Double Fold: Libraries and the Assault on Paper

This book struck home with me but first, I must confess, I came to this book as a convert of sorts. I have always loved reading old magazines, newspapers and other pieces of our cultural history - and part of that pleasure comes from reading more than just the articles. The advertisements and other "incidental" material is a key part of understanding the total history and feel of a period in history - to my mind. That's why Baker's book, focusing on the destruction of magazines and newspapers (which are partially saved on microfilm) in the name of "progess" was so painful (but enlightening) to read. The thought of all those magazines, all those newspapers, being torn apart and only partially saved , seemed like a great loss to me. This book deserves to be read and discussed - but more importantly, more people need to become involved in trying to save the actual existing newspapers and magazines - in their original forms - before they are lost forever.

When I think about writers, Nicholson Baker is one who is difficult for me to categorize. I enjoy his novels quite a lot (such as Vox and Fermata). They are unique and clever which is something I really appreciate; however, I'm not sure I read them because I really like the stories. Instead, I read them because Baker is a writer whose talent jumps out at me from the page. His writing is beautifully constructed and his passion about his ideas and characters is clear in his dynamic style. Whether or not you like his stories or his thoughts is secondary--he makes you feel something when you read him. I love the jolt of energy I get and I love the way my mind churns when I read something of Baker's.I certainly got a jolt of energy from Double Fold. In it, Baker describes the destruction of the physical content of many of our nation's libraries in an effort to conserve space. Volumes of old newspapers and countless "brittle" books have had their contents transferred to microfilm. Supporters of this process claim this is necessary to save the intellectual content of paper products that are literally crumbling away. Baker argues, however, that, in most cases, this imminent loss of old books and newspapers is hype. Paper products such as books and newspapers have a longer life than is usually assumed and the "tests" of their strength (such as the test that gives this book its title) are often arbitrary and poorly designed.Baker also points out the loss of quality that often accompanies the transfer to microfilm. If the effort truly is to save intellectual content, then that effort is often a failure. Many volumes of newsprint that was to be transferred to microfilm never made it and many volumes more are so poorly filmed as to be illegible. Additionally, as the film ages, the quality is reduced even more rapidly than an equivalent aging in the original paper. Many films that were once readable are quickly becoming garbage. With no originals from which to replace the film.Here is where Baker's argument really struck home with me. When these "delicate" paper products are reduced to film, the original books and newspapers are destroyed. Not only are they sliced and diced during filming to make that process easier, the remains are thrown out. I never dreamed that when I sat at my hometown public library and scanned through old issues of the Quincy Herald-Whig and its predecessors on microfilm, that, somewhere, the old, physical, paper issues weren't still around. Maybe Quincy is lucky and someone has saved the old volumes somewhere but it seems unlikely. In my mind, that is a sad loss.I guess this is why this particular book of Baker's moved me more than anything else he's written so far. In this particular passion, I am on Baker's side. I love books and newspapers. Not just their intellectual content but the objects themselves. I live in an apartment surrounded by thousands of books and newspapers, many of which are very old and in

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!

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.

I was afraid this book was going to be rather dry and brittle, being about old paper and all, but I gave it a chance because I like Nicholson Baker's writing so much, and know from experience he can write about anything--and does--and make it fascinating. But I defy you to read this book "just" for Baker's writing, as I did, and not get involved in this subject. I won't go on about it here--just to say that the previous reviewer from Washington D.C. misses the point when he accuses Baker of saying microfilm is a bad thing. That's simply not true--he says it's fine, anything that makes papers more accessible to more readers is fine--just don't destroy the originals! But the way Baker tells this story, from the early days of American newsprint (using cloth made from unwrapped Egyptian mummies!) to the quirky bow-tie wearing librarians in the Library of Congress--it's as unpredictable and intelligently told as his novels. Leave it to N. Baker to write about old newsprint and make it interesting! I really recommend this book--and I was a skeptic!