Letters to the Editor, September 1986

Title Inflation or Scholarship Deflation

Dear Editor:

I was both pleased and saddened by Brian A. Libby’s letter (Perspectives, February 1986).

I was pleased because Mr. Libby is right about scholarly book titles, which are often too long, pretentious, and obscure, or just plain absurd. I would only make two other points about title inflation: publishers, rather than authors, often select titles for marketing purposes; when they do choose their own titles, authors generally want to express the interpretive themes that their books argue. I agree, however, that in the process elegance and common sense are generally sacrificed.

I was saddened by Mr. Libby’s angry as­sault on scholarship (and that, clearly, is what his letter is all about). I know that there are those who, because of bitter personal experi­ence, would applaud his soul-wrenching plea on behalf of “unfortunate authors” who “frit­ter away,” “waste,” and “squander” their lives “to no real purpose.” But I suspect that a few of the authors whose titles he cited found his sweeping remarks just a bit too arrogant to take seriously. Nor should his pathos for those who made wrong career decisions ob­scure the fact that the research versus teach­ing debate is at best self-serving and at worst deeply damaging to those who engage in it­ as well as to their students. Most of us know university professors who proudly proclaim that their devotion to teaching  is untainted by scholarship. What those on both sides of the “debate” between teaching and scholar­ship fail to understand is that there should be no debate at all. Yet, sadly, it will go on.

Sincerely,

Philip V. Cannistraro
Drexel University

Yes to Preservation

Dear Editor:

Of the many magazines and newsletters that I see, Perspectives continues to be, by far, the most useful and thought-provoking.

Margaret Child’s article on the preserva­tion of library materials is one of the most important pieces to appear in Perspectives recently. Her faith in microforms seems to me to be well warranted.

Her article makes me wonder whether university and college libraries are making a mistake in investing money in library an­nexes. Would it be better to put the money spent on building such annexes into preser­vation activities? It seems to me that annexes are constructed (unintentionally) to store ma­terials that are very vulnerable to damage and that will eventually have to be micro­filmed anyway. Why not do more microfilm­ing and skip the annex step? This is some­ thing that needs to be thought about.

Sincerely,

Benjamin R. Beede
Rutgers University Libraries