non-fiction read decrying the use of microfilm (microfiche) and the destruction of paper. Nicholson does wax nostalgic, but that's where most things sane end. He calls librarians (that only do the bidding of the library board) who destroy (pitch) newspapers and documents after being micro-filmed as killers, idiots, and criminals. That's where he "lost" me! As a historian, I'm all about preservation. However, I do realize that preservation and storage are a huge problem. You can't just pack old documents away and shove them in a warehouse: 1) who will pay the bill 2) said warehouse needs to be temperature controlled-who will pay the bill 3) how does one access them. Mr. Baker might be better suited to write about this issue rationally and without name calling. Don't care that he won an award, I'm writing him off as a kook. Read 188/400 pages DNF ( )

Unnecessarily of the j’accuse tone—naming names, calling out even lowly librarians who don’t have much say. So that’s rude. He’s not wrong, he’s just an asshole. And, big error, one doesn’t need gloves for rare books. Also, by his lights we should never throw anything out. I don’t know what we should keep, but keeping everything seems absurd. That said, microfilm sucks.

I got to page 50 and just couldn't take it anymore. The whole point of the book is that the author is pissed off at the destruction of physical newspapers in favor of microfilm - this is made clear on the inside of the dust jacket. My problem with the book is that the author keeps saying the same thing in slightly different ways. He gives new facts, lays bare outrageous actions and irresponsibilities on the part of librarians - things that should keep me hooked - but everything is just a variation on the same theme. This probably would have made an excellent article, but I just can't get it up for 268 pages of self-righteous outrage. ( )

Although Baker makes some valid points, he totally lost me when he started portraying people who didn't share his view on paper hoarding as criminals and idiots. I'm also not buying his conspiracy theories. I think he went a little overboard and succeeded only in making himself look like a complete loon. ( )

Published in 2001, this is somewhat dated. It is Baker's paean to old paper newspapers and journals and his anathema against microfilm. Baker recounts the history of the twentieth century push for microfilming and underscores the actual truth: it wasn't about saving brittle paper or allowing more access, it was about throwing things out to gain space. Baker does a good job on this history, a good job on undermining the notion that lots of old acidic paper is just seconds from turning into dust. He does a good job showing how people pushed microfilming for their own agendas (he doesn't call it the scourge of bureaucrats, but I will). He does a good job in bemoaning the downsides to microfilm: poor filming, poor image quality, the cost, its unwieldy nature to use.

Now, Baker wrote this when the internet was in its infancy and scanning technology too. We now have excellent book scanners that can scan without disbinding (literally buzz-sawing off the spines of books, etc.). We have the Internet Archive and Google Books doing a pretty good job at scanning and hosting old books, newspapers, journals, and files at repositories gratis to the user. (It all still costs money though.) Even outfits like Ancestry.com and FamilySearch.com have found ways to scan old microfilm and present it in a good way. Baker seemed just as put off by scanning as he did by microfilming. I wonder if he's tempered his views.

Such scanning allowed me to write a dissertation on place-names in the Spanish New World without going to Spain or any other country. It allows me to do research from my house a lot. Now, I still have to go see documents that aren't scanned, and, yes, it's always more awesome to hold the pages direct in my hand rather than on a screen. But access and quality has improved tremendously. As to microfilm, yes, it is a hassle and often unreadable. But, it has also given me access to things that may have disappeared years ago through age or carelessness or who knows. I have worked with a scanned collection of documents that were lent to a library to be filmed in the 1940s and taken back by the owner. They are now nowhere to be found, so at least we have a microfilm record of them.

Baker writes well, is very opinionated, but overall fair to his interlocutors. A few pictures. Extensive endnotes (in silly new fashion), but informative and interesting nevertheless. An extensive bibliography and index. Well worth the read if you can get it cheap. An update is in order, now two decades gone by. ( )