Rating: 
Summary: One-sided to a fault
Review: Baker refuses to acknowledge a very real problem faced by libraries and their users: heavily used newspapers DO disintegrate. Yes, it would be nice if somewhere there were stored a mint condition copy of every book and newspaper ever printed. But keeping these volumes in mint condition means not letting anyone touch them, which would not do much to keep history alive! For all its faults, microfilm does allow people all over the world to read these newspapers. The money spent on microfilming was not wasted--it has provided unprecedented access to the stuff of our history. Baker is passionate and entertaining, but his passions take him too far with regard to newspapers, and other matters throughout the book.
Rating: 
Summary: Nicholson Baker versus librarians
Review: Baker's book is about the destruction of library materials in the process of their "preservation". He believes that valuable newspapers and books have disappeared, once they were unbound, in library "preservation" projects.The worst part, Baker has decided, is that the projects were unnecessary: "preserved" microfilms and fiches are hard to use and even unreadable now, and acid paper and other format deterioration emergencies were false alarms, he says. And, most dramatically of all, it was the caretakers -- librarians, in the US and at the British Library -- who carried out the destruction, Baker believes. Along his meandering way towards this basic thesis, Baker takes slices at a large number of side issues -- everything from the faulty chemistry of "bath" solutions for acid paper problems, to supposed OSS and CIA roles in fostering early "preservation" experiments, to several hilarious "bios" of some of the more colorful people who have been involved in preservation. Baker is a noted fiction writer -- his prose does make fun reading, if you enjoy gossip or scandal or expose' as a genre, or even if you just enjoy language: "A sincere - sounding reference woman in the microforms department said, 'Oh we would never have hard copies going back that far -- they just don't keep.' They don't keep, kiddo, if you don't keep them..." "So I made calls, hired lawyers, wrote letters, formed a non - profit corporation, and appealed to the British Library's sense of decency. It didn't work..." "...bibliectomies..." Entire chapters of Baker's book are wonderful on their own, from this strictly - prose point of view: Chapter 6 "Virgin Mummies", about Keystone Cop projects to harvest cotton rag for paper - making from the wrappings on acres of ancient mummies apparently still existing, unharvested, in Egypt; or Chapter 11 "Thugs and Pansies", about the distinction between preservationists in libraries who destroy old books, and conservators who won't. So whoever decides to take on Baker on behalf of librarians and preservation-- not to speak of Robert Darnton and other luminaries who now are lining up somewhat on Baker's side -- had better know how to write. And Baker names names -- does he name names -- many of the major people in librarianship of the last half century make his list, so that to be included may become a point of pride ("S/he was on Baker's List!"): Clapp, Avram, Licklider, Boorstin, Kenney, and above all Patricia Battin... By the time Baker is through, if the library profession gets at all weak - in - the - knees about this there won't be any leading librarian left who will be willing to take on a preservation project. But: 1) Was / is there a crisis? -- lack of library shelf space and therefore the need to "weed" collections, or of "acid paper" and other media deterioration? Baker himself never offers smaller numbers than the librarians did. There must have been _some_ "bad" books and newspaper volumes, among all those giant collections. So if not as many as the librarians tabulated, so meticulously if erroneously, then how many? Surely not none? 2) Was / is an "acid paper" book really usable / readable? Again, Baker is counter - intuitive: he offers "common sense" reassurances, based on his personal pageturning of supposedly - deteriorated items sitting usefully on his shelves at home. But I have Penguins from the 1960s on _my_ shelves at home, too: mine smell, terribly, are so brown that they can't be read, and they crack and fall apart as I turn their pages. And I have found same / similar on library shelves. So there is "common sense" experience available to contradict Baker's own: if he really is going to counter library statistics he needs his own deterioration numbers -- something better than bald reassurance that "nothing out there in libraries is in bad shape, really". That's the main trouble with Baker's book: its entertaining criticism falls short on real analysis. The book's evidence is anecdotal -- "well - written bullying" has been suggested as its best description. Baker himself sees his book as an impassioned plea for conserving old newspapers and retaining original library materials. He does, sort of, see the "Hobson's choice" problem he is in: he wonders, "Why not both? Why can't we have the benefits of the new and extravagantly expensive digital copy _and_ keep the convenience and beauty and historical testimony of the original books resting on the shelves...?" -- money, Mr. Baker -- "any time someone tells you 'it's not the money, it's the principle of the thing', it's the money..." Others now will use Baker's harsh indictment of the library community to derail current preservation efforts altogether. Baker's book is reaching a wide public, just as his New Yorker articles roasting the San Francisco Public Library did -- librarian Laura Bush will read this book, at the White House -- Darnton has suggested publicly that she should, and she probably has received plenty of copies already. Baker's timing is bad. He offers criticisms and accusations at a time of severe library service cutbacks. If Baker's ridicule discourages even the few current preservation efforts, then, what if _he_ is wrong about "the problem"? What if the librarians are right, and there really _are_ massive and growing bodies of documents imperilled by acid paper and other depredations? If library preservation efforts now slow or halt it will be on Baker's head, and on the heads of those who cave in to his pressures. Better analysis and better solutions are needed -- namecalling and divisiveness don't help. If Baker doesn't like the endangered books numbers which the librarians have come up with then let him come up with his own: "first do no harm" works only if you don't let the patient die while you are waiting for the perfect cure. We need more_ "conservation *and* preservation *and* access" for libraries -- in combination, perhaps, but _more_ -- not less....
Rating:
Summary: Be wary when reading this
Review: Being a librarian, I was interested in what Baker had to say. I read this with an open mind and with appreciation to his point. I found this work, however, fairly misguided and unrealistic. I was also able to watch the author present this book on C-Span and perform a lecture on it. During the question and answer period, Baker was confronted by editors of major publications, librarians, and peers - they questioned his sources (for example, a major source who supposedly works at the British Library and is a) not a real librarian and b) no longer works there and hasn't for some time), his language, and his facts. I was surprised to see Baker red faced (and not from anger), stuttering, unable to answer the allegations, and at some points was mute and simply looking dumbfounded. I will always defend the right of anyone to speak their opinion, but do keep in mind - that is what this book is. This is one man's opinion. Before making up your mind on this subject, do your own research, perhaps visit your own local library and talk with a librarian there. On a final note - I laughed out loud during Baker's discussion of the durability of newsprint. Libraries are for public use. One paper may be viewed by over 200+ people. Sections get out of order or taken; a mother holding a baby while reading doesn't notice her baby has drooled all over an entire section; someone decides an article is valuable to him/her but doesn't have a dime to make a copy and rips it out. Public libraries are not for archiving materials - and I, as a librarian and a member of the public, am glad for it. I enjoy being able to look at things at my own leisure and without wearing kid-gloves. Think of the realistic side of things before passing final judgement.
Rating: 
Summary: Double Fold exposes the weakest link
Review: Enabled by taxpayer funds and foundation grants, the space-saving technocracy provides plenty of material for Baker in this book. Some library managers advance themselves by justifying miserly budgets with myths and misrepresentations rather than by defending the interests of readers. They have made shills and patsies of the well-intentioned majority of librarians, faculty, and policy makers. In higher education, to use pop jargon, they are the "weakest link." They deserve to be sent away. Some readers have been upset that Baker is critical of the library community. They should be upset. However, the criticism is clearly directed at certain programs that have been used to justify the decimation of collections. If these readers looked beyond DOUBLE FOLD (for instance the 30-year decline in the development of collections or the impossible red-tape of "access not ownership"), I believe they would find much more to be upset about. Albert Henderson
Rating:
Summary: Hilarious and ridiculous
Review: I actually work for one of the companies that Baker claims are destroying our paper heritage, and so I have some skin in this game. While he consistently ignores the issue of access to content, which digitization unquestionably improves (I'd love to be able to travel to anywhere in the world, to visit whatever library I needed to; if I can't, getting something online is my only viable option.) On the other hand, he does poke some reasonable holes in the library world. Read this (with a couple of grains of salt) if you're into historical or geneological research.
Rating: 
Summary: Half right
Review: I actually work for one of the companies that Baker claims are destroying our paper heritage, and so I have some skin in this game. While he consistently ignores the issue of access to content, which digitization unquestionably improves (I'd love to be able to travel to anywhere in the world, to visit whatever library I needed to; if I can't, getting something online is my only viable option.) On the other hand, he does poke some reasonable holes in the library world. Read this (with a couple of grains of salt) if you're into historical or geneological research.
Rating: 
Summary: We need a new purpose institution - archivist libraries
Review: I am absolutely flabbergasted that the institutions we have entrusted to preserve our documents and history have bought into such nonsense as preservation through destruction. Having copies on microfilm for general circulation is fine for certain purposes, but these inferior copies can NEVER take the place of the original. And the notion that the technological (profit making) substitues are free from the kind of deterioration paper is subject to is a lie. Just think of the machines you need to READ the material. A book found from five hundred years ago is readable. Microfilm machines will be around five hundred years from now? Laughable! We need a new institution with the purpose of archiving. Whether we need to make that private or not, I am unsure. But we need it done! This destruction must stop!
Rating:
Summary: One of the most saddening, enraging books I've read recently
Review: I don't even know where my library card is. I sincerely doubt I'd ever have much personal use for the books and newspapers Baker is so concerned about. But reading this book, I felt a terrific sense of loss for the materials that are no longer a able to be part of our culture. I also felt tremendous anger towards many librarians - a profession I have always respected greatly ever since I volunteered in my high school library - not the ones who seemed genuinely well-meaning and perhaps conflicted, but ones who, like Patricia Battin, seem to have absolutely zero qualm about lying to the public time and time again. (After reading this book, I hope that woman's professional reputation is 100% destroyed by Baker's revelations.) This is far and away one of the most persuasive books I have ever, ever read. It doesn't matter whether one of his British Library sources was dubious--his most important claims are backed up by basic science, by undisputed (but previously hidden from the public) histories, by simple tests he can perform himself, and by the self-evident inadequacy of microfilm (check out the first set of pictures in the book). As the Kirkus review quoted on the back cover of my edition says, "If even half of what Baker alleges is true, some of America's most honored librarians have a lot of explaining to do." Quibbling over details aside, can anyone who has read Baker's book dispute his basic premise? Let's be clear about what that premise is. As I read it, it isn't necessarily that anyone should be able to access the only copy of original newspapers, although Baker would certainly consider access to originals to be ideal. Baker makes a strong case that microfilm can be replaced by less destructive (than microfilm) copying measures such as photocopying, and that bound photocopies can be made available to the public in libraries. I also understood Baker's main point to be that, whatever else may happen, original sources must not be destroyed. Can anyone doubt this? Arguing that babies ought not be allowed to drool on them seems almost irrelevant when, as Baker demonstrates, right now these newspapers are being *throw away* and replaced with a medium that is wholly inadequate in every way, from expense to longevity to picture quality to completeness and reliability to pleasure of viewing. It is hard to envision a scenario WORSE than what Baker convincingly describes as happening all around the country. One person said that money for microfilm is easier to come by than money for storage - and I sure believe it, when all the famous and visible librarians are begging for money for microfilm and not saying a word about money for storage. Where was the failed effort to garner money for warehouses which would support the idea that librarians are only doing what they must when they allow our historical resources to be destroyed forever? Finally: I don't care that Baker's television presence is lacking. Frankly, I think his words speak for themselves (and, incidentally, his and his wife's willingness to use both of their retirement funds saving some of the most incredible papers certainly speaks for his commitment more than almost any words could). I urge everyone to read this book. Regardless of what you decide should happen to precious library materials, I don't think you can doubt that what is being done now is a travesty. Even my non-library-using self must concede that something must be done immediately.
Rating:
Summary: An Important Account of Libraries Gone Awry
Review: I don't wish to impugn the profession, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the previous review was written by a defensive librarian. (And in Washington DC... why, whichever library could that be?) The mistake they - and, as Baker is arguing - and many other librarians are making is to see newspapers and microfilm as a simplistic either/or choice. (Wrecking books to speed the process of microfilming them can rather force that choice...) Baker is hard on the faults of microfilm in this book, yes, but as a corrective to the uncritical acceptance that it has too long enjoyed. Microfilm IS very useful, but it is not a complete substitute for the original. BOTH should be used, or at least retained. Look at most press coverage of this issue, and in Baker's book, and you'll find that the people defending microfilm, and paper culls, are librarians or those in the information industry. NOT scholars or readers. I defy you to find a scholar who has not found themselves thwarted at some point by crummy and unreadable microfilm for which there was no paper backup. And as for acidification: I use old books and periodicals all the time, and sometimes they do crack or shed little chips of paper. But most are still usable, and will remain so for many years - especially those which are rarely used, which is often the case with older material. So why the rush to get rid of them? Does Baker engage in some hyperbole in this book? Yeah, probably. Is he wrong to? I'm not so sure. The destruction he is describing, and the rate at which it is happening, requires a very loud wake-up call. If you're buying this expecting a Baker novel, I guess you will disappointed. But if you love books like his "The Size of Thoughts," or if you are simply someone who truly cares about old books and writing - and yes, I include most librarians in that group - then you really need to read this.
Rating:
Summary: History rescued
Review: I donated my collection of 7,000 newspapers to Nick Baker's American Newspaper Repository. I have watched him carry loads of newspapers into a rented space in an old New Hampshire mill. I have looked at old copies of the New York Times with him. What Nick Baker is doing for our heritage cannot be overstated. He is the only person on earth who was thinking about the collateral damage of cultural evaporation parlayed from the destruction of old books and newspapers. "Double Fold" is brilliant, detailed and gripping. Nick Baker justly deserved the National Book Critics Circle award for General Non-Fiction. Is there any logical reason for the existence of only one copy of the New York World from the early 1900s after ONE MILLION copies a day were printed ? Snobbish librarians must admit their mistakes. They were sold a technological bill of goods and they fell for it. The books and newspapers are not crumbling. Nick showed me a 101-year-old New York World with stories about the McKinley assassination. One story line was "Advances in Surgery since Garfield was shot" It was as clear and readable as the day it was printed...
| 
