Luther Seminary Library

Architects of Grace

I used to confuse Christopher Wren with Christopher Robin.  When I heard Wren I thought Robin and in my mind I would see Winnie the Pooh and his friends, only to be more confused when the context just didn’t fit.  I haven’t made that mistake for quite awhile, but I have to admit that, until recently, I probably knew more about Pooh, Piglet, Eeyore, & company than the famous architect of St. Paul’s Cathedral and many other notable parish churches in and around London.

My knowledge deficit has been swiftly and surprisingly remedied, however, by the wonderful gift to the library of a collection of books all having to do with the life, times, and accomplishments of Sir Christopher Wren.  Wren (1632-1723) was a Renaissance figure.  As professor of astronomy at Oxford, he was also skilled in mathematics and engineering.  He gradually made his way to architecture.  Having successfully designed buildings for several Oxford colleges, the Great London Fire of 1666 afforded him the opportunity to design 52 of the 87 London churches destroyed in the fire.  Wren’s crowning achievement was the design for the rebuilding of St. Paul’s Cathedral.  The Cathedral, whose 300^th anniversary is fast approaching (January, 2011), was constructed over a 35-year period, “the sole English cathedral built from start to finish under the supervision of its original architect.” (Judith Dupre, Churches, 68).

On Thursday, October 29th, a number of these volumes of Wreniana will be on display as the object of the library’s annual Special Collections open house, 10:30 am-2:00 pm.  Included in the showing will be several rare and unusual items, one among them being an elephant folio or “elephantine” size volume of “the dimensions, plans, elevations, and sections” of Wren’s London parish churches.  You wouldn’t lose this book under the sofa cushions.

The books are a gift from Mr. and Mrs. Edward Sovik of Northfield, MN.  Ed Sovik, himself an architect, had developed a strong interest in the life and work of Christopher Wren and collected these pieces throughout a distinguished career in architecture.  We are extremely grateful for this exceptional gift from Ed and Anne Sovik, a delight for the eye, the mind, and the spirit.

BE

KINDLE 2 REVISITED

I don't make a habit of quoting myself, but since this is a return to an earlier topic, let me make an exception.

I said, on this very blog, back on February 27 of this year, that

"there is no reason not to wish Amazon well [with its release of the Kindle 2), but for now what they are doing and what libraries like ours are doing are complementary, not in competition."

Ten months have passed, during which I have made pretty frequent use of the library's Kindle 2. How does that earlier claim stand up now?

A few observations, unscientific and anecdotal:

1. I'm increasingly comfortable reading off a Kindle screen. In other words, it feels less and less like a "transition" from printed page to digital display.
2. I'm curious to know if I actually find reading easier from a Kindle than from a printed book.
3. I find at least some of the features of reading from a Kindle (e.g. the capacity to create notes on the Kindle as I read) intriguing.
4. When traveling, I value the small size and weight of the Kindle.

There is nothing particularly surprising or earth-shattering in this. It's just my notes to myself as I make yet another adjustment to a new medium, the sort of shift that is required of all of us, with increasing frequency.

The main issue, at least for me, is resisting the either/or mentality.

I'm a librarian, and it could be argued that I therefore have a bigger state than most people in how the relationship between print/digital plays out.
But from my experience so far, I am less concerned all the time about what the medium is, and more interested in what medium/media foster more and better reading.

Isn't that what matters most?

DRS

Wikipedia as Punching Bag

When the subject of Wikipedia comes up among academics, I've seen lots of different responses (almost all of them negative): rolling-of-the-eyes, tisk-tisking or harrumphing, hasty disavowals are among the most common.

If responses of this variety demonstrated only the view that Wikipedia was less-than-perfect, or that Wikipedia is no substitute for a library, I'd have no objection. But what I am usually picking up is far more disdainful than that, and (what's worse), responses that often don't seem suggest an accurate sense of what Wikipedia is (and isn't), or of how it works.

I can almost hear the shouts of "heresy" already, but let me offer a good word or two, if not in praise of Wikipedia at least in favor of critiquing it more insightfully.

All resources - whatever their pedigree, whoever is responsible for them, and in whatever medium they appear – are fair game for informed scrutiny, but if we are going to judge Wikipedia,

• Let it at least be on its own terms – as a colossal co-operative venture, which at least potentially draws together a vast community of people with an interest in a given topic.
• Let's be clear which version or edition we are judging. Because, unlike even the most distinguished reference source in print, Wikipedia is not the same today as it was yesterday.
• If we are going to use comparisons, let's at least make them reasonable and balanced. Far too often I find that some randomly-selected weak item from Wikipedia is held up against an exceptionally fine entry from a print volume. These comparisons prove very little.
• We ought to bear it in mind that when a given entry is incomplete or still in development, at least an effort is made to tell us so.
• We have access to a much broader community of learning than when we limit ourselves to print. There is a growing understanding of the value of the "community of enthusiasts," as well as of the better-known "community of scholars."

Is Wikipedia an alternative (intentional or not) to a library? Nope, but it doesn't claim to be, either.  It's just another resource to evaluate (the kind of evaluation the library community is supposed to excel at), though it just happens to be a resource which is extremely convenient, as well at least capable of being continually improved (have you tried authoring or editing an entry? Or tracking its history ?), and continues to expand dramatically.

In other words, a resource that merits critique that is balanced and well-informed.

DRS