Subject/Object

Why is it that so often in my courses we completely ignore the history of library literature when learning about the issues which are so important to both professional practice and theoretical discussions of libraries?

I ask this questions as I read a great book by Patrick Wilson, Second-Hand Knowledge: An Inquiry Into Cognitive Authority (1983). It examines in detail the process by which we come to recognized others’ ideas as correct ones. It follows another really great little book by Wilson called Two kinds of power: An Essay on Bibliographical Control (1968) which has a really great section on how it is that we decide on the subject of a work. Both of these are highly relevant, and both of them I discovered for myself.

Or the theoretical works of Henry Evelyn Bliss, particularly The Organization of Knowledge and the System of the Sciences (1929). Difficult, yes. Dense, yes. Interesting, thought-provoking, yes. Another great book–this one was suggested for a class, but by a teacher which explicitly goes against the current–is Living with books: The Art of Book Selection (2nd ed. 1950) by Helen Haines. What a wonderful book of bibliographic love! Is basically a manual on how to look at books, how to evaluate them, how to weigh other’s evaluations of them.

So I question why things like there are ignored. I am sure there are more of them, but I don’t know them all. Why are important abstract works of this nature ignored? I am sure that the concrete nature of the profession has changed, but are we not qualified to evaluate the foundations of that work? Are they no longer applicable to today’s world? I would argue no.

To tell you the secret, it is my plan to glean ideas from these old works to inform my future writing. Not only will I seem well read (because I will cite them), but in reality all of these new ideas people pass around have foundations in older works.

This semester I gave myself a challenge: I was going to do all of my reading for this research project I am doing on my computer. No printing whatsoever. I was going to take notes right on the computer, and I even got a great piece of Mac software called Skim which has wonderful markup functions (I recommend it despite my failure at using it).

However, I can’t do it anymore. I feel lost. I have all of these readings which I can’t keep track of. I read half way though one reading, find an interesting reference, and because I am already on the computer I do a quick Google Scholar search for the paper, leaving me all turned around from where I was. I am trying to take notes, but it just isn’t as convenient to me as having the articles right there to consult.

Plus, I have to start writing tomorrow, and I am already anxious about the prospects. Flipping back and forth between the reader and my LaTeX processor seems like a nightmare. If you don’t know how I work (maybe I’ll take a picture next time), let’s say it looks like an printing press exploded. I like to make piles of materials on the floor, with each pile standing for a different part of my argument, so I know exactly where to turn to. When I am done with a paper I place it in a final pile so it doesn’t get in the way again: this way I know I have cited everything I wanted to.

The thing is, I am a digital native. I have this blog, a Flickr account and I use Facebook. I have been chatting and writing online since I was 13 or so. However, I think that the process of reading and writing for the university is so tied up with the medium of print that, for me at least, I have to work in a print world to be continually successful at it.

So, I figure I can just suck it up, buy an extra stack of paper, and print them when I get home. Actually, the prospect is exciting me. Perhaps I can reward myself with a filing cabinet, now that I am writing things that actually interest me and that I will want to keep.