CCBC-Net Archives
[CCBC-Net] Archives
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Fern Kory <fkory>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:52:44 -0500
I am, coincidentally, doing research at HarperCollins right now (at least I was until 5:00 p.m.) and while I was there I had a brief conversation with the librarian in charge of the archives. She said several interesting and relevant things. One is that the archives are only about 10% of her job as corporate librarian. Another is that they have literally thousands of boxes of stuff (could she have said 13,000?) stored off-site, many of these boxes described in an electronic list only in the most general terms ("Authors J"). And, finally, they are not archiving e-mails, though lots of things (contracts, for example) are now being stored electronically. This is all from an informal, conversation, not an interview, and I didn't take notes (and am not good at remembering numbers), so the details here are useful only for purposes of this discussion. But it might be worth coming back to one point. She mentioned that some of the older stuff went to Columbia at one point and that it might be best if more of these documents could be deposited in appropriate research collections, where they could be tended by staff dedicated to sharing this wealth. Off the top of my head, I suggested that scholars (or scholar librarians) might be willing to provide some of the labor necessary to identify and place sub-sets of this collection.
Ruth I. Gordon wrote:
> About archives: Some time ago I asked Sharon MacQueen about the
> status and condition of archives. She told some horror stories to
> which I can relate
> because of my own research. I also know that several major publishers
> rid themselves of their archives--lack of space, they claimed--and no
> archivist.
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:52:44 -0500
I am, coincidentally, doing research at HarperCollins right now (at least I was until 5:00 p.m.) and while I was there I had a brief conversation with the librarian in charge of the archives. She said several interesting and relevant things. One is that the archives are only about 10% of her job as corporate librarian. Another is that they have literally thousands of boxes of stuff (could she have said 13,000?) stored off-site, many of these boxes described in an electronic list only in the most general terms ("Authors J"). And, finally, they are not archiving e-mails, though lots of things (contracts, for example) are now being stored electronically. This is all from an informal, conversation, not an interview, and I didn't take notes (and am not good at remembering numbers), so the details here are useful only for purposes of this discussion. But it might be worth coming back to one point. She mentioned that some of the older stuff went to Columbia at one point and that it might be best if more of these documents could be deposited in appropriate research collections, where they could be tended by staff dedicated to sharing this wealth. Off the top of my head, I suggested that scholars (or scholar librarians) might be willing to provide some of the labor necessary to identify and place sub-sets of this collection.
Ruth I. Gordon wrote:
> About archives: Some time ago I asked Sharon MacQueen about the
> status and condition of archives. She told some horror stories to
> which I can relate
> because of my own research. I also know that several major publishers
> rid themselves of their archives--lack of space, they claimed--and no
> archivist.
-- Fern Kory Professor of English Eastern Illinois UniversityReceived on Tue 22 Jul 2008 06:52:44 PM CDT
