I had to read this book for the orientation session of my library science program, so my thoughts about it are kind of confused with what the "official" message was. Here goes, though. Nicholson Baker is a novelist and essayist who cares about books. In the course of researching an article, he discovers some troubling information on how and why libraries sometimes discard their books. Double Fold is his "expose" of the library profession, which has been destroying (in his opinion perfectly sound and usable) original copies of old newspapers and books in order to preserve them on sometimes faulty new technology such as microfilm. His conclusion, through his investigative journalism, is that there was a cabal of futurist, gadget-oriented, cold war era librarians that invented the idea of paper "turning to dust" over time in order to push their pet preservation projects and procure additional funding and shelf space for their libraries.

Ok. So. This book was assigned because it was highly controversial. The opinion among actual archivists seems to mainly be that Baker has radically misrepresented the motives of the field, doesn't understand certain basic premises of the way libraries and archives actually work, and generally could have been nicer about it, while still having a few good points. I more or less agree with that: there's no need to introduce a conspiracy theory into the mix, and Baker really doesn't consider the problems of archival appraisal (basically, we can't save everything - we could never store it or make use of it - so we have to choose what to keep and what to toss). He may very well have stirred up a lot of ill will towards a profession that works for the common good of our societal memory in a largely thankless capacity.

On the other hand, I am much more sympathetic to many of his arguments than my professors seemed to want me to be. I would like to see a good empirical study of how long paper actually lasts, and find it somewhat troubling that there really isn't one out there currently (that I know of). Also, microfilm is pretty bad. If you're losing such significant amounts of information with your new technology - well, maybe don't jump into it so far. I'm interested in how the debate applies to digitization - I'll be interested to learn what the stumbling blocks of that will be, and I hope the field will be suitably cautious about it.

So, overall, it was an interesting book. It took a long time to read because I kept having to stop to think through how and why I agreed or disagreed with it. It's a very provocative book. Read it if you're interested in archives and the controversy over original sources, but it should probably be read with an accompanying rebuttal (any online review by someone with a PhD in Library Science will probably do), and taken with a grain of salt. If you took out the accusatory tone the book would have some good points, then again, it wouldn't be a very interesting book without its tone. 4 stars for thought-provoking-ness? ( )

I gave up on this book. It is due back to the library in a couple of days. Even though it was highly recommended by my professors, I just couldn't get into it. Lots of people say how great this book is. However, I can't stop thinking that he doesn't even work in a library! He doesn't go into enough depth explaining things that NEED to be highlighted about preservation. He gives strange examples of things. ( )

Nicholson Baker feels strongly about the importance of libraries as depositories of information. They are to hold for us now and future generations of information-seekers the original, physical texts of newspapers and books regardless of their current or past popularity. What may not be popular today may be tomorrow and if the original is gone, we may be left with an unreadable copy in the form of illegible or deteriorated Microfilm or even an obsolete digital form. Double Fold is a critical and opinionated look on what has been happening and continues today to the vast collection of newspapers and books in libraries. During the 1980s and early 1990s, the movement to preserve books and periodicals for the future led to the destruction of the original copies in order to film them on Microfilm. Regardless of whether the preservation is done because of the deterioration of the texts or to make space in libraries, Baker laments why we cannot have both the original and a copy and presents what we lose in those copies.

While Baker’s efforts to preserve (maybe more appropriate “conserve”) the many newspaper runs at his American Newspaper Repository is laudable, it is also leads to more questions for information professionals as examined by the Society of American Archivists in their response to his book. Richard Cox in “Don’t Fold Up” points out the impossibility of archivists to save everything (or even the copy). The fact is that “libraries and archives have many other competing priorities with limited resources.".

Although Double Fold was written before much of the mass digitization and born digital going on today, I have to believe Baker is still criticizing much of the work being done in libraries and archives. What Baker fears if we lose so many original texts is the opportunity to know or find history for ourselves. ( )

Baker makes some really strong arguments regarding the preservation of original artifacts and the sometimes misguided and wasteful policies by certain leading librarians, but his petty indignant tone and personal attacks on the subjects of his scorn tend to undermine his major points. Of course you might add that someone like Baker who was trying to draw attention to his arguments may have added his incendiary comments on purpose in order to forward his agenda. In the end, Baker demonstrates that he is wiling to put his money where his mouth is and his passion for books and newspapers seems very genuine. ( )

Can it really be this bad? Have to see how all the librarians weigh in but, not to worry, Baker is a novelist so this isn't dry in the least. A real page-turner.

Re the few reviews I looked at here: I don't think Baker is arguing for the preservation of everything. At least, that isn't the conviction I came away with. But, jeez, a full run of the New York Herald Tribune or the New York Times? Shouldn't several full runs be stored lovingly in several, half a dozen, libraries? Surely, Northwestern would be happy to take all the Chicago papers? Boston U the Boston papers and so on?

Was one woman in the US really so influential in the microfilm transition? What has been the impetus in other countries? All especially surprising because is there anyone that doesn't hate microfilm?

I'm wondering what's happening to the newspaper archives in less developed countries. Maybe this warning has stopped them in their tracks. In Southeast Asia, academics, govt officials et al depend on Cornell above all to have the best collection of originals. Has it microfilmed or digitized all this stuff? ( )