Kim and List, Kim makes an excellent point when she writes that "The bottom line is that the service we provide is used by so few people when compared to those other professions, like doctors, lawyers, and (gasp) librarians. Since our customer base is so small, we have a larger responsibility of convincing the masses who will never darken our doors that it is a good idea to keep paying us." That is to me a far more troublesome question than the archives v. library debate which pops up here from time to time. Remember the debate we had several months ago on the List about reading history? I then mentioned the fact that a growing number of people are aliterate: they know how to read but choose not to, once their formal education is complete. The percentage of people who read nonfiction for pleasure probably is quite small. Think of how tiny is the percentage of people who read history books or biographies, for which archives serve as sources of documentation. How many of them stop to think about the archival sources and what goes into acquiring and releasing such records? Not many. And it isn't just the general public. I used to post about archival issues on the History News Network but gave up; although many of them are situated in academe, the bloggers there just didn't seem interested in that stuff. Back to the general public then. Think of all of the people in the U.S. who manage to live their lives perfectly well without ever wondering about the stuff that interests a history buff and reader of biographies, such as I. Think of what a good biography or history book might cover: the quality of the interior life led by a writer; how a composer wrote and sought to market his works; how a government official made his decisions; the intricacies of diplomacy and foreign relations; what life was like in earlier times, even in the near past (I've been reading a lot recently about what is referred to as the "civil rights era" in the U.S.); how a philosopher or theologian formed his core beliefs; how a scientist did his work; how an actor's public persona differed from or mirrored his on-screen image. (I mostly read political and social history but I also dip into the enterteainment world - I recently read two excellent biographies of Lucille Ball and of Bob Hope. Showing my age here in being interested in those old stars, I know -- ahem.) These all are matters that can be traced in part through archival sources. Some books provide entertainment; others are critical to understanding how our country, our culture, or our values have developed. But few members of the public think about what it takes to write such books, even if they have hobbies such as genealogy or history. Kim is spot on with her observation that the work that archivists do largely is unknown to the public. And, of course, the small demand for archival services, in relative terms, affects the salary picture. Maarja ________________________________________________________________________ Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free. A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List sponsored by the Society of American Archivists, www.archivists.org. For the terms of participation, please refer to http://www.archivists.org/listservs/arch_listserv_terms.asp. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to [log in to unmask] In body of message: SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname *or*: UNSUB ARCHIVES To post a message, send e-mail to [log in to unmask] Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html Problems? Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>