Double Trouble or More: A Response to Double Fold

Double Fold: Libraries and the Assault on Paper. By Nicholson Baker. New York: Random House, 2001. xii, 370 pp. $25.95. ISBN 0-375-50444-3.

Double Fold created shock waves and controversy in the general public and in the library community when it was published early in 2001. In it Nicholson Baker attacks librarians and preservation administrators for what he sees as a failure to protect a part of the cultural heritage: printed newspapers. He condemns them for selecting microfilming as a preservation method rather than preserving the originals. He expands his criticism to suggest that microfilming brittle books and discarding the originals is unconscionable. He draws a somewhat more positive portrait of library conservators, but his understanding of both professions is limited and flawed. On the surface Baker's criticisms seem fair and logical, but it is regrettable that he chose to work in opposition to rather than in cooperation with those who have the greatest sympathy and understanding of the problems he describes.

Baker is an extensive researcher, as evidenced by the 257 notes and 19 pages of references at the end of the book. One might guess that most of those sources were originally referenced in a library, perhaps with the assistance of a librarian. One might also speculate that without some of the preservation planning of recent years, some of those sources might not have been available to him. Yet Baker chooses to vilify the very profession that has as its mission to make information, in all its many forms, freely available to all for as long as it is needed.

In his preface Baker admits that Double Fold does not represent "an impartial piece of reporting" (x). This is certainly true, as he cites facts selectively and conveniently to prove his point. He states that an original set of Pulitzer's World is now more rare than either a Shakespeare First Folio or the Gutenberg Bible (4) but neglects to mention that neither one of these is exceedingly rare; there are 133 extant copies of the First Folio in the United States alone and 48 of the Gutenberg worldwide. ¹ He describes the paper and ink of early editions of newspapers as being in pristine condition but neglects to mention that most of the paper used for those editions was relatively good quality. In fact, from 1927 until 1953 the New York Times printed a separate edition for libraries on rag paper. ² He does not distinguish between paper made from chemical wood pulp, which can be good quality, and that from mechanical groundwood, which will degrade and become brittle quickly. He quite correctly states that paper does not fall apart just because it becomes brittle and that very brittle paper can be "page-turned and read with a modicum of care" (7) but ignores the fact that in a research library material is often handled aggressively. He correctly states that "there are five-hundred-year-old book papers that remain strong and flexible despite pH levels under five" (7) but fails to describe critical elements such as the fiber source and length. ³ He describes the varying image quality of microfilm and says it is "all on high-contrast black-and-white stock, which wasn't designed to reproduce the intermediate shades of photographs" (9) but ignores the fact that the quality of microfilmed images has vastly improved since its inception. These are only some of the contradictions and omissions in the preface and first short chapter of the book.

It would be easy, if time-consuming and tedious, to poke holes in the remaining arguments presented in Double Fold, but it is more constructive to try to present a more balanced account of the issues involved. Baker builds a self-aggrandizing vision of his role within the library community. Sadly, his earlier successful novels, such as The Mezzanine and Vox, and his many articles in the New Yorker have gained...