Rating: 
Summary: Great, but...
Review: ...it misses a key point, which is that our culture, not librarians, are really to blame for the wholesale destruction of paper and printed materials in favor of the godforsaken hell of "microfilm." Few people are aesthetically or historically minded enough to recognize the importance of saving "ephemera" like daily newspapers from any era, and those few do not in any way constitute an organized voting bloc or an even marginally influential sect. Place the blame on the disposable mentality that is deeply embedded in American culture and not on librarians, many of whom actually favored paper over film, I'm sure.
Overall, a controversial, muckraking book; great for anyone who has ever pored over grainy, unreadable microfilm, hated every minute of it, wishing all the while that an original copy of the paper still existed somewhere...
Rating: 
Summary: Hilarious and ridiculous
Review: ...to even think of blaming libraries. Maybe if high powered political figures on library boards across America didn't feel the need to make their served institutions "All Things to All People" and got back to core values, and if the American public could turn off American Idol and reality TV long enough to end the Reign of the Retard, there would be the support for libraries needed to house all the items ever published anywhere, and every Podunktown can have it's own Library of Congress. Guess you've truly made it when you've sold enough books you can bite a hand that feeds you, Mr. Baker.However that does not detract from the quality of his writing, stellar as usual.
Rating:
Summary: Cranky and Hyperbolic, but thought-provoking
Review: As a consultant working for a software company who performs the kind of digital archiving service described (attacked?) in this book, I was probably reading this with a slightly jaundiced eye. I think Baker glosses over some very real issues of how these resources are used and probably underestimates the real cost of physical versus digital/microfilm archiving, but I'm also not sure that these issues make up the real point of the book. I found it a *very* illuminating read and it made some really excellent points about how useful it is to carry projects without a clear sense of goal and direction. I thought his concerns about the privatisation of historical archive are very valid. I couldn't help but share his concerns about destruction in order to preserve. Moreover, the book is remarkably readable and occasionally very entertaining (the virgin mummy section, for example). I'll be giving this one away as a Christmas gift to more than a few poeple on my gift list.
Rating: 
Summary: Baker hits the nail on the head
Review: As a longtime newspaper researcher, I was already well aware of the problems of converting library materials to microfilm, but this book lays out the whole story in horrifying detail. If you care about history, the value of a complete and unadulterated historical record, or even just the intrinsic value of the materials being destroyed, this book will make you very angry. We trusted our country's record of history to the libraries and they casually threw most of it into the nearest convenient trashcan. Baker's indictment reveals the extent of the loss, the foolish assumptions that led to it, and the military (!) bureaucrats who led the campaign. It is a terribly sad story but one that must be told and learned from if we are to avoid further losses. If you know a librarian, buy them a copy of the book, too (I can't imagine many libraries will put this book on the shelves!). My only quibble with the book, and it's a small one, is that Baker has missed two important points: 1 - the microfilm companies are holding our nation's history hostage; by charging hundreds of thousands of dollars for a run of one newspaper on microfilm they are effectively keeping it out of the hands of libraries and, thus, researchers. If one of the reasons for the mass switch to microfilm was to cut costs, why didn't the libraries dictate terms to the microfilm companies when they started cutting up those precious bound volumes? Many libraries can't even afford to stock the microfilm of their hometown papers! 2 - because microfilm is so expensive, the stated problem of accessibility was not solved. One reason to photograph everything was so that researchers could have improved access to materials. In fact, the opposite has happened. Few libraries own microfilm, and those that do are unwilling to do inter-library loans. Thus, the researcher has to travel to the libraries to do their research or hire local researchers (a cottage industry these days). No matter - Baker's passionate indictment hits plenty of high points; more than enough to convert most anyone (except perhaps the librarians who were duped for so long that they can't conceive of changing their positions). I also salute Nicholson Baker for putting his money where his mouth is. His purchase of a good portion of the British Library's American newspaper archives (yes, even in 2000 the libraries are still gleefully disposing of paper) is excellent news. I only wish I'd known about the sale at the time - I would have gladly participated. However, the libraries know darn well that their actions are a public relations nightmare, so they keep these mass disposals very quiet. Buy this book! Loan it to friends! Get the word out!
Rating:
Summary: A real eye-opener.
Review: As a normal user of the Library I was surprised at how much time, money, and inappropriate effort has been applied to the quest for a reduction in storage space and the reformatting of existing stock into unsuitable microfilm ( as the colour inserts demonstrate). Much of the scare-mongering to do with he instability of acidic papers could have been more simply gotten around at the paper making stage, before too many years had gone by for it to become a motivational issue to dump library stock. On the other hand, because of the lack of choices and the ever increasing volume of publications demanding ever more storage, something had to give. And it's only now with the common use of electronic authoring and the availability of the .PDF format can publications become archived as digital files, without any significant problems in quality, either for simple text based publications, such as novels, or publications rich in text and image content. Older, printed publications, such as the large format newspapers Nicholson Baker is archiving, are a problem, since capturing their content as images is the only way to realistically reformat their content into a digital form. The downside being the huge file sizes generated. Many older works are being re-released in a digital format, but poor quality standards with respect to inaccuracies in the recovered text tends to cheapen the results. Text recovered by OCR, must be carefully read for errors that creep in. That aside, digital storage is the way to go for future publications, both from a storage and distribution point of view. As for newspapers, the introduction of rolling web-news is a good thing. This book is full of interesting information, ranging from the use of Egyptian Mummies' wrappings to supplement the rag-paper industry of the 19th century, to library preservationists risking life and limb in de-acidification programmes in which the process is akin to playing with air-fuel bombs. Some streamlining of the contents would have beneficial: not because it tends toward a rant, but because it tends to be a touch overly repetitious. The most likely outcome will be that those with the inclination and the resources, such as John Warnock, Nicholson Baker, etc. will take it upon themselves to be the archivists of the historical record, with the possibility that such archives will have a future value to others who require the information (similar to television news companies who keep libraries of video footage to sell clips from ) any proceeds going into the non-profit organisation in order to help support it.
Rating:
Summary: Who will speak for books...?
Review: As Carl Sagan once asked, "Who will speak for earth?" I ask who will speak for books (and other printed materials)? Nicholson Baker - that's who, in this splendid work! Old magazines, books and newspapers aren't simply "information vehicles," they are links to past lives in a way "digital" simply can't touch. I am worried about the proliferation rapidly obsolescing technology replacing primary sources that require no means other than natural light, a pair of eyes and a brain to use. READ THIS BOOK, get involved... before it is too late. (MLS, EdM, Ph.D.)
Rating:
Summary: Librarians Sometimes Lie
Review: Baker has done the world a great service by pointing out the inherent hypocrisy in the library profession. Supposedly, libraries are protecting our written heritage, but Baker's many examples of destruction of primary reading materials belies this claim. Further, the entire world of preservation, conservation and rare books is, err, rarefied. They are elitists (I work for one of the major research libraries villified by Baker, and come into contact with these folks, and their arrogance is palpable) and perform their sometimes anti-print magic behind vaulted doors, not even alterting their colleagues in other departments of their activities. I was shocked to learn about the double fold method which, as Baker points out so eloquently, is flawed. It is not a well-known procedure, even by other librarians. It's incredible to me that libraries, which believe themselves to be collaborative, consortial players in the world information game, can't cooperate with their peers and preserve even a single copy of some of the titles he cites as having been thrown away. There is NO excuse for a collection of libraries to NOT have banned together, merged monies, and created a joint respository for these vanishing items. Alas, there is too much competition amongst institutions and blind patronage of Library of Congress policy. Moreover, too many former LC employees now head the top US libraries. I applaud Baker for his courage to enter such a closed world. Too many within the profession are going to write scathing reviews here, but I'd encourage them to note the positive comments in the book. Baker respects librarians, adores them even. He just falls faint at the notion of losing so many primary source materials, and that is what is his motivation here. He is in some respects a historian, a man whose mind flies to new creative heights when he's holding a primary text in his hands. That his primary texts are US newspapers (this is his main example in the book, but there are others he could have chosen) should not minimize his commentary. Microfilm is NOT a 100% solution. Digital imaging is NOT cheap. Baker is NOT the liar, misintepreting the facts of preservation; librarians sometimes are, hiding the truth of their misguided activities.
Rating:
Summary: Sometimes distorted but worth the time
Review: Baker is sort of like the Restif de la Bretonne of his era. Restif was a French Revolution era writer of insightful (if overly shrill) political tracts and pornographic novels. Baker has, similarly, delivered himself of a passionate defense of paper for its own sake. He makes a number of valid points, mostly relating to some instances of horrendously bad judgement by library administrators. On the other hand, much of what he says does not reflect the general run of current library practice, and his mode of expression is as likely to prevent reasoned discussion of these matters as promote it. Working in archives, I fletter myself that I am more sensitive than most to primacy of the importance of maintaining the original paper against the claims of extreme technophiles. On the other hand, promoting an overly romantic view of paper sources to the exclusion of realistic appraisal of space consideration will only result in holding the future hostage to the present. This book is certainly worth reading, but it must be read critically.
Rating: 
Summary: Still not convinced...
Review: Baker makes a wide variety of excellent points, but I just can't jump on his bandwagon. This book is half well-researched expose of destructive library practice, half ill-natured mockery of people who are only trying their best to innovatively preserve books and newspapers. It's a thought-provoking read, but not necessarily a convincing one. Ultimately I felt that while Baker presented a compelling picture of a problem, he failed to offer a real solution. He says that newspapers can be stored in warehouses and that it will not be overly expensive, but even reasonably priced solutions have to be paid for, and Baker acknowledges repeatedly that it is much more difficult to get funding for warehouse space than for gee-whiz electronic preservation methods. My second major problem with "Double Fold" was Baker's lack of respect for any kind of science or technology. Baker exposes plenty of bad science in his book; the "double fold" test, various attempts at the mass deacidification of books and he seems to interpret this as meaning that science can offer no solutions to library problems, when in fact better science could provide better ways of assessing book health, preserving those books that are in danger of decay, and yes, perhaps even providing digital or electronic records of existing books and periodicals. Baker seems to have contempt not just for the shoddy way in which micropreservation has been done, but for the concept as a whole, and that's where he lost me.
Rating:
Summary: Important but very one-sided
Review: Baker raises some extremely interesting points in regards to libraries and the disposal of books and newspapers. This is an important and necessary read for anyone in the field of librarianship. I do think that there are some problems with this book however. Baker clearly began this book with an agenda--an admirable one in my view--but one that has prevented him from accurately portraying the story. He repeatedly refuses to acknowledge the very real and very pressing space problems that every library in America is now facing. Space is at a premium and libraries cannot continue unabated growth. Baker argues that it is cheaper to build storage facilities than to microfilm books and newspapers. Perhaps, but it is immeasurably cheaper to purchase a newspaper on microfilm than to build and maintain storage that is deperately needed for many other resources. Further, microforming and digitaization provide greater access to resources. I agree that discarding the original of microformed or digitized texts is bordering on criminal and idiotic, but libraries have realistically been left with no option. Money is scare and money is needed to hold on to thousands and thousands of volumes. Baker delights in depicting librarians as nefarious ogres who delight in destroying books and newspapers in favor of microforms and digitization. This is an unfair and inaccurate depiction. Most librarians regret the destruction of books--for many, including myself, it can be a painful decision to discard a book--but unless governments and universities are willing to spend the money to store these items and maintain that storage area, there really is no practical alternative. Every librarian I know would prefer to have a hard copy of every book and newspaper they use, but this just is not possible. Baker's eloquent diatribe needs to be directed at governing bodies not at librarians. I think he will find that most librarians side with him in theory, but decades of practice and chronic underfunding demand librarians adopt a realistic, if depressing, approach. If he and his readers truly want to make a change and contribute to the role of libraries as preservers of paper, they would do well to pressure their local government to adeqately fund libraries. Until the funding and societal value of libraries increase, librarians will be forced to continue making heartbreaking choices as a result of limited financial resources.
| 
