I'm not sure that I can answer Terry's questions directly, but, as a
sometime bibliographer, I have some general observations, starting with
the bibliographer's two inviolable principles: all bibliographies are
incomplete and all bibliographies are in error. It's been my sense that
John's Spenser Updates came off very well when measured against these
principles.
I can't recall his exact figures, but he once told me that normally his
list came close to doubling the number of items that he had found in the
MLA list. Based on my experience, that seems about right. My own
students have tended to depend heavily (almost entirely) on MLA and ABELL,
in which case, they would have missed anywhere from 15-25% of what they
would have found in the updates. Admittedly, at the inconvenience of
having to look through several separate lists, and at the expense of
having to negotiate some fairly insignificant material. As SpN/R editor,
I grew to depend on the list to make me aware of important items that my
assistants and I had overlooked in our canvas of articles to abstract.
Since I don't teach PhD students, I can't say that the list itself has
been of great value to my students, relative to the abstracts themselves;
and in my own research it's hard to say what effect the list per se has
had, as distinct from what I may have absorbed more indirectly in my job
as editor. But, for what it's worth, I'd frankly like to see the list
continued. And I'll be interested in reading others' responses --
especially those that might come in response to Dick Hardin and Jon
Quitslund.
*********************************
Jerome S. Dees / English Department / 122 Denison Hall
Kansas State University / Manhattan KS 66506-0701
ph 785-532-2156; fax 785-532-2192; e-mail [log in to unmask]
********************************
>
> Dear Spenserians,
>
> In my capacity as editor of the Spenser Review, I'm obliged
> to give some thought to the possibility of discontinuing the annual
> bibliography update. As you'll see in the latest issue (now being
> printed), we've lost our longtime bibliographer and, times being what
> they are in our profession, not many people are both willing and able
> to take over the job. (For instance, I've decided against having
> pre-tenured faculty doing it.) For the present, Craig Berry has
> agreed to help create a bibliography update this spring and summer
> (thanks, Craig). But he and I are wondering about the uses to which
> it's put. So here are some questions. If you have time and something
> to say, please hit "Reply" and let me know:
>
> * Do you use the annual bibliographical update in the Spenser
> Newsletter/Spenser Review?
> * How much do you use it?
> * Can you specify how you use it, e.g. as primary research tool, as a
> way of catching up once a year, etc.?
> * What, if anything, do you find in the bibliography that you might
> not find elsewhere, for instance in electronic search engines that
> didn't exist when the bibliography was first planned?
> * Do you have any stories about your using the bibliography to good
> or ill effect?
>
> Thanks in advance for the feedback, which Craig and I will ponder,
> Terry
>
> Theresa Krier Dept. of English
> Editor, The Spenser Review University of Notre Dame
> 616/782-8906 Notre Dame, IN 46556
> [log in to unmask] 219/631-7226
>
> --
> ________________________________________
> Craig A. Berry
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>
> "... getting out of a sonnet is much more
> difficult than getting in."
> Brad Leithauser
>
|