Vandals in the Stacks?: A Response to Nicholson Baker's Assault on Libraries (review)

Richard Cox was stimulated to write this book by the response of the general public and the library and information science profession to Nicholson Baker's writings about libraries in general and his book, Double Fold (Random House, 2001) in particular. Baker professed shock when he discovered that libraries in this country and abroad were discarding original newspapers. He expressed alarm that scholars would not have the sources they need, that is, the artifact itself. Baker sought—but did not find—conspiracies among the major research libraries and institutions; in his view, only a conspiracy, or perhaps ineptness, could support a program of the reformatting of newspapers, particularly through microfilming, as a means of preserving content. Baker used his skills as a novelist to bring what had been a professional debate into the public arena.

While Cox's response is personal, he builds his arguments upon his solid knowledge and authority as a library educator (professor in the University of Pittsburgh's archival studies program), practicing archivist, former editor of the American Archivist (1991-95), and widely published author of books and journal articles in archives management and archives in the digital age. Cox contrasts his informed perspective with Baker's naïve one and goes beyond attacking Baker's points, acknowledging that the issues are important to society at large. While the profession has long debated the questions of what materials should be preserved in their original form, what materials should be preserved by reformatting to protect the content, and what methods are appropriate to use in reformatting, these were professional debates which rarely were reported in the general press. Cox admits that in popularizing the issues, Baker has inspired public debate and consideration, and thus, provided a service to society and to the institutions responsible for the selection, acquisition, organization and cataloging, provision of access, and preservation of all kinds of information.

Baker is not the only one concerned about the original artifact, and Cox is the first to admit that. Both authors acknowledge important scholarly writing on the subject, referring particularly to the work of G. Thomas Tanselle, whose Literature and Artifacts (Bibliographical Society of the University of Virginia, 1998), includes some of his seminal writing on the subject. And Cox cites the perspectives of some of the scholars who reviewed Baker's Double Fold. Unlike Baker's polemic, however, which dismisses the work of libraries and librarians, Cox informs the reader of the complexities of the issues involved, the difficulties libraries have in meeting all the responsibilities assigned to them, andthe extraordinary funding demands in terms of collections, staff, facilities, and technology. Cox wants very much to inform the general public that the issues are difficult and the solutions often are ones of compromise. He takes each of Baker's points and presents counter arguments. That format gets somewhat tedious and at times one just wants to read Cox, not just Cox on Baker, for Cox is very good.

Vandals in the Stacks—the title is taken from a New York Times review of Double Fold—offers the reader a reasoned and balanced account of the issues raised by Baker. Assuming the general public is interested in a reasoned account, Cox will be successful in his objective of bringing to the wider public audience his concerns about the future of the archival record. Regardless of the public interest, however, he has given professionals concerned with the issues of the preservation of society's record a solid base from which to continue the discussions.