College and Research Libraries Review Articles English Libraries English Libraries, 1800-1850. tByD C. B. Old- man, W. A. Munford, and S. Nowell-Smith. London: H. K. Lewis 8c Co., Ltd., [c 1958]. 78p. The history of English libraries is part of the Western library tradition, despite the fact that it preserved a native individuality. This fact is apparent in a reading of the three lectures delivered for the School of Librarianship and Archives at University College, London, in February and March 1957, and now published in pamphet form. Each of the lectures dwells on an outstand- ing personality of the period from f800 to 1850. In the first lecture, Dr. C. D. Oldman, who was associated with the British Mu- seum since 1920, writes on Sir Anthony Panizzi and his work for that institution. Panizzi, as Keeper of Printed Books, re- formed the British Museum library's pro- gram and modernized its administration. Dr. Oldman concludes that "If the English nation now possesses a National Library of which it can be justly proud, it is Antonio Panizzi, more than any other man, to whom our thanks must go for this." W. A. Munford, in the second lecture, discusses Dr. George Birkbeck and his in- terest in the Mechanics' Institutes which were the forerunners of the English muni- cipal library system. Birkbeck's pioneer ef- fort on behalf of the Institutes and their related libraries stimulated adult education, and scientific and technical education in Great Britain as well as in other countries. Simon Nowell-Smith, who has published widely in the field of literary criticism and bibliography and who has served as li- brarian of the London Library, presented the third lecture. He outlined Thomas Carlyle's role in the opening of the Lon- don Library in 1841 as a lending library, as well as his part in its subsequent develop- ment. T o illustrate the nature of Carlyle's motivation favoring libraries, a journal en- try of 1832 is cited: "What a sad want I am in of libraries, of books to gather facts from! Why is there not a Majesty's library in every country town? There is a Majesty's gaol and gallows in every one." All three lectures are presented in a popular style and include bibliographical references for those interested in further study.—Sidney Forman, United States Mili- tary Academy, West Point. Book Reviews Reviews in Library Book Selection. By Le- Roy C. Merritt, Martha Boaz, and Ken- neth S. Tisdel. Foreword by Maurice F. Tauber. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1958. xv, 188p. $2.50. Reviewing is a much too powerful de- terminant of book sales and the fame of authors not to have been damned by some and puffed up by others. This doubtful reputation of the review has obliged li- brarians, who in the name of the review buy books unseen, to study the matter for themselves. The latest publication of the re- sults of such inquiry, the book in hand, comprises three studies, each independently conceived and produced. "The Pattern of Modern Book Reviewing" was written by LeRoy C. Merritt, professor of librarianship at the University of California. "The Re- views and Reviewers of Best Sellers" is a version of the Ph.D. dissertation written by Martha Boaz, dean of the library school of the University of Southern California. "Staff Reviewing in Library Book Selection" is a recasting of an M.A. thesis by Kenneth S. Tisdel, associate librarian of the University of Missouri. Merritt intended to study the dependa- bility of reviews in a more comprehensive way than others have done. But virtually every important finding he makes is im- paired by a serious weakness. First, he sum- marizes the literature of the subject and finds that earlier studies, although isolated and scattered, make a "devasting" picture of the inadequacies of book reviewing. But his rendition and use of previous research 500 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES are questionable. For example, he serious- ly misunderstands the scope, definitions, and conclusions of Victoria Hargrave's study of reviews of social science books in general and scholarly journals. Then, it is useful for Merritt to remind his colleagues that the Book Review Digest does not list all the reviews found in the journals it in- dexes, with the result that more books are excluded than are included. But he has overlooked the fact that this limitation re- flects a belief that the library book selector requires several reviews in order to judge the quality of a book. A single review of a non-fiction book and two reviews of fic- tion were felt by the founders of BRD and their contemporaries to be inadequate guides to selection. The validity of BRD's practice is acknowledged, unknowingly, by Merritt, who in other connections later in the study, as we shall see, recommends that the book selector ought to read several re- views. His criticism that too many fiction, his- tory, and biography books are reviewed in general periodicals is based on his admit- ted "unwarranted" assumption that books in all subject fields should receive propor- tional attention in these journals. His analy- sis of the ALA Booklist, the Library Jour- nal, and Virginia Kirkus' Bookshop Service, turns up the valuable finding that the li- brary book selector needs all three because they vary in promptness of pre-publication reviews, subject coverage, and judgment of books. A similar examination of the New York Times Book Review, the New York Herald Tribune Weekly Book Review, and the Saturday Review, shows that these dis- agree often enough in choice of book to re- view and judgment to require the book-buy- ing librarian to read all three. Then, with- out warning, Merritt adds these words, "bet- ter still, he should probably read the book." This is the most important statement in the study. Merritt implies that the three review media cannot, even together, serve library book selectors. But where is the argument and the evidence? The last part of his work occupies one page. A paragraph lists the separate findings, and then, the reader is introduced to the results of a random sam- ple of 104 books and their reviews indexed in BRD of 1956. This sample was to provide an indication of change, if any, in the pat- tern of book reviewing since 1948. But the scope of the later survey is much too nar- row and cannot be considered a proper test of the earlier findings. Boaz reveals that the unfavorable pre- conceptions with which she began her eval- uation of the reviews of best sellers of the years 1944 to 1957 were, by and large, prov- en wrong by her analysis. Her new be- lief is that the "reviewing of best sellers from 1944 to 1957 indicated, on the whole, a judiciousness that considered both the merits and the demerits of the best sellers, and provided satisfactory criticism for the average reader." The term "average reader" is a vague des- cription of a key aspect of the theme. It appeared neither in the statement of in- tentions nor in the analyses of reviews. Only in the concluding section is it revealed that the analysis was done with the "average reader" in mind. As it stands, Boaz has merely given her impression of the "average reader." But then, the study in general is pervaded by personal opinion. It lacks that which Lester Asheim identified as missing from the impressionistic survey, "the objective, systematic, and quantitative dis- cipline" of content analysis. Tisdel, using checklists of fiction and non-fiction books, found that staff review- ing made little difference in book selection in large public libraries. Libraries that de- pended on published reviews generally bought the same titles that staff-reviewing libraries did. His other findings, such as the significant disagreement among library reviewers over the merits of the same books, tend also to undermine staff reviewing. Tis- del is in the Waples tradition of library re- search. He uses simple but tried tools of statistics and mass communications research, among them, content analysis. The adher- ents of staff reviewing may answer that if it is true that there is no difference between the results of staff reviewing and published reviews, then the former ought to be im- proved rather than abandoned. Or they might speculate that the fruits of staff re- viewing are not expected to be large, and are represented in the libraries' undupli- cated titles. In any case, Tisdel has chal- lenged supporters of the staff review with NO V EMBER 1959 501 an objective study which should be examined by all librarians. The last section of the book is a four- page statement by Boaz entitled "Some His- torical Sidelights on Reviewing." It is frag- mentary and personal, and omits important sources. Boaz makes a debatable defense of contemporary book reviewing and re- viewers which is based on acquiescence in what she describes as the avoidance by most readers of intellectually stimulating book criticism. In regard to the book as a whole, the lack of bibliographies and index should be noted. Since the original works were con- cerned with the years 1948, 1944-1955, and 1945-46, they already are historical. Despite these limitations and the more serious ones noted above, it should be emphasized that book reviewing is so much a part of the li- brarian's work that encouragement should be given to studies of it in its various phases. Undoubtedly, refinements in methodology will be forthcoming.—Abraham N. Barnett, Purdue University Libraries. Nominations Sought Nominations are being sought for the 1960 Margaret Mann Citation award. Li- brarians who have made a distinquished contribution to the profession through cataloging and classification are eligible. T h e contribution may have been through publication of significant literature, participation in professional cataloging asso- ciations, or valuable contributions to practice in individual libraries. Nominees must be members of the Cataloging and Classification Section of the A L A Resources and Technical Services Division but may be nominated by any librarian or A L A mem- ber. All nominations, together with information upon which recommendation is based, should be made not later than January 1, 1960, to the chairman of the Section's Award of the Margaret Mann Citation Committee, Dale M. Bentz, as- sociate director, University of Iowa Libraries, Iowa City. T h e Margaret Mann Citation, established by the A L A Division of Cataloging and Classification in 1950, has been presented at each of the A L A annual confer- ences since that time for outstanding professional achievement. Recipients of the award have been Andrew D. Osborn (1959), Esther J. Piercy (1958), David J. Hay- kin (1957), Susan Grey Akers (1956), Seymour Lubetzky (1955), Pauline A. See- ly (1954), Maurice F. Tauber (1953), Marie Louise Prevost (1952), and Lucile M. Morsch (1951). Classified Advertisements Rate: $1 per line; 3-line minimum. Closes twentieth of month preceding date of issue. C O L O N I A L B O O K S E R V I C E — S p e c i a l i s t s i n s u p - plying the out-of-print books as listed in all library indices (Granger Poetry; Essay and General Literature; Shaw; Standard; Fic- tion; Biography; Lamont; Speech; etc.) Want lists invited. 23 East 4th St., New York 3, N.Y. OUT-OF-PRINT BOOKS B A R N E S 8C N O B L E , I N C. supplies books not ob- tainable from publishers immediately from stock of over a million volumes or in rea- sonably quick time through free Search Serv- ice. Send lists to Dept. CR, Barnes 8c Noble, Inc., 105 Fifth Ave., New York 3, N.Y. 502 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES