Page 1 of 1

Fullerton

Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 4:52 pm
by ᴶᵛᵀᴬ
THEORETICAL & HISTORICAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE COLLECTIONS' GENESIS


How can we re-constituting the private archives from a previously unordered collection of records ?

It is assumed that the archives will have already been preliminarily sorted in attempt to arrive at an arrangement which best reflects the original order of the material when it was in private use. The basic task for the archivist, then, is to produce either a provisional or final listing, which reflects intellectually the organisation of the material which they have organised physically into boxes.

A classification scheme is essentially a model for the ordering of archives into categories based upon the organisation and functioning of the individual that produced them. The process of classification needs careful thought. There is no model scheme adaptable to any archive.


The Herbert Collection at Fullerton should be arranged according to the principles of provenance and original order (i.e. in a manner which preserves the link with the original creator of the material. and the way the records were organised when last actively in use).

Classification schemes derived from a library environment should generally be avoided as they are usually based on subject, and are designed for secondary source material, rather than primary sources such as archival records. I repeat : archives need to be arranged according to the principles of provenance and original order !

... BUT unfortunately the Herbert Papers classification scheme is a complete failure. Now,fix the - unintentional - misuse of the McNelly's curator management is almost impossible.

Who knows how Frank Herbert organised his private archives : chronologically ? by series - Duniverse/Pandora ? by subjects ? Did he physically separated and distinguished the books from the magazines ? prints and manuscripts ? Or not ...? ...Who knows ? ...Brian, perhaps ?


.

Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 4:59 pm
by ᴶᵛᵀᴬ
.


WHAT'S DONE IS DONE ...

"...Things without all remedy Should be without regard : What's done, is done..." (-Lady- Macbeth, Act 3)


So, what can we do now with this chronological bias ?

The conceptual basis of archival classification and description is the archive group (or fonds), representing, in our case, the individual which has created the totality of a particular collection of archives.

This entity may then be divided down intellectually into various sub-groups, reflecting uses or lower functions of the organisation. Over-elaboration is to be avoided, however.

Typically, a hierarchical classification scheme is expressed in a catalogue through a numerical scheme of references, and the final stage in listing or cataloguing of archives is generally the numbering of documents and boxes with a unique code, often alpha-numeric, which will permit speedy retrieval of documents.


.

Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 5:06 pm
by ᴶᵛᵀᴬ
.


HOW TO CITE ARCHIVAL SOURCES ?



In order to give potential researchers a clear idea of the content of the archive, more refined cataloguing is required. The detail in which the archivist is able to describe the records will depend on the significance of the documents, and the archivist's own knowledge. A critical attribute of the cataloguing is that the description of the records, in whatever format they are, should be comprehensive, and include certain essential elements.

Based on international standards, it is now recommended that the minimum number of elements to be used in any archival description should be 4, i.e. :

** reference code,
** title (includes creator,abstract & dates),
** extent and form,
** possibly creation & access conditions




An (half-)fictional example :

** The reference code : 'Aa-c 1969/Dune Messiah/Box II'.
Abbreviate ref. (like 'DM') is not forbidden...but may be unproductive.

** The title or heading of the list should encompass the whole of the records being described e.g. 'Corresp. of Frank Herbert, Letters to W.Campbell, Aug. 1968 -Jan. 1969'.
Letters should be catalogued according to their recipient, though an exception has to be made when letters and papers relating to a particular topic are found together, and this archival order should be retained. Documents of a uniform nature can be described by a common formula. Dating is a vital adjunct of the description, and here one needs to be as specific as the number of documents covered by the reference allows.

** Extent and form refers to the need :
...to describe the physical character of the documents (for instance, volume, folder, bundle, file, loose papers, and so on)
...& give a physical description of the collection, including some idea of quantity covered by a single entry should likewise be included : '1 fold., 11 letters'.

** Detailed covering dates of the creation of the documents being catalogued could be given e.g. 'Jan 1969 – Nov 1983'. Why ? Think about the Dune Encyclopedia genesis...[Ah, ah ! :idea: ]
Access conditions may be very important, as they indicate whether the whole or part of a collection is closed to users on grounds e.g. of confidentiality.


.

Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 5:20 pm
by Omphalos
The Fullerton archives were organized by a series of library sciences students, not a SF or even a FH fan. Things probably came to the archives bound by general topic, and the archivists never bothered to get any minute detail on what they have. However, they have just had a bunch of PKD stuff taken back by the estate, and they are lamenting that they did not have a better record of what was removed. I think that they are planning on doing a detailed list of everything in the FH archive now, but if it ever happens, it will take some time. The archives there are for all the archives materials that the school holds, not just SF stuff.

Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:09 pm
by ᴶᵛᵀᴬ
PROBLEMS

McNelly <http://www.thestargates.com/dune/willis2.html> wrote :
"The reception, organization, classification, and preservation of this vast mass of material [1967] fell on the shoulders of Special Collections Librarian Linda Herman and her assistants, Jane Olsen, Lucille Stratton, and Kay Heil. Reams of paper housed in shoe boxes or grocery cartons had to be inventoried, sorted (some writers included everything from laundry lists to telephone bills), and catalogued. (...)
Even the 8 x 14 yellowed pages of the first draft of Dune had been crumpled and folded to fit an 8 1/2 x 11 folder. The problem of preservation was eventually solved, at least temporarily, with acid-proof document boxes. Even pulp paper kept in one of these boxes would last for many decades, perhaps for centuries. However, using plastic envelopes to safeguard each individual issue of each pulp magazine can be only a temporary expedient. In other words, the question of microfilming the entire very extensive SF collection must still be addressed.

In order to solve one of the problems--overall classification--connected with the Herbert collection, Frank's wife, Beverly Herbert (who died in 1984) worked with Linda Herman to catalog and classify this marvelous donation [ Sic ! ]. Together they decided to assign Opus numbers for ready reference and access, as well as making easier the question of their contents. Thus, Dune is Opus 25, for example, and the total extends to Opus 82. [Sic Bis !]

In later years, before his untimely death in 1986, Frank Herbert continued sending Special Collections similar material for all of his later writings, working closely with Sharon Perry, now head of Special Collections. It is an extraordinary collection, and recent major donations by his widow, Theresa Shackleford, have amplified it considerably.[Bis repetita !] For example, not only did she send us all of Herbert's personal copies of his books, both hardback and paperback, including The Dune Chronicles in every language in which they have been published, but in early 1991 she shipped to Fullerton 34 large boxes which contain, among many valuable items, Herbert's business correspondence, as well as his research for and copies of the many essays he wrote for "California Living" when he was a working journalist in the Bay area.

3 sort of problems very annoying :

** Mix up letters, books, manuscripts and audio sources is incomprehensible ...
** Mix the 1st, the 2d, the 3rd and maybe others donations is absolutely anhistoric, unconscious, strange, unusual ...
** Changing or create an artificial a posteriori classification is an archival disaster ...

Honestly, I think it's now almost impossible to reconstitute a serious history of herbertians manuscripts. I hope I'm wrong. I hope so !

McNelly and Touponce were not historians. The DE is a fiction and the Touponce's work is more aesthetic than genetic.

But understand a text is not only an "aesthetic" phenomena. Philology and narratology are fundamentally historical methods. They needs a precise knowledge of the chronology : the "palimpsest" of rewriting, evolutions, remorses, variated forms. La génétique des textes. La génétique...




.

Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 11:14 pm
by ᴶᵛᵀᴬ
Do you know what are those opus numbers ? I don't find them in your link.


.

Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 12:00 am
by Omphalos
Unfortunately they are only marked on the actual boxes themselves.

Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 11:36 am
by ᴶᵛᵀᴬ
OK ! So, can you precise me what are the reference codes of the 8 (?) Dune Boxes ?
25-1, 25-2, 25-3, 25-4 ...? or 25-a, 25-b, 25-c, 25-d ...? or 25*, 25**, 25*** ...? ...Strange ...

I thought that opus numbers were assigned as intellectual order classification, not material order (boxes).

Could you explain me the Fullerton system... It's very odd to me . :lol:

.

Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 3:58 pm
by Omphalos
Askaris de Dar wrote:OK ! So, can you precise me what are the reference codes of the 8 (?) Dune Boxes ?
25-1, 25-2, 25-3, 25-4 ...? or 25-a, 25-b, 25-c, 25-d ...? or 25*, 25**, 25*** ...? ...Strange ...

I thought that opus numbers were assigned as intellectual order classification, not material order (boxes).

Could you explain me the Fullerton system... It's very odd to me . :lol:
Im pretty sure that each work is a different opus, so yes, all the Dune boxes would have the same first number. I do not remember the details of how the on-line list translates to Opus numbers. I just pointed to what I wanted on the list and they got it for me. Ill try to write down all of the details the next time I am there. Im pretty sure that all of the SF Chronicles, for example, was one separate Opus number.

Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 4:39 pm
by Omphalos
Yea. I think that everything is there, its just mixed up in the library's boxes. It sat on the shelf and was used by seven or eight people before they cataloged it all.

Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 5:07 pm
by ᴶᵛᵀᴬ
OK ! So, if you have some spare time in your planning, it would be a great service for me and many fans, if you accept to put some logic and precisions in the on-line list ( Dune and Dune Series especially) :

** opus numbers and other stuff reference codes

** how many boxes by reference ?

** and possibly some material details (example : Opus 25/Dune/Box n°3 : 6 fold. + 1 paperback ed. + 3 manuscripts....)

I'm very annoying, I know...but details are essentials if we want communicate without moving ! You are so lucky to live near the CSUF library ! But, for us, foreigners, internet is a window : thanks again for your work .

Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 5:47 pm
by Omphalos
I actually live about 500 miles away from it. :D

But the next time I go down I will be sure to get your questions answered, and Ill have the librarian check in the McNelly archive (there is one) to see if there is any other FH stuff there.

Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 10:00 pm
by ᴶᵛᵀᴬ
Great ! thanks a lot ! :D

Yesterday, I updated the McNelly's intro (thanks to Hal Hall's research for Anatomy of Wonder). We know, now, that McNelly described the CSUF SF Collection in 1992 (a few months after the Theresa Shackleford donation).

He wrote that the number opuses total extends 82 . But, if you read the online master-list (the archival jargon say "Finding Guid/Aid or Summary of records), we can read only 78 or 79 opuses, not 82...
But this document is not clear : he divides the "Frank Herbert Archives" in x "parts", with a "Part A : Opus number Holdings"...but never mentioned any part B, C or D ... So I presume that the end of the opuses "part" is the page 22 or the page 23 ? But I'm not sure... The title's typography on the online list is really unclear...


1 . So, first of all, could you ask the record management what is their official "filing system or classification scheme" (in french, "plan de classement") ?

My proposition (supra) was temporary and hypothetical :
A . Opus Number Holdings
..........a) . Published (1945-1984)

..................a - 1945-1958 optional
..................b - 1959-1965 optional
..................c - 1965-1969 optional
..................d - 1970-1975 optional
..................e - 1976-1984 optional

..........b) . Unpublished
B . Miscellaneous : Biographical, Critical & Related Materials
C . Newspaper articles, Editorials, Reviews, Ads, etc.
..........a) . Articles in California Living

..................a - 1967-1969 optional
..................b - no dates optional

..........b) . Articles (1959-1964)
..........c) . Articles, Miscellaneous in envelopes
What is their own architecture ? There is no "part" in the archival vocabulary...
Do they use "Series" ? (series A, B, C...for example).
Do they divides series with "Sub-Series" ?(Aa/Ab/Ac...).
And maybe do they use "Files" ? (Aaa or Aa-1...)

2 . The second problem is the "Shelf/Schedule Number" or "Classification/location mark".

It's an intellectual division ("unit"), not material (box container, records storage box, folder, bundle, piece, item).

McNelly wrote that Dune was the 25th opus. Ok but what are the shelf numbers of the Miscellaneous in envelopes, Newspaper articles, Editorials, Related Materials ...etc ? Did they have any location mark ? And now ?

Definitively, they should fix that list :roll: Maybe they created an "Accession register" ? If Brian really taken back records (!), they must organize a complete "Stocktaking". Anyway, if they didn't registrate all the Herbert/McNelly 's materials, I hope they prepared an "Intermediate storage".

3 . If you find time, could you try to describe precisely all Dune Chronicles boxes :shock: Material stuff (folder, piece..) and intellectual content (Letter to..., 3rd draft of...). I know it's crazy and so huge ! But what a challenge ! :D


My english-french archival vocabulary : <http://mist.univ-paris1.fr/dico/dico.htm>

PS : last but not least, Hal Hall said in his "Major Authors Library Collections Inventory " (mid-2006), that Herbert Papers in Fullerton took up 122 boxes and 21 linear feet of books and McNelly Papers, 22 boxes...

:D Bon voyage !


.

Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 11:44 pm
by Omphalos
The FH records are complete. It was another archive for Phillip K. Dick that was raided by the family. Sorry if I confused you.

What is your background? Library sciences?

Honestly though, I may eventually have the time to get to all of this stuff. The library is only open for three to four hours per day as both the archivists there have teaching schedules. Its really all I can do now to copy stuff when there. But one day.....

Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:49 am
by SandChigger
Everyone else is friendly, too. It's just not every day one meets a FRENCH STEAMROLLER! :lol:

(Don't stop! It's impressive to watch passion. :D )

Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:54 am
by Omphalos
"Bookworm" is what my book review site used to be called. I am that.

How did you find us, Joseph? Through Phil Stephensen-Payne? I have spoken to him before about our bibliographies.

Also, do you know of any other bibliographies for Octavia Butler? The one that I have is probably woefully incomplete, and Id like to take a look at a complete one.

EDIT: How does Miyazaki fit into the apocrypha?

Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:49 pm
by ᴶᵛᵀᴬ
1 . we are a bookworms' Guild now ! :D



2 . through Arrakeen of course ! Our international and beloved Talifan Inquisitor ! (according Bryan V. he's a "polylingual psychopath"...like me :twisted:)



3 . e-mailed my master, Norbert Spehner :
Au meilleur de ma connaissance, ll n'existe aucun ouvrage bibliographique sur Octavia E. Butler.

Mais dans le World Cat, <http://www.worldcat.org/> il y trouvera 190 entrées.

[...]

Il trouvera, entre autres, cet ouvrage dans lequel il y a une biblio:

A reader's guide to Octavia Butler's Kindred.

Writers & Books (Firm) <http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3AW ... hot_author>


Media : Book
Genre : Biography; English
Publisher :Rochester, NY : Writers & Books, ©2003.
Description : 36 p.
Notes : "Developed by Writers & Books"--T.p. verso.
Contents : Dear reader -- Octavia Butler : a brief biography
-- A conversation with Octavia Butler
-- Discussion points for readers of Kindred
-- Tips for book discussions
-- Annotated bibliography of novels by Octavia Butler
-- Related books of interest.
Added titles : "If All of Rochester Read the Same Book-- " 2003, a reader's guide

N.S.
Omphalos, your bibliography is maybe one of the most important recognition (?).



4 . Ah ! Miyazaki ! Moebius and Vance ...a little surprise, soon ! :D


.

Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:05 pm
by ᴶᵛᵀᴬ
and my master AGAIN :D :
Quelques références dont la dernière avec une longue liste d'articles et d'études:


1 . SFWA Resources

<http://www.sfwa.org/members/butler/Bibliography.html>

* An Octavia E. Butler Bibliography
* Joe Weixlmann
* Black American Literature Forum, Vol. 18, No. 2, Science Fiction Issue (Summer, 1984), pp. 88-89 (article consists of 2 pages)
* Published by: St. Louis University
* Stable URL: <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2904133>


***********************************************

2 . Biblio.com

http://www.biblio.com/author_biographie ... utler.html

***********************************************
3 . & The Golden Mine !

VG Home (Voices from the Gaps, Women Artists and Writers of Color, An International Website)
» Bios » Butler, Octavia Estelle

Page researched and submitted by Jennifer Becker on 5/17/97 and updated by Lauren Curtright on 8/21/04.

(many links & secondary sources)

<http://voices.cla.umn.edu/vg/Bios/entri ... telle.html>


N.S.

Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 12:23 pm
by ᴶᵛᵀᴬ
Worldcat search results for 'octavia butler': 359 (primary + secondary sources : books, articles, CDs & DVDs).

Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 3:23 pm
by Omphalos
Looks like I ahve some work to do!

Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:52 am
by Leto247
Omphalos wrote: EDIT: How does Miyazaki fit into the apocrypha?
That's easy: becouse he is the only one with any chance on doing a great movie from God Emperor of Dune...what? am I the only one obsessed with that idea? :)

Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:46 am
by Hunchback Jack
It would be fantastic to use all that material to write a "history of middle-earth"-type analysis of Herbert's work. Getting someone who could actually *do* it would be tough, though.

HBJ

Re:

Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 12:20 pm
by Omphalos
Omphalos wrote:
Askaris de Dar wrote:OK ! So, can you precise me what are the reference codes of the 8 (?) Dune Boxes ?
25-1, 25-2, 25-3, 25-4 ...? or 25-a, 25-b, 25-c, 25-d ...? or 25*, 25**, 25*** ...? ...Strange ...

I thought that opus numbers were assigned as intellectual order classification, not material order (boxes).

Could you explain me the Fullerton system... It's very odd to me . :lol:
Im pretty sure that each work is a different opus, so yes, all the Dune boxes would have the same first number. I do not remember the details of how the on-line list translates to Opus numbers. I just pointed to what I wanted on the list and they got it for me. Ill try to write down all of the details the next time I am there. Im pretty sure that all of the SF Chronicles, for example, was one separate Opus number.
Brian says in Dreamer of Dune that Bev came up with the Opus system. Each work has a different Opus number, with his first short story being Opus One, and so on. The filing system is described in detail in Dreamer. It's how Bev did billing and plotted out her to do list.

Re: Re:

Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:50 pm
by ᴶᵛᵀᴬ