Double Fold

by Nicholson Baker

  11. DuPuis wrote memos: Richard Kluger writes that “Philip Morris’s research director, Robert DuPuis, sent a memo dated July 20, 1956, from Richmond to the company’s top officers in New York reporting in ventilated cigarettes ‘a proved decrease in carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide plus an increase in oxygen content of the smoke’; the former, he explained, was ‘related to decreased harm to the circulatory system as a result of smoking,’ while the latter meant there would be less chance of depriving cells of oxygen ‘and of starting a possible chain of events leading to the formation of a cancer cell.’ ” Richard Kluger, Ashes to Ashes: America’s Hundred-Year Cigarette War, the Public Health, and the Unabashed Triumph of Philip Morris (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1996), p. 184. See also Council on Library Resources, Twelfth Annual Report (1968), p. 29.

  12. “If we do find any”: Gene Borio, Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue Draft: Corporate Activity Project: Part 1, undated, www.tobacco.org/Documents/jonesday1.htm, p. 101. DuPuis appeared on the second of two See It Now programs on “Cigarettes and Lung Cancer,” CBS TV, June 7, 1955.

  13. Vacudyne: See Gwinn, “CLR and Preservation,” and Gene Borio, “Secret Tobacco Document Quotes,” www.tobacco.org; Kluger, Ashes to Ashes, discusses tobacco ammoniation.

  14. Litton Bionetics: Gwinn, “CLR and Preservation.” Litton also performed the DEZ tests on guinea pigs: the report is entitled Guinea Pig Dermal Sensitization Study DEZ (Diethyl Zinc) Treated Paper and Untreated Paper, Final Report (Rockville, Md.: Litton Bionetics), 1984.

  15. caused headaches and nausea: U.S. Congress, Book Preservation Technologies, p. 27.

  16. “comparatively expensive”: Clapp, Future of the Research Library, p. 28.

  17. “sensible solution”: Clapp, Future of the Research Library, p. 29.

  18. “storage, binding, and other maintenance costs”: Clapp, Future of the Research Library, p. 28.

  19. “already the standard method”: Clapp, Future of the Research Library, p. 28.

  20. long, multi-part essay: Clapp, “Story of Permanent/Durable Book Paper,” Scholarly Publishing, January, April, and July 1971.

  21. known and advised since 1948: Crowe, “Verner W. Clapp as Opinion Leader,” p. 47.

  22. “an essentially solitary worker”: Clapp, “The Story of Permanent/Durable Book Paper” (July 1971), p. 362.

  23. a formula developed by the S. D. Warren: S. D. Warren had a recipe that employed “lime mud,” an alkaline substance; the paper performed better in accelerated-aging tests. See Richard D. Smith, “Deacidification Technologies: State of the Art,” in Luner, Paper Preservation.

  24. “treated his sources crudely”: Thomas Conroy, “Methodology of Testing for Permanence of Paper—Progress Notes no. 2—Tentative Outline,” quoted in Roggia, “William James Barrow,” p. 7.

  25. “aggressive promoter”: Roggia, “William James Barrow,” p. 177.

  26. “widely, if incorrectly, credited”: Roggia, “William James Barrow,” p. 176.

  27. “stop holding onto myths”: Roggia, “William James Barrow,” pp. 166–76.

  28. “I have spent many hundreds of hours”: Verner Clapp, letter to Bernard Barrow, August 19, 1968, in Crowe, “Verner W. Clapp as Opinion Leader,” pp. 100–101.

  29. “catastrophic decline”: Clapp, “Story of Permanent/Durable Book Paper” (July 1971), p. 230.

  30. “disastrous condition of paper”: Clapp, “Story of Permanent/Durable Book Paper” (July 1971), p. 231.

  31. “The Road to Avernus”: Clapp, “Story of Permanent/Durable Book Paper” (January 1971), p. 114. The phrase alludes to Virgil’s Aeneid 6:126. The Avernian Lake, near Vesuvius, whose sulphurous vapors supposedly killed any bird that flew over it, was an entrance to hell.

  32. “librarian/archivist’s worst enemy”: Clapp, “Story of Permanent/Durable Book Paper” (January 1971), p. 115.

  CHAPTER 16 – It’s Not Working Out

  * * *

  1. “knew more about old papers”: Clapp, “Story of Permanent/Durable Book Paper” (July 1971), p. 356.

  2. He quit college: Sally Cruz Roggia, “William James Barrow,” in Dictionary of Virginia Biography (Richmond: Library of Virginia, 1998).

  3. “The Barrow laminating process”: Clapp, “Story of Permanent/Durable Book Paper” (January 1971), p. 112.

  4. same substance that microfilm: Barrow published an early description of his method, entitled “The Barrow Method of Laminating Documents,” in the Journal of Documentary Reproduction 2:2 (June 1939), which in the thirties and forties was a center of microfilm theory. An experienced operator could laminate between 75 and 125 documents per hour, wrote Barrow.

  5. Protectoid: James L. Gear, “Lamination after 30 Years: Record and Prospect,” American Archivist 28:2 (April 1965).

  7. The reason that Barrow knew: See Smith, “Deacidification Technologies.”

  8. New York Public Library: Five rare playbills from the NYPL’s theater collection were the first to be treated to the Barrow process, in 1956. John Baker, “Preservation Programs of the New York Public Library.”

  9. the Library of Congress: Barrow demonstrated his lamination process at the Library of Congress in 1951, at a staff forum called “Techniques for the Preservation of the Collections,” presided over by Verner Clapp and Luther Evans. “The acetate film seals up the document and makes it relatively resistant to acidic gases and other injurious elements in the air,” reported the Library of Congress Information Bulletin. At the same forum, Barrow also previewed his experimental technique of ink-lifting: the “process of transferring print from a deteriorated paper to a good rag paper” by stripping off a layer of ink onto a sheet of acetate and then laminating the acetate to a sheet of rag paper. “Staff Forum,” Library of Congress Information Bulletin 10:42 (October 15, 1951). In an obituary of Barrow published in the Eleventh Annual Report (1967) of the Council on Library Resources, the Library of Congress is said to have “availed itself of this technique for a number of important documents” (p. 46). In addition to a regular-size laminator, the Library of Congress also bought from Barrow a large laminator for maps. [William James Barrow], Procedures and Equipment Used in the Barrow Method of Restoring Manuscripts and Documents (Richmond: W. J. Barrow, 1961), p. 11.

  10. “We have found”: David H. Stam, “The Questions of Preservation,” in Welsh, Research Libraries—Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow, p. 313.

  11. Zentrum für Bucherhaltung: Ann Olszewski, the Preservation Librarian at the Cleveland Public Library, sent a book from her library’s local-history collection to ZFB for restoration. Olszewski’s predecessor had sent the book to Booklab for photocopying, where it was disbound, but Olszewski didn’t throw it away. Post paper-splitting, the repaired book is “nothing short of miraculous,” she says.

  CHAPTER 17 – Double Fold

  * * *

  1. MIT Fold Tester: Barrow used a slightly gentler device that oscillated through ninety degrees. It was built to his own specifications, making independent verification of his results impossible; later he used the MIT machine exclusively; in any case, the nature of the mechanical stress is the same.

  2. “Changes in folding endurance”: D. F. Caulfield and D. E. Gunderson, “Paper Testing and Strength Characteristics,” in Luner, Paper Preservation. “It has long been known,” writes Robert Feller, “that folding endurance decreases markedly in the early stages of thermal aging of paper, whereas tensile strength does not.” Robert L. Feller, Accelerated Aging (Marina del Rey, Calif.: Getty Conservation Institute, 1994).

  3. B. L. Browning: B. L. Browning, “The Nature of Paper,” in Deterioration and Preservation of Library Materials, ed. Howard W. Winger and Richard D. Smith (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970). Caulfield and Gunderson similarly note that the results of fold-endurance tests “vary widely even on presumably identical samples.” See also Gerhard Banik and Werner K. Sobotka, “Deacidification and Strengthening of Bound Newspapers Through Aqueous Immersion,” in Luner, Paper Preservation: “
Although the folding endurance is a sensitive test procedure, it only leads to reasonable results when applied to new and strong paper samples.”

  4. “While folding endurance”: Hendriks, “Permanence of Paper,” p. 133, n. 2.

  5. “None of the commonly used paper tests”: Hendriks, “Permanence of Paper,” p. 133.

  6. “simulates the bending of a leaf”: Barrow Research Laboratory, Test Data of Naturally Aged Papers (Richmond, Va.: Barrow Research Laboratory, 1964), p. 13.

  7. one of the Barrow Laboratory’s books: Barrow Research Laboratory, Permanence/Durability of the Book.

  8. one of the last big experiments: Barrow Research Laboratory, Permanence/Durability of the Book—V: Strength and Other Characteristics of Book Papers, 1800–1899 (Richmond: Barrow Research Laboratory, 1967).

  9. Clapp’s literary assistance: “Clapp’s editorial aid to Barrow was of the most intensive kind—typically page-on-page of notes suggesting the clarification of meaning, restructuring and reordering of text, deletion of whole sections, and addition of fact and opinion. There is no evidence that Clapp provided such extensive and extended collaboration to any other person at any time.” Crowe, “Verner W. Clapp as Opinion Leader,” pp. 50–51.

  10. including seven books: Frazer G. Poole, “William James Barrow,” in Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science (New York: Dekker, 1969).

  11. “An ‘unusable’ record”: Williams, Preservation of Deteriorating Books, p. 15. Williams is following Barrow, who at one point defined as “unusable” a book having a fold endurance of between one tenth of a fold and one fold. “A leaf in a book of this strength should be turned with much care and is unsuitable for use unless restored.” Barrow Research Laboratory, Test Data of Naturally Aged Papers, p. 41. (Barrow’s fractional folds are scientifically meaningless, by the way.) Elsewhere, Barrow says that papers that fail to survive three folds on an MIT tester are “brittle papers needing restoration.” Barrow Research Laboratory, Permanence/Durability of the Book, p. 10.

  12. whose page “breaks off”: Preservation Department, Indiana University Bloomington Libraries, Preservation Department Manual, www.indiana.edu/~libpres/Manual/prsmanual2.htm, last revised March 16, 2000.

  13. “four corner test”: Mono Acquisitions and Rapid Cataloging (MARC), MARC Procedures: Brittle Books, Northwestern University, www.library.nwu.edu/marc/procedures/brittle.htm, last revised March 10, 1999.

  14. “when a lower corner”: “Brittle Books Replacement Processing,” Memorandum 95-1, Ohio State University Libraries Preservation Office, www.lib.ohio-state.edu/OSU_profile/preweb/memo951.htm, July 1995. Brittle books under this definition “are not able to be rebound or routinely repaired.”

  15. “very gentle tug”: Preservation Department, University of Maryland Libraries, Brittle Materials and Reformatting Unit, www.lib.umd.edu/UMCP/TSD/PRES/checkrelated.htm, last revised July 28, 1999.

  16. “in jeopardy when anyone”: Paul Koda, “The Condition of the University of Maryland Libraries’ Collections,” Technical Services Division, University of Maryland Libraries, www.lib.umd.edu/UMCP/TSD/PRES/surtext.htm, last revised March 5, 1999.

  17. Columbia University: In 1987, Columbia’s method was as follows: “To TEST FOR PAPER STRENGTH fold the lower corner of page 50 back-and-forth three times. (For volumes less than 100 pages long, fold corner of page located about 1/3 of the way from title page.) If the paper withstands folding and a slight tug it is strong and can be sent for commercial treatment. If paper folds 2 or 3 times but then falls off it is borderline brittle and must be sent to the Conservation Lab for treatment. If the paper breaks easily it is brittle and can only be replaced, filmed, photocopied or boxed.” Columbia University Libraries, Preservation Department, The Preservation of Library Materials: A CUL Handbook, 4th ed., March 1987, p. 2.

  18. “A book is considered”: “Definition of Brittleness,” Reprographics Unit, Preservation Department, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, web.uflib.ufl.edu/preserve/repro/brittle/britdef.htm, last revised December 3, 1996.

  19. “planned deterioration”: “Planned Deterioration: Guidelines for Withdrawal,” Reprographics Unit, University of Florida, web.uflib.ufl.edu/preserve/repro/brittle/autowd_pd.htm, 1998.

  20. If and when: George A. Smathers Libraries, Preservation Bulletin 7.6, August 11, 1992, web.uflib.ufl.edu/cm/manual/CMManual7-6.htm, part of A Manual for Collection Managers. This particular Florida document defines an item as brittle if it fails to survive a “double fold test measure less than six.” Though the chapter is dated 1992, the Manual is listed as “Updated 5/17/99.”

  21. “one cannot qualify a book page”: Hendriks, “Permanence of Paper,” p. 133. See also David Erhardt, Charles S. Tumosa, and Marion F. Mecklenburg, “Material Consequences of the Aging of Paper,” in Preprints, ICOM Committee for Conservation, vol. 2, twelfth triennial meeting, Lyon, 1999: “Even quite degraded paper retains most of its elasticity, and it is only ‘abuse’, such as folding over a corner, that results in damage. Careful handling is still safe.”

  CHAPTER 18 – A New Test

  * * *

  Edmund Gosse: A company called Archival Survival microfilmed Questions at Issue in 1991 for New York University’s preservation department.

  I turned the page: Really I should say “I turned the leaf”: bibliographers make a distinction between leaves and pages, there being a page on either side of a leaf. But I’m speaking loosely here.

  not have been creased in vain: Linda White, author of Packaging the American Word, the survey of book bindings at the Library of Congress (since suppressed by the library), tested all the books in her sample for brittleness in the approved Library of Congress manner by folding a corner until it broke. She found that only fifteen books, out of 294 she tested (i.e., the 294 she was able to test out of the 400 she took from the catalog as her sample, some of which were missing or Not on Shelf or destroyed after filming), were classifiable (using Library of Congress definitions) as “Brittle Unusable.” (Some of the other books from her sample that had been reformatted and destroyed would presumably have failed their fold tests, too, however.) White told me that in the first ten or so fold tests that she performed, she made fairly big corners, and then they got gradually smaller. “Toward the end they’re just these tiny little things, because I started feeling so guilty about taking those corners off.” She kept the broken-off folds in a Baggie in her desk.

  Barrow once took a reporter: “The Paper Man,” Richmond News Leader, June 8, 1963; quoted in Gwinn, “CLR and Preservation.”

  CHAPTER 19 – Great Magnitude

  * * *

  Stanford University: Sarah Buchanan and Sandra Coleman, Deterioration Survey of the Stanford University Libraries Green Library Stack Collection, June 1979. “When fold test of 6 folds employed at corner; breaking or tearing occurs when corner tugged gently.” I’m assuming (I hope correctly) that the six folds are single folds, convertible into three double folds.

  “in the judgement of experienced”: Robert R. V. Wiederkehr, The Design and Analysis of a Sample Survey of the Condition of Books in the Library of Congress (Rockville, Md.: King Research, 1984), p. 20. Wiederkehr writes that “if a book has paper so brittle that FOLD is 0 to 1, it should be preserved by microfilming rather than deacidification, and is assigned a value for FOLDC1 of 0.”

  “The Yale Survey”: Gay Walker et al., “The Yale Survey: A Large-Scale Study of Book Deterioration in the Yale University Library,” College and Research Libraries, March 1985.

  “Water leaks occurred”: Gay Walker, “The Evolution of Yale’s Preservation Program,” in Merrill-Oldham and Smith, Library Preservation Program, p. 53.

  “To get a piece of the action”: Peter Sparks, “Marketing for Preservation,” in Merrill-Oldham and Smith, Library Preservation Program, p. 75.

  Haas’s undergraduate thesis: Warren James Haas, English Book Censorship, Thesis, Bachelor of Library Science, University of Wisconsin (Rochester, N.Y.: University of Ro
chester Press, for the Association of College and Reference Libraries, 1955), Microcard [microfiche]. Haas begins with a quotation from a 1664 pamphlet that he found in Bigmore and Wyman’s A Bibliography of Printing (1884): “Printing is like a good dish of meat, which moderatly eaten of turns to the nourishment and health of the body; but immoderately, to surfeits and sickness.” It looks as if the Library of Congress microfilmed and discarded an original three-volume Quaritch edition (250 copies printed, 1880–1886) of this work.

  Preparation of Detailed Specifications: Warren J. Haas, Preparation of Detailed Specifications for a National System for the Preservation of Library Materials (Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries, February 1972).

  “much master negative microfilm”: Haas, Preparation, p. 10. A master can be hard to find sometimes. One survey noted in 1992 that “many micropublishers currently listed in machine readable bibliographic records have moved, sold all or portions of their businesses, or are no longer supplying microfilm copies of masters.” Erich Kesse, “Survey of Micropublishers,” A Report to the Commission on Preservation and Access, October 1992. Robert DeCandido says that “the master has to some extent become a public resource. Certainly a compelling argument can be made that the fate of that film is a matter of public concern and its destruction or loss is against the public interest. In the same way that historic and cultural landmarks are legally protected even if privately owned, so should preservation microfilm masters have some sort of restrictions on their use and disposal.” True, and yet a “microfilm master” is in fact a copy: DeCandido, who ran the Shelf and Binding Preparation Office at the New York Public Library during a period when the library was destroying large numbers of books, fails to extend his analysis to cover the real master—not the film, but the original document. Robert DeCandido, “Considerations in Evaluating Searching for Microform Availability,” Microform Review 19:3 (summer 1990).