Here's the request for help.
You knew one was coming, right?
Jim McFadden
PTc
_______________________________________________________________________________
To: Multiple recipients of list SHARP-L
From: SHARP-L Society for the History of Authorship,
Reading & Publishing on Mon, Sep 27, 1993 9:26 AM
Subject: READING EXPERIENCE DATABASE (RED)
AS WE WISH TO CONSULT AS MANY POTENTIAL USERS OF *RED* AS WE CAN, PLEASE
DISTRIBUTE THIS MESSAGE FAR AND WIDE IN PRINT AND ELECTRONICALLY. THANKS.
*******************************************************************************
***The Reading Experience Database (RED)***
******************************************************************************
*Introduction*
Behind a significant number of the questions posed by book history lies the
problem of `who read what, and how?'. It is not a question that can be
satisfactorily answered by setting a couple of PhD students to study `reading
experience' because, of course, the evidence is patchy, obscure and uncertain,
and its discovery often a matter of serendipity. Commonly the most interesting
evidence we have for reading experience tends to be a by-product of other
research: one stumbles over an extensively glossed book, a diary entry reveals
a day devoted to specific reading with comments attached, a public librarian
reports a literary conversation with a borrower, and so on. On their own they
are nothing more than picturesque anecdotes, listed together they seem too
disparate to mean much. Quite often these interesting anecdotes get recorded on
6x4 inch cards and then forgotten.
There is a danger that this evidence might remain permanently fragmented and
useless unless something is done to record and co-ordinate it. In an editorial
in the *BTHG Newsletter* a couple of years ago it was proposed that we should
construct a database that could store this information, should then spread the
word far and wide that we were collecting reading experience data and invite
individuals and institutions to contribute evidence. The results would then be
made available via both an on-line retrieval system and CD-ROM. This would not
be a short-term project. However, within five to ten years the quantity of
material collected, and the fact that it could be searched in a multitude of
ways, would make the *Reading Experience Database* (RED) a major resource for
the history of reading, the history of the book and, indeed, the history of
culture and communications generally.
A small steering group was assembled earlier this year to explore the
feasibility and the academic value of such a project. The group comprises Mike
Crump (British Library), Simon Eliot (Open University), Elizabeth Leedham-Green
(Cambridge University), James Raven (Cambridge University), Jonathan Rose (Drew
University), Alexis Weedon (Luton University); Simon Eliot and Mike Crump act
as joint chair. The group has decided that, whatever the difficulties, the
value of such a database would be so great that at least a pilot project should
be attempted. For the purposes of this pilot chronological and geographical
boundaries should be set. The project should collect evidence of reading
experience between 1450-1914 within the British Isles and among those either
born or normally resident in the British Isles between those dates. Within
those parameters all languages and all nationalities will be covered. The fact
that someone owned or borrowed a text would not itself be regarded as adequate
proof that he or she had read it (there are many reasons for possessing a book
that have nothing to do with reading it). Evidence of the individual having at
least scanned part of the text would be required.
Having established the limits the next task was to devise a record format which
would include as many useful fields as possible without becoming unmanageably
difficult to fill in. Given that few pieces of evidence would be comprehensive
enough to satisfy this full record, we also felt it necessary to define the
minimum record that would be acceptable. The format, size and content of both
the full and minimum records are still being discussed within the group. What
follows is simply an early draft. The group felt very strongly that it did not
wish to finalize either the full or minimum records, or any of the fields
within them, until the widest possible discussion between interested parties
had taken place. There are two main reasons for inviting such a wide debate:
one, we want to involve as many people as possible in the collection of
evidence, and this will only work if people feel that they have been fully
consulted; two, it is no intention of the current group to go much beyond the
geographical limits set. Given that other groups will at some time, presumably,
wish to run similar projects for North America, Europe, Australasia, etc. it is
important that we get international agreement on the proper format of records
so that all such projects use a common format. Significant differences in the
way that national projects record reading experience could have disastrous
consequences on the development of the history of reading as an international
subject. We intend to publish the following draft record formats as widely as
possible, and welcome comment and feedback.
**************************
If you have any comments or suggestions, or if you wish to become a
contributor to the project, please contact either
Dr Simon Eliot, Open University, 4 Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1 6ND, UK.
Email: [log in to unmask]
or
Mr Mike Crump, Centre for the Book, The British Library, Great Russell
Street,
London WC1B 3DG, UK.
Email: BM.ESB%RLG.EARN@NSFNET-RELAY
**************************
NOTE: In any given field words within square brackets indicate that these are
the fixed range of classifying terms that we propose to offer in that field.
Fields followed by words within round brackets indicate that these fields
will allow any descriptive word to be used, and that those given are merely
indicative.
**************************
*Proposed Record Fields for Full Record*
1.0 RECORD NUMBER
1.1 Number:
2.0 THE READER
2.1 Reader Name:
2.2 Reader Age:
2.3 Gender:
2.4 Socio-Economic Class: [royal/aristocracy/gentry OR
professional/academic/merchant OR
clerk/tradesman/artisan OR
labourer (agricultural) OR
labourer (non-agricultural)]
2.5 Occupation: (e.g. prince, curate, servant, farmhand, etc.)
2.6 Place of Origin:
2.7 Country of Experience:
2.8 Date of Experience: (e.g. 4 February 1723, February 1723, 1723,
1720s,
1700-1750, 1700s)
2.9 Time of Experience: (e.g. 11.30 am, morning, daytime, etc.)
2.10 Place of Experience: (e.g. drawing room, study, church, open air,
etc.)
2.11 Type of Experience:
2.11.1 [silent OR aloud]
2.11.2 [solitary OR in company]
2.11.3 [listening OR reading]
2.11.4 [passive OR reactive]
2.11.5 [single event OR serial event]
2.12 Listeners: (e.g. family, friends, servants, etc.)
3.0 THE TEXT
3.1 Author Name:
3.2 Author Date:
3.3 Title:
3.4 Form of Text (MS): [roll, codex, pamphlet, letter, sheet]
3.5 Form of Text (Print):[book, pamphlet, serial, periodical,
broadsheet, poster, handbill,
advertisement, form, ticket]
3.5.1 Place of Publication:
3.5.2 Date of Publication:
3.6 Language: (e.g. English, Latin, French, etc.)
3.7 Genre: [Bible, sermon, other religious, fiction, poetry,
drama, children's, history, biography, social
science,
politics, philosophy, education,
text books/self-educators, arts/crafts, law,
medicine,
technology, science, reference/general works,
classics]
3.8 Part of text read: (e.g. whole text, section, chapter, page,
verse,
etc.)
3.9 Provenance: [owned, borrowed (private library), borrowed
(institution library), borrowed (circulating
library),
borrowed (public library), borrowed (other), found,
stolen, read in situ]
4.0 THE EVIDENCE
4.1 Textual Evidence: [this field would contain the text which constituted
the
evidence]
4.2 Printed Source: OR 4.3 Manuscript Source:
4.2.1 Author: 4.3.1 Location:
4.2.2 Place of Publication: 4.3.2 Call number:
4.2.3 Date of Publication: 4.3.3 Page/folio number:
4.6 Supplied by:
4.7 Date supplied:
5.0 GENERAL NOTES
5.1 Note Field:
*Suggested Minimum Record*
1.0 RECORD NUMBER
1.1 Number:
2.0 THE READER
2.4 Socio-Economic Class: OR 2.5 Occupation:
2.8 Date of Experience:
3.0 THE TEXT
3.1 Author: OR 3.3 Title: OR 3.4 Type: OR 3.9 Genre:
4.0 THE EVIDENCE
4.1 Textual Proof: [this field would contain the text which constituted the
evidence]
4.2 Printed Source: OR 4.3 Manuscript Source:
4.2.1 Author: 4.3.1 Location:
4.2.3 Date of Publication: 4.3.2 Call number:
4.3.3 Page/folio number:
4.6 Supplied by:
4.7 Date supplied:
5.0 GENERAL NOTES
5.1 Note Field:
|
