major American research libraries have published on their websites statements on their preservation policies, most apparently spurred to do so by the appearance of Double Fold[7]. No doubt they are sensitive to the impact of the book on important donors of funds for preservation, such as large foundations.

Among the number of responses from library circles to Double Fold, the range goes from outright rejection and righteous indignation to considered statements and attempts to do justice to what the book actually demonstrates. Those most closely affected by the tenor of the book, the preservationists, have naturally been active in responding. One important paper, given by Karin Wittenborg, (librarian to the University of Virginia) at the University of London March conference on 'Do we want to keep our newspapers', brings together several important observations. It also seems an effort to bridge the chasm opened up by Nicholson Baker's charges. She states, regarding digitisation in the United States:

Some of the early efforts to digitise newspapers worry me because they repeat the mistakes of the past. Some are digitising from inferior microforms, some are doing shoddy original work. One American company is buying up newspaper rights and digitising at very low quality, according to the digital experts on my staff[8].

Her remark: 'It amuses me to see librarians cast in the role of villains who are pulling off a vast conspiracy on the general public and the scholarly community' is an odd response to the facts of the case, but the rest of her paper is more balanced and useful. She does, at the end of her paper, make concessions to Baker which redress the balance:

In summary, I agree with Mr Baker that in our zeal to tackle preservation and space problems we often have given short shrift to the experience of the newspaper artifact. ...As we look to the future, we need - in collaboration with scholars - to carefully assess which newspapers must be preserved in original form [Ibid].

Karin Wittenborg also mentions the matter which Richard Darnton cited at the end of his review mentioned above. She is a member of the Council on Library and Information Resources Task Force on the Artifact whose deliberations must obviously confront the position which, at least in part, Nicholson Baker has highlighted.

The preservation librarian at the University of Pittsburgh, Jean Ann Croft, has issued a reasoned and reasonable response to Double Fold[9]. She comments on the still uncertain process of digitisation which is not for this reason employed at her library; she outlines a number of preservation processes which have had a good track record and mentions that they have avoided disbinding or discarding books which have been microfilmed. Her response concludes:

Although the publication of Baker's 'Doublefold' (sic)...is not completely accurate in discussing preservation issues... it provides a rallying point for preservationists to reassert their values and effectiveness. Baker's work inspires the necessity for continued education in preservation, as well as constant evaluation of the practices set forth by the preservation community to ensure that collections are accessible for the future.

A much larger and more analytical study of Double Fold has been prepared by Professor Richard J Cox, an expert in archives at the University of Pittsburgh School of Information Sciences. The second version of this paper, still a working document, is over fifty pages in length. It incorporates and builds upon the original version, entitled 'Don't fold up: Responding to Nicholson Baker's Double Fold'[10a ].

Was the brittle books program really a scheme hatched to compensate for other preservation failures? Has all of this really been part of a great effort to save shelf space? We need to develop detailed responses to these (and other) charges because Baker makes it all sound so plausible and bad [Ibid, 19] .

He very reasonably makes the following plea: 'Perhaps it would not be a bad idea to call a moratorium on the major reformatting projects for a brief period so we can discuss these issues, do some study, and consider all the options' (7). He then adds a statement that will electrify the generous foundations mentioned by Baker: 'At the least, why not divert some of the millions of federal and foundation funding to study some of the kinds of questions Baker has raised' [ibid].

The two papers produced by Professor Cox will serve the library and archive professions well as starting-points to analyse Double Fold. They deserve a very wide audience, but some may find his criticisms of Baker, especially on his lack of understanding of what archives are and what archivists do a trifle strained. Baker has not written a treatise in library science; care is needed in judging what are the legitimate criteria to apply to his book. But Cox is very clear on one matter: Baker must be taken seriously by the two professions. 'The one thing archivists or librarians cannot do is to simply label Baker as a crank and ignore him. We may be facing an opportunity to take our cases into the public forum in a way we have not had for years'[10b]. Baker's book is a powerful indictment; it is not a wayward sally by a negligible outsider.

The British Library
Whilst Double Fold is largely concerned with the history of preservation in large American libraries, focusing on past policies and procedures, Baker also turns his attention to some troubling contemporary developments in The British Library. The British Library had announced its intention to discard (ideally, by donation to other libraries, by sale or then by pulping) a very large number of apparently pristine runs of non-British newspapers from 1850. Microfilm copies for these had been acquired. Baker explains: '...in 1996 the library quietly announced its intention to rid itself of about sixty thousand volumes...' (9). Then in 1997 the 'library selected for discard more than seventy-five runs of Western European papers and periodicals from France...' (ibid). '"Increasing pressure on the storage facilities at the Colindale site" was the justification for their desperate act' (10). Baker claims that very few people knew 'any of this was going on', even heads of libraries within Britain. Apparently The British Library's Board 'blessed' the intention to give material to other libraries, then to offer remaining items to dealers, and next, as the then chief executive officer, Dr Brian Lang wrote to Baker: 'The intention is that runs of newspapers for which no bids have been received will be pulped' (11). Baker was energised by these developments to intercede with Dr Lang to have this 'intention' put on hold until some action could be taken to rally means for these files to be retained by The British Library. Dr Lang ignored his appeals, and the newspapers were removed from The British Library. Baker himself acquired a number of runs for which he entered in debt and created the American Newspaper Repository at Rollinsford, New Hampshire to house them[11].

There is some doubt about why The British Library decided on this unexpected policy: was it shortage of space, as Baker states? In an important article in the Times Literary Supplement, the well-known scholar and librarian, Dr David McKitterick gives details of a conference at the University of London (March 2001) to discuss 'Do we want to keep our newspapers?' He specifically states that a representative of The British Library (M Crump) 'insisted that the decision to deaccession newspapers was not space-driven'[12]. We do not know in fact why this major research library should want to divest itself of these extremely valuable runs, or why it chose to do so in what seems a rather 'secretive' manner. It would seem that not all members of the Library's Board were fully aware of what was intended. Dr Lang made his mark at The British Library by his concern for 'business values' rather than the values traditionally associated with this library. Accountability and transparency, which Baker found wanting in the Library of Congress, are not, on the face of it, strong points at The British Library either.

The question of the Library's space needs seems to be an awkward issue in London as it is in the USA. Against the statement by M Crump, alluded to by McKitterick above, we must set the statement of The British Library's new chief executive officer, Lynne Brindley, reported in the Guardian Unlimited, 24 November 2000 concerning the decision to divest itself of the original runs of certain newspapers[13]:

But it [the Library] warned that it was running out of storage space and would have to make more difficult, possibly unpopular decisions within six years.

A later paragraph reports:

Ms Brindley said no more [newspapers] would be discarded until a full review of microfilm copies was complete. The review will investigate objections that film may deteriorate faster than paper, is often harder to read, is black and white only and often does not cover full print runs of papers.

The British Library has now moved into its splendid new premises at St Pancras and the controversy that dogged this immensely expensive project has abated. But The British Library has not avoided a new controversy about its de-accessioning of copyright deposit books. This practice has only recently been uncovered by chance when a reader sought to see a book in this category, which he had consulted on an earlier occasion. He learned that the book had been 'de-accessioned'. Apparently it is a book not easily found now; a large number of other copyright deposit books had suffered the same fate![14]. Baker does not mention this occurrence, but it is pertinent to mention it here since it reinforces unfortunately a picture of how trusted librarians forfeit the public's confidence, especially in an institution with the excellent reputation of The British Library and its forerunner, the Library of the British Museum. Of course, larger questions must also be considered. But the future historian of The British Library may assess the Lang era as not one of its glories, despite the St Pancras building. This seems to be a picture that applies to other national libraries of the last decade or so. On a happier note, we see that The British Library has now officially announced that it is putting its newspaper discard policy on hold until a proper review of questions raised so pointedly by Nicholson Baker has been conducted.

The hostile reaction of British scholars to The British Library's action was one of the chief reasons for holding the March conference on newspapers in libraries. Nicholson Baker also participated in the conference whose unedited proceedings have recently become available on the internet. Since they spring so clearly from the publication of Double Fold, they deserve to be noticed in this review[15].

The papers on the conference website reflect to some extent attitudes to the questions of preservation already discerned in the previous sections above. But the presence of scholars and bibliographical experts adds considerable interest to the discussion. The paper by Professor Peter Mandler (Modern History, London Guildhall University) seeks to bridge the wide gap between library practices and the needs of researchers. He refers not unsympathetically to 'the entrenched position in which The British Library finds itself', and clearly recognises the constraints under which The British Library must operate. But others at the conference were much stronger in their direct criticisms of the Library.

Apart from Nicholson Baker's own paper (dealt with below), papers by David McKitterick, H R Woudhuysen and Mike Crump (The British Library) will be briefly analysed. What is noteworthy and reassuring in almost every paper examined is the acknowledgment that, despite on occasion differences with Baker's views, the authors thank him for bringing to light problems which the library profession had not adequately addressed. H R Woudhuysen's paper, the final paper summarising some of the results of the conference, states:

And finally, as has become clear over the past two days, the issue is not simply confined to 'newspapers' but to journals as well, and raises questions about the retention and conservation of all printed materials.

Another important observation in the same paper is:

Deaccessioning from national, copyright libraries opens up fissures in the complicated relationship between libraries and users. But there is another problem about de-accessioning (sic) that needs to be raised: getting rid of material, for whatever reason, is liable to alarm and put potential donors and benefactors off.

The author's final sentence reads: 'By not keeping our newspapers, The British Library has impoverished us all: it has stolen our evidence'. Perhaps those words read a little melodramatically, but we cannot mistake the sentiments they convey.

The long introduction to the papers by David McKitterick is even stronger in its rejection of what The British Library has done. He picks up a point which needs to be strongly emphasised:

For half a century, what has been done in America has been accepted so widely that it became considered good practice even in the British Library. The scale of copy-cat management has been little short of disastrous, in its deliberate and ignorant destruction of the evidence of history.

McKetterick also reminds the reader, quoting from Professor Mandler's paper, of something that is not a strong point in Australian librarianship any more than it is apparently overseas: 'As Peter Mandler puts it, the responsibility to keep what we have is almost an absolute one, a contract between generations'.

Mike Crump represented The British Library at the conference and had a rather formidable task when confronted with such a phalanx of opposition or, at least, scepticism about his library's policies and intentions. Crump's paper is an excellent professional effort, defining the budgetary and space difficulties facing The British Library with its very wide range of responsibilities. He puts the disposal of the non-British newspapers in a solid context and mentions that disposal has long been practised by The British Library. Much of this information can also be found in A History of the British Museum Library, 1753-1973, by P R Harris (1998). Crump has much to say about the quality and durability of paper and adds valuable information to the consideration of this basic topic. He ends his paper by stating (rather too diffidently):

What Mr Baker has illuminated, however, are short-comings with the implementation of the current policy and we should perhaps see if something can be agreed to improve these processes.

Crump sums up: what The British Library needs is guidance on matters which the public might have supposed was really implied in the claims of librarianship as a profession:

The advice that we shall need will not be easy to come by. It seems to me that we shall need recourse to people who are not only familiar with material from the point of view of their researches but also have bibliographic understanding of these sources. They will need to consider the key issue of material that contains evidence (the most obvious of which is colour printing) which will be lost in the transfer to microfilm...

It is with difficulty that one can believe that The British Library has not these skills already in its staff. But, of course, the management decisions may not necessarily be guided by professional considerations. 'Business values' and 'library values' are not the same.

Nicholson Baker's paper, which provides the conference with its title, is closely based on Double Fold. Baker provides very revealing details of his dealings with the former chief executive officer, Brian Lang. They cast a poor light on him as well as on the head of the Library's Board (John Ashworth). As regards the Library's new chief executive officer, Mrs Lynne Brindley, Baker has some sharp words too about her enthusiasm for digitisation:

...and because the proponents of electronic libraries still want to pay for their costly innovations by dismantling traditional libraries, we should be concerned about that. Brindley told a journalist for New Scientist that the future of librarianship is 'helping people to learn what to discard'. We ought to be concerned about that way of looking at great collections.

National libraries in general: never reformed because never deformed?
Double Fold points to dubious aspects of the marriage between librarianship and technology. There is certainly evidence in abundance that many claims and hopes about benefits from computers have been premature, or even totally wrong. Money does not seem to have been lacking for ventures of these kinds in libraries complaining about lack of funds for acquisitions. But there have certainly been benefits as well. Is it instructive to consider the mounting criticisms of the Bibliothèque Nationale's impressive new premises at Tolbiac where technology in librarianship seems to have reached its apogee? To judge by reports of frustrations by patrons leading to physical assaults on library staff and to the wind problems caused by a tunnel effect from its tower stack blocks, and from the surely excessive use of electronic gadgetry in the library proper, one may sympathise with those who were happy with the former, less sophisticated Bibliothèque Nationale building. The account by Adam Gopnik in Paris to the Moon (2000), even allowing for a certain satiric strain, is good evidence of how technology in one of the world's great libraries has destroyed the relationship between the individual and the book. The library staff have seemingly become Orwellian functionaries: it is no wonder that they are physically assaulted by patrons. The French have apparently successfully realised in the new building Henry Miller's idea of the 'air-conditioned nightmare'.

Even in Australia we might wonder at the experience of the National Library of Australia (in conjunction with the National Library of New Zealand) with the World One project. This computer-based project proved to be something of a disaster and certainly an embarrassment to the library profession in both countries. The outcome of the legal proceedings surrounding this regrettable project is not publicly available, although details are filtering out in some quarters. Secrecy is here too a noticeable feature. The successor to World One, Kinetica, is reportedly not performing as well as expected, but there is better publicity on some aspects of its operation than was the case with its predecessor. Some persons better placed to judge than the reviewer believe that Kinetica may fail ultimately because of disaffection among libraries using it. The subject seems to raise hackles in some quarters which is indicative of basic uncertainties. Perhaps these things can be sorted out without the traumas and enthusiastic expenditure of public money that beset World One.

The Library of Congress is an American icon and has earned the gratitude of its users and the respect of libraries across the world. Its record has been superb and it continues to be an inspiration and model in many ways. Nicholson Baker has, however, done what few others would do publicly: to question whether the image fully concurs with current realities. This is a very brave or rash thing to do. But few organisations in life can claim 'never reformed, because never deformed'. LC, like The British Library, has been found to have breached public confidence by its treatment of newspapers and also by its treatment of copyright deposit books. Deaccessioning has taken place on a far greater scale than anyone outside either library suspected. Is too much being expected of LC and other national libraries? Can such libraries continue, as it were, as mammoths from another age? Who will question the orthodoxies and 'political correctness' surrounding these national icons? Are they reformable? To supply answers depends on many 'ifs'. Nicholson Baker does not mention the 1994 Booz, Allen and Hamilton report on LC, which, despite its paramount importance, has received so little public attention. It would give him ammunition to raise some further basic questions about administration and policy there[16].

Are the points touched on by Nicholson Baker and the additional ones mentioned here mountains or molehills? What are the counterbalancing positive aspects of these libraries which should be mentioned? There are certainly many, and the picture is not all black. But how finally should we decide what is the value and implications of Baker's Double Fold? In asking this question, it should be made clear that the focus goes beyond the library profession to include broader national, cultural, social and historical concerns as well.

Who owes Nicholson Baker anything?
Nicholson Baker has upset a lot of librarians, although an attentive reading of Double Fold (sometimes, it seems, a rarity among its detractors) will show that his criticisms do not overlook the work of dedicated, estimable librarians quietly carrying on in their various tasks. Indeed, he is able to point to support from many librarians who, for very understandable reasons, do not wish to be named. Baker has certainly antagonised the powerful and well entrenched, who are not used to being called to book, it seems. Baker came to prominence in library circles when his articles in The New Yorker in the 1990s, criticising the demise of the card catalogue and horrors occurring in the San Francisco Public Library, made a wide impact. William H Wisner's Whither the postmodern library? (2000) outlines the history of all this (13-14), commenting: 'More damning still, no response [to the magazine articles by Baker] written by a librarian [Wisner's italics] has ever appeared in any of the major public journals where the attacks on our zealousness occurred'[17 ]. Librarians and a number of other persons concerned with libraries are now responding freely because Baker has touched raw nerves, and his revelations possibly have serious implications for funding. That concentrates minds powerfully. The lack of sensitivity among decision-makers concerning the materials they discarded, not to mention an ignorance of wider values than just space on shelves, mocks the image of librarians as 'carers'.

Whilst most readers will have no idea of the technicalities involved in the debate on the deterioration of paper and will be willing to follow the lead of those believed to have 'scientific data' at their command, Baker has now made us sensitive to 'trusting too blindly' those who seem better informed. One waits with great interest to see how the professional associations deal with what must be a troubling scenario for them. The great research libraries, which must, in the nature of things, have considerable power and prestige in librarianship, have regrettably lost valuable credibility in recent decades. They also have much ground to recover. Reactions such as the one from James H Billington (quoted above on page 1) show that the readiness to address the problem rather than 'kill the messenger' requires a maturity and balance which may not be as common as we expect in the leaders of the profession.

Australian librarians and their professional association may consider that one lesson from reading Double Fold is not simply to presuppose that leaders in librarianship or great libraries are above questioning. For this reason alone, but for other important reasons as well, Australian librarians, scholars and library users might ask the Council of Australian State Librarians to provide better justification for their recent (March 2001) decision to 'disband the long standing agreement between State Libraries to exchange State Parliamentary publications.' The notification seen by the writer states:

The increasing trend toward electronic publication of this material and towards charging for supply of the printed publications, coupled with some confusion about reciprocal arrangements of supply, meant that in many cases [how many?] the exchange scheme was becoming difficult to maintain and manage.

No doubt arrangements in such matters must respond to changing circumstances, but if the rationale for this decision is based solely on the quote above (which does not mention space needs), a future Australian Nicholas Baker may find scope in abundance to point to long-term decisions based on the 'expectation' that materials will be 'eternally' available electronically[18 ]. Some might think this is not a very sound basis for arguing a case.

Another point raised by several commentators on Double Fold is the notion of the debt owed by the present to the past. This is a difficult issue in librarianship when economic pressures make reassessment of collections necessary. Of course, this is not so great an issue for libraries which are not libraries of record, but with regard to collections, which have national, cultural, historical or social significance, it can become a crucial issue. First one must emphasise that collection control should not be in the hands of persons who have little real depth of knowledge of the materials in their charge. This seems to have been the case in the USA, where the newspapers discarded by the great research libraries seem to have been so little understood and valued by their owners. Where the fate of important collections depends ultimately on institutional or government support, the libraries have an unenviable task when library values clash with economic or business values. This has been the case with some Australian parliamentary libraries whose unique heritage collections have suffered grievously because of parliamentary indifference[19].

Do librarians nowadays receive a professional education that really equips them to be librarians rather than just 'cybrarians'? In Australia the decline of both library values and of education for librarianship is marked. The recent review by Ross Harvey in the Australian Library Journal on the worrying state of library education is timely, but what response will it elicit?[20].

What, then, do we owe Nicholson Baker? Obviously the answer depends on viewpoint and professional orientation. Some may question whether the protests from a vocal, élite pressure group of scholars and researchers should be allowed to determine library agendas. On the other hand, who would deny that such people are serious library users and supporters, whose work is often of national or even international significance? Their opinions are not trivial. But should we play off one set of users, one set of needs, against other sets? As Crump points out, libraries do have to make choices. What is important is the basis on which choice is made. If this basis is faulty, the choice will be flawed. That seems to apply in the cases Baker focuses on. Larger questions present themselves and searching answers are needed, not just stock responses.

Few will quibble with the view, however, that Nicholson Baker, by stinging us to validate (or re-establish) what Michael Gorman calls 'our enduring values', has performed a much-needed action. By uncovering shallowness and 'boosterism' in the thinking of some library leaders and in demonstrating the disaster from 'copy-cat management' in libraries, Baker puts us in his debt. He has highlighted deficiencies, which come at too great a cost, that is, the grievous loss of heritage and a serious blow to the image of librarians. How much do we really care? That we should really care is Baker's message. There are still larger unsettling questions awaiting answer.

The library profession does not lack serious thinkers on these issues, but the profession at large needs more than a few excellent books by these writers to regain what is being so pointlessly lost. Perhaps a good starting point is for librarians and friends of libraries to read Double Fold attentively and with critical questioning. It is well worth the effort and will reward the reader in unexpected ways as this reviewer can attest.

References
Note: all websites were accessed in July 2001 unless otherwise indicated.

1. See 'Nicholas Baker: Reviews, articles, and responses' compiled by the ARL Preservation Program at http://www.arl.org/preserv/baker.html

2. See letter from ARL to the editors of The New York Review of Books, dated 25 April 2001. http://www.arl.org/preserv/nyrltr.html.

3. See 'Preserving books? It's easy on paper' by Elaine Sciolino http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/ot/Pape.html.

4. See 'The great gas bubble prick't; or, Computers revealed' by a Gentleman of Quality [Ellsworth Mason] in College and Research Libraries, 32 (May 1971): 183-196. Also reprinted in Landmarks of library literature 1876-1976, Dianne J Ellsworth and N D Stevens eds. Scarecrow Press, 1976. (496-518). Mason's earlier article in Library Journal, 96 (May 1971): 1671-1676, which released a flood of comment, is entitled 'Along the academic way'. The correspondence and responses to this article are well worth reading in the August and October issues of the same year.

5. 'Double-edged: Is Nicholson Baker a friend of libraries?' (Interview between N Baker and A R Albanese) in Library Journal, 1 June 2001: 103-104.

6. Darnton, Robert: 'The great book massacre' in The New York Review of Books, 26 April 2001. http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/

7. See for example http://www.arl.org/preserv/harvard.html and http://www.arl.org/preserv/lc.html

8. See 'A librarian looks at preservation' by Karin Wittenborg, paper delivered at the London conference 'Do we want to keep our newspapers?' (March 2001) at http://www.arl.org/preserv/wittenborg.html

9. This paper is available at http://www.library.pitt.edu/about/baker_response.html

10a. Dated 18 April 2001. Available at http://www.archivists.org/news/doublefold.html

10b. The larger version was sent to me by Professor Cox and is still, to the best of my knowledge, not in the public domain. I am grateful to Professor Cox for his courtesy. This second paper (59 pages) is entitled 'Nicholson Baker's Double Fold and its implications for the international achival community'. It is dated June 2001. The cited reference is at page 31.

11. The website for the American Newspaper Repository is http://www.oldnewspapers.org. The website states: 'The purpose of the American Newspaper Repository is to keep safe for future scholarship a collection of about 7 000 bound volumes of original newspapers. The repository bought the collection from the British Library - some of it directly, some through a dealer - after trying unsuccessfully to convince the library to call off the auction'. [unable to access URL: 25 October 2001]

12. McKitterick, David: 'Not all our yesterdays' in Times Literary Supplement, 1 June 2001, 13-15. The Papers delivered at the March conference in London will be published later in 2001. See also reference [15].

13. Available at http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,402238,00.html

14. Reported from The Guardian, 12 August 2000 by Books Unlimited News http://www.booksunlimited.co.uk/news/ (Accessed August 2000).

15. The Research Centre in the History of the Book, University of London: Conference, 12-13 March 2001: 'Do we want to keep our newspapers?' http://www.sas.ac.uk/ies/RCHB/RCHB.htm

16. 'Management review of the Library of Congress: The 1996 Booz, Allen & Hamilton Report', by R L Cope, in Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 28.1 (March 1997): 16-33.

17. See William H Wisner: Whither the postmodern library? Libraries, technology, and education in the information age. Jefferson, North Carolina, McFarland, 2000. The quote comes from page 13-14.

18. This statement is found on an e-mail notification, issued on 7 March 2001 by e-mail: pscott@slv.vic.gov.au.nospam (please remove '.nospam' from address)

19. The problems of the heritage collections in state parliamentary libraries are dealt with in two articles: 'If special libraries are disappearing, why are parliamentary surviving? Contradictory currents and changing perceptions', by R L Cope, in Australian Library Journal, 49.4 (November 2000): 307-326. See pp321-323. 'History of the book in Australia: Impacts of public policy in the second half of the twentieth century', by RL Cope, in Australian Library Journal, 48.3 (August, 1999): 217-237.

20. See 'Losing the quality battle in Australian education for librarianship', by Ross Harvey, in Australian Library Journal, 50.1 (February 2001): 15-22.