[Personal_archives] Not kept items
Hobbs Catherine
catherine.hobbs at lac-bac.gc.ca
Fri Apr 25 15:34:52 EDT 2008
In response to Rob and Maryanne's comments today:
While, I agree that resources and time do come into play in terms of how well one tailors archival description to a given fonds, I do feel that it also has a lot to do with how we form our habits as archivists. The description is, after all, our tool and not our "definer" as it were. In that sense, I would hope that archivists describe not from a sense of "we always do x level of description" but more from the standpoint of "this is what I know.... ...how do I record it?" I find RAD (Rule for Archival Description, Maryanne) is quite flexible (particularly because it allows us to make additional notes to fit in anything else of relevance, although I find that many things already have a suitable place within description).
We are the only ones there at the time of acquisition of the fonds and we have privileged access to information about the fonds' situation within the life of the individual and meaning within that life. So, if I know, for example that GS kept a given photograph on his desk because the image of his great grandfather reminded him of his father or kept a journal from the early 1950's in a special drawer because it reminded him of his first love and first experiences of travel, I should try to note that down. It doesn't take any time to know it because the archivist already knew it when speaking to the donor and the phrase takes very few seconds to record (just try typing that part of the previous sentence that interests you!). I guess I hope that archivists try to leave a trail of what they know about the archives. The same is true of selection or arrangement details. I think that it has perhaps more to do with institutional norms for finding aids than actually fitting these details into description or keeping a list of what was removed (which are more habits and habits of mind). I agree with you Rob that we can't do everything but, if we have a turn of mind which is attuned to "personal significance" I think more of this type of information will be recorded (and the more important elements of it): which returns to the whole issue of theory supporting personal archives.
The dry cleaning ticket (while I've no idea of the context of that "interesting" item) raises other questions for me which have to do with the values assigned by archivists to different materials. There are many value judgements that surround decisions to discard materials such as these from fonds: some of them have to do with assuming that certain types of material are not generally valuable and others, it seems to me, have to do with a privileging of the public face of the creator and the public life over the private. I guess I would say it is important for the archivist to reevaluate his/her value judgements from time to time. In the Borson/Maltman fonds, for example there is an innocuous piece of junk mail from a credit card company. This is, in fact, an extremely important piece of the archival puzzle because it is the key to a whole new poetic experiment by the two poets: one where they began by looking at the placement of the language in advertising as a starting point for constructing poetry. This led on to a poetry collective Pain Not Bread in which this playing with language had a much stronger presence. How do I know this? Well, they told me, of course. (Picture the seeds for poetry being quietly slipped through your mail slot). I'm not at all saying that all dry cleaning tickets can be seen in this light but we should try and be attuned to when they do. Notes taken during the site visit are very important to retaining this type of information.
Best,
Catherine
-----Original Message-----
From: personal_archives-bounces at mailman.yale.edu on behalf of Maryanne Dever
Sent: Fri 4/25/2008 2:38 PM
To: Personal_archives at mailman.yale.edu
Subject: [Personal_archives] Not kept items
I think this is really interesting. One of the questions that I find
myself asking is when was additional material added to collections and
where did that material come from? I almost never get an answer to
that one and yet it seems pretty straightforward. And the person who
donated the material isn't always identified.
I remember a friend of mine was working on the writer Djuna Barnes and
was fascinated by finding a drycleaning ticket among the papers: that
was the item she always mentioned to us. I can imagine, however, that
that sort of thing might be discarded...
I'm completely intrigued by the idea of material not being kept. I
think in general we tend to assume as readers that what we access is
what was donated. Is anyone game to say what sorts of items are
discarded and why?? I was talking to the archivist in the Canadian
Women's Movement Archives at U of Ottawa last month and she was
pointing out that they would keep two copies only usually of something
like a pile of flyers. That makes sense given space considerations.
But I'm still curious about other kinds of decisions.
Cheers,
Maryanne
--
Assoc. Prof. Maryanne Dever
Centre for Women's Studies and Gender Research, Monash University,
Melbourne
President, Australian Women's and Gender Studies Association (AWGSA)
Visiting Scholar, McGill Center for Research and Teaching on Women
(MCRTW), Apr-Jun 2008
Bank of Montreal Visiting Scholar in Women's Studies
University of Ottawa, Jan-Mar 2008
Mailing Address:
Centre for Women's Studies & Gender Research
School of Political & Social Inquiry
Faculty of Arts
Monash University
Victoria 3800 AUSTRALIA
Tel. 61 3 99053259
Fax. 61 3 99052410
http://arts.monash.edu.au/womens-studies/
----- Original Message -----
From: Fisher Robert <Robert.Fisher at lac-bac.gc.ca>
Date: Saturday, April 26, 2008 2:03 am
Subject: Re: [Personal_archives] FW: Archivists, ethics, privacy and
the everyday
To: Personal_archives at mailman.yale.edu
> We certainly could do more in our descriptions and finding aids to
> tell researchers more about (a) our reasons for acquisition (b),
> our selection criteria & what records were not kept by the
> archivist, and (c) the degree of our intervention in the physical
> arrangement, which can range from minimal to almost complete
> rearranging.
> I suspect for most of us fear of transparency is not the
> motivating factor, but the absence of that luxury, time, to give
> this value added context, and what Catherine suggested, a lack of
> models for personal archives or even a lack of the expectation
> that this information will be made available to the researcher.
> As time pressures increase, description tends to get short shrift
> after the arrangement and tax appraisal work are done. Certainly
> a fear or perhaps reluctance to set oneself up for criticism for
> not keeping particular files which just happened to be those
> required by a particular researcher could be present. We know
> there are some researchers who believe everything should be kept--
> if one document is missing that is the one document that was
> vital!
>
> Sometimes the amount of contextual knowledge we gain while
> acquiring and organizing the fonds is so extensive that it would
> be difficult to compress that knowledge into simple description
> note fields for the areas mentioned above, or to know which of the
> mass of things we've learned should be pulled out and highlighted
> in the description, especially when there are so many different
> potential users. How to summarize or explain when we are
> intervening physically or making selection judgments in every
> file? Incidentally, Cultural Properties has just told us they
> want more information about what was not kept in our appraisal
> reports -- so we may have that information closer to hand now to
> put into the description.
>
> Cheers,
> Rob
>
>
>
> This is just my opinion and not that of Library and Archives Canada.
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________
> Robert C. Fisher
> Archivist, Social Archives
> Library and Archives Canada
> 550 Boulevard de la Cité
> Gatineau, Quebec, K1A 0N4
> (819) 934-7392
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: personal_archives-bounces at mailman.yale.edu
> [mailto:personal_archives-bounces at mailman.yale.edu] On Behalf Of
> Hobbs Catherine
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 4:28 PM
> To: Personal_archives at mailman.yale.edu
> Subject: [Personal_archives] FW: Archivists, ethics,privacy and
> the everyday
>
> A few points to add to this:
>
> Thinking about what goes on behind the scenes from the archival
> perspective: I do think that there is a certain amount of fear
> among archivists of interpreting the records/combined with a sense
> that we want our decisions determinations to be somehow secret (I
> don't feel this way, but I get the sense that there is a
> professional "shying away"). This exists even though we are very
> implicated in the interpretation of the fonds when doing appraisal
> and arrangement and description and despite the fact that
> theorists like Barbara Craig are counselling us to make our
> decisions about appraisal accessible to researchers. I think
> interpretation can be done responsibly when we are in contact (as
> we so often are now) with the creator of the records. Or at least
> we should try to recover what we can about the context of the
> creation and use of the records and make it as plain as possible
> within description.
>
> For some ideas on how the method of acquisition and restrictions
> placed on the fonds have shaped the understanding of Alice Munro,
> see Reading In Alice Munro's Archives by JoAnn McCaig (Wifrid
> Laurier).
> As Maryanne's recent message points to, it is not just decisions
> about what to acquire and how to describe it but also decisions
> about physical rearrangement which impact here and I don't see a
> lot of transparency about arrangement in archival description
> (which speaks to your example of the depressed creator Maryanne
> and the removal of the de Acosta envelopes). I think this is a
> symptom of a larger problem where personal archives has lacked a
> sufficient body of theory to theorize the differences from the
> fonds of organizations and allow for different approaches.
>
> Picking up on Sara's question as to whether or not people start to
> change their record-keeping once they recognize themselves to be
> public figures: In my experience, once their career is firmly
> established many writers do start to think of themselves
> "professionally" and modify their language (at least in the more
> "professional" areas of their fonds such as professional
> correspondence). It is difficult, though, to separate out a few
> elements here: is this professional attitude and language as a
> result of their stature or a result of a change in their
> profession (for example, the "scene" for writers in Canada 40
> years ago was markedly un-professionalized and is now very much
> so)? The decision to "spruce up" their record-keeping probably
> follows from these two intertwined developments (of the individual
> and of the profession).
>
> If the other question underlying this is, "once the creator has
> placed material with an archives does that change his/her
> recordkeeping?": for me that is also a difficult one to tease out
> (in part because the development of archival theory and practice
> in Canada was professionalized at roughly the same rate as the
> writerly professions). I can see cases where the fact that an
> earlier accession of a fonds was placed with an archives (or that
> the creator predicted its placement), there was a decision made to
> hold back or destroy documents, or sometimes the creator asks if
> they should rearrange an original order to suit the previous
> accession (agh!). This, of course, is where the archivist's role
> is to educate the creator or donor as to the importance of
> original order and the possibility of restricting material (not as
> a means just to keep something "under raps" but to preserve the
> material for the longterm). It would be very difficult to
> establish what role the archives had to play in self-censorship in
> future accessions (though I tend to believe that creators continue
> to live their lives and not alter their modes of expression so
> much as they look after the fact of creation at the possibility of
> controlling access to their material through the methods
> mentioned.
>
> Often the alternative of bringing something in under restriction
> is a threat destruction or letting it languish detatched from the
> rest of the fonds (and in less than ideal storage conditions).
> Sorry, "archival interlopers" but if something is vitally
> important to understanding an individual and is placed under a
> restriction that prohibits current research, to my mind at least
> it is being preserved in its context in the fonds with a provision
> for access in the future. I guess this is in some sense where
> the "role of futurity in archival logistics" comes into play.
>
> Catherine
>
> Catherine Hobbs,
> Archivist, Literary Archives (English-language)
> Library and Archives Canada
> WS 598, 550 Blvd de la Cité
> Gatineau, QC, K1A 0N4
>
> Tel: (819) 934-8331 Fax: (819) 934-8333
> e-mail: catherine.hobbs at lac-bac.gc.ca
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: personal_archives-bounces at mailman.yale.edu
> [mailto:personal_archives-bounces at mailman.yale.edu] On Behalf Of
> Maryanne Dever
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 11:42 AM
> To: Personal_archives at mailman.yale.edu
> Subject: Re: [Personal_archives] Archivists, ethics, privacy and
> the everyday
>
> HI Everyone,
>
> Wow! I think those are really juicy issues! I love it! I'm
> responding here initiallly to points from Amy, Robert and Heather
> in the first instance. More to follow
>
> I think that - given how much critical attention is being given to
> 'going backstage in the archives' as Antoinette Burton says - it
> is inevitable that the role of the archivist should also come
> under some kind of scrutiny. I rather like Martha Cooley's novel
> "The Archivist"
> for its take on this subject.
>
> Mike Featherstone in his essay 'Archive' talks of how it is both
> archivists and researchers who together -- in working with papers -
> - 'create the maps and record the journeys into the archive that
> produce the images we have of the possibilities of the material'.
> [Mike Featherstone, 'Archive', Theory, Culture and Society 23: 2-3
> (2006)]. I guess it would be interesting for me as a researcher to
> have more access to exactly what happens once a collection reaches
> an institution. I've certainly worked on papers that were
> initially fairly 'untouched' and then were more systematically
> ordered after a period of some years -- and the effect on how I
> saw that collection was quite dramatic. The individual involved
> suffered from a series of nervous breakdowns and the chaos I
> originally saw in the papers seemed to mirror this. Once they were
> tidied and reordered, 'she' suddenly looked different too.
> Similarly, I worked on the papers of the Fellowship of Australian
> writers at the Mitchell Library in Sydney. They were just
> unsorted boxes but several of us were working on them and I would
> come back and find the material in a particularly box been up-
> ended and -- apart from practical horrors at not being able to
> find particular items again readily -- the new conjunctions of
> material meant that the reading experience kept changing.
>
> I was trying to enumerate the various layers involved here in the
> introduction to our forthcoming co-authored book, "The Intimate
> Archive". In thinking about how a collection is shaped before
> researchers enter the picture, I was figuring on the following: It
> is shaped initially by the original donor (who may or may not be the
> creator) through their choice of the materials to be lodged with a
> particular institution. And as you noted, donors get to exercise
> the prerogative of property (and we can think here of Ted Hughes'
> destruction of Sylvia Plath's final diaries). I was reading an
> essay at the weekend on collecting where the point was made about
> the transition from private to public hands and how the meanings
> that attach to objects 'shift when they enter a collection because
> collections produce knowledge in particular ways...the object also
> gains the status of being worthy of collection and enters into
> relationships with items in that collection'. [Josephine Mills,
> 'Modus Operandi' in Josephine Mills and Nancy Tousley, "On
> Collecting".
> Lethbridge, Alberta: University of Lethbridge Art Gallery, 2004,
> pp. 9- 14.] Donated materials are then obviously shaped by
> archivists in the course of ordering and cataloguing the material.
> Then an individual collection may also be subject to restrictions
> (put in place, for example, by creators, donors or copyright
> holders) which limit reader access to all or part of a collection,
> again implicitly re-shaping the publicly available archive. The
> sheer fragility of particular items can place certain elements of
> an individual collection beyond the reach of readers too. What
> else would be in that list?
>
> I think those are really interesting comments on the privacy
> question:
> I've been conscious in the various papers I've looked at that I
> was seeing personal documents that the individuals who created
> them were not aware were preserved in this manner. Garbo almost
> certainly would not have wanted those letters available. And you
> probably noticed I didn't quote directly from any: that is because
> the Estate doesn't give permission for them to be quoted in print.
> I made a routine request and didn't even get a reply. Each set of
> correspondence within the de Acosta papers was closed until 10 yrs
> after the death of the individual concerned. I also worked as a
> research assistant on a large set of papers that were donated by a
> prominent (living) Australian author who had donated 'whatever was
> in the attic'. The papers went first to the office of an academic
> who was writing a biography (I was the RA) and were then headed
> for the National Library. I found a set of quite anguished letters
> from the writer's first wife (about child support payments etc)
> that the author probably had forgotten - they didn't paint him in
> a flattering light so I'm assuming that he hadn't actively
> preserved them for posterity -- and which the former wife would
> have been mortified to have realized were preserved in a public
> collection. This kind of relates to the point about ethics as
> well. In this instance I drew these letters to the attention of
> the manuscript librarian when the papers were leaving the
> university for the Nat. Library (obviously they would have found
> them anyway) and suggested they might get back in touch with the
> author -- who hadn't requested any restrictions -- and see what
> they might do. But I think that question of ethics is a live one
> and especially for those who didn't make the decision to have
> their papers preserved in that way. (I remember the protagonist in
> "The Archivist" wonders why 'the writer's hunger for privacy [is]
> always less compelling than the re ader's appetite - voracious,
> insatiable - for more words?' (p.322) And I'm fascinated by the
> very fine line that sometimes separates legitimate scholarly
> intent from plain old voyeurism.)
>
> Thanks, Rob, for your comments on the Garbo paper. I think the
> point you make about *when* couples write -- ie when they are
> apart -- is such an obvious but often overlooked one. Margaret
> Harris' edition of the letters between novelist Christina Stead
> and her husband, Bill Blake, is a nice example of this. They were
> together for decades and apart at quite specific points in those
> years and those are the letters we have. Often they are anxious
> letters -- about money, for example, as it was often the prospect
> of well paid work that would take one or other away -- but
> sometimes it is the swapping of quite banal detail that is in fact
> the mark of their intimacy. I'm quite taken by collections of
> letters that fail to deliver what we first expect or want them to
> because that becomes for me the moment to start unpacking what my
> expectations were and how they shaped my reading of the
> correspondence. I make the point in a section of 'The Intimate
> Archive' where I don't find love lett ers in any conventional
> sense between Barnard and Davison that we have plenty of ways to
> talk about that seemingly revelatory moment when one stumbles upon
> a piece that appears to resolve the puzzle -- but we tend to lack
> a suitable language to frame the concept of archival 'failure',
> let alone ways to think about whether the archive 'failed' me or I
> had failed it (in the assumptions and expectations that I brought
> to it). We don't feel duly rewarded by the everyday, I suspect,
> when that is what we find.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Maryanne
>
> --
> Assoc. Prof. Maryanne Dever
> Centre for Women's Studies and Gender Research, Monash University,
> Melbourne President, Australian Women's and Gender Studies
> Association (AWGSA)
>
> Visiting Scholar, McGill Center for Research and Teaching on Women
> (MCRTW), Apr-Jun 2008
>
> Bank of Montreal Visiting Scholar in Women's Studies University of
> Ottawa, Jan-Mar 2008
>
> Mailing Address:
> Centre for Women's Studies & Gender Research School of Political &
> Social Inquiry Faculty of Arts Monash University Victoria 3800
> AUSTRALIA
> Tel. 61 3 99053259
> Fax. 61 3 99052410
> http://arts.monash.edu.au/womens-studies/
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Hobbs Catherine <catherine.hobbs at lac-bac.gc.ca>
> Date: Thursday, April 24, 2008 5:19 am
> Subject: [Personal_archives] FW: Singular moments and some
> destructionTo: Personal_archives at mailman.yale.edu
>
> > Hi Everyone,
> > To pick up on the discussion of the past day (I've really
> enjoyed
> > "listening" to everyone):
> >
> > I have two examples of the material evidence of co-habitation
> and
> > reuse of archival material within a couple(with a more positive
> spin
> > than the Plath example). The element of this which interests me
> is
> > not so much that one poet is taking the work of another and
> scribbling
> > on the back of it (I love the idea of "writing on the backside"
> by the
> > way) but that this really is the material evidence of their
> > co-habitation and the closeness of their life together. I am
> working
> > on the fonds of poets Roo Borson and Kim Maltman right now: two
> > collaborators. There is the same phenomena of one writing on
> the back
> > of another's drafts. In their case it is not evidence of one
> poetic
> > mind erasing another's work but, in fact, the premium placed on
> paper
> > within the household. Theirs is a household where paper is
> constantly
> > being reused. They are each so much in the habit that the blank
> > bottom halves of printed off emails are still commandeered for
> reuse.
> > What does it tell you about them (other than the environmental
> and
> > wealth-related aspects?), well, that each had access to the
> detritus
> > of the other from very early on in their personal relationship
> (in the
> > the mid- 1970's). It tells you something of the closeness of
> their
> > relationship and their generosity toward one another with
> respect to
> > their poetry (equally evident in the commentary that each
> provided the
> > other). I think that the use of Via Rail paper in the fonds of
> writer
> > Gail Scott is also evidence of something similar when we
> consider her
> > former lover Erin Mouré worked at Via.
> >
> > Websites present a very different challenge in regard to third
> party
> > information and personal letters, particularly when you have
> > institutions assuming that all the archives will (naturally) be
> > digitized. It is only those who contribute their archives after
> the
> > advent of the web who are even aware of the possibility of such
> > wideranging broadcast and sharing of their sentiments. A letter
> may
> > not be under closure and be open to researchers on site but the
> > intention of the donor was never to make it simultaneously
> available
> > to the world at large with a click of the mouse.
> >
> > Amy: I thought that this was a very important comment, "I tend
> to
> > think that this is the crux of personal archives: that they
> resemble
> > creative works" (I am reminded of Anne Benichou's paper given at
> the
> > Taking a Stand Conference about the archives of Melvin Cherney
> where
> > the archives were seen as a critical and artistic practice). It
> gets
> > at a few issues for me: first that there is a freedom of the
> creator
> > in the intention to create, and in the creation and keeping of
> > documents that can allow different meanings and different modes
> of
> > expression. One of the reasons why I liked Maryanne's
> discussion of
> > the "fort-da" dynamic with Garbo calling de Acosta to her and
> sending
> > her away in order to reinforce the dynamic of their relationship
> is
> > that it tells us that archives are performative and that the
> dynamic
> > of the archives can mimic aspects of the creator's psychology.
> How do
> > we see that the creation and dissemination of archives are
> creative
> > acts and are also acts to construct self and relationships?
> >
> > On the side of working practice: Maryanne, there are ways in
> which
> > archival description allows archivists to describe links between
> fonds
> > both within the same institution and to those at another
> institutions.
> > I rarely see this done, your example of Marjorie Barnard and
> Flora
> > Eldershaw shows us the importance of doing so.
> >
> > Looking forward to more.
> >
> > Catherine
> >
> >
> >
> > Catherine Hobbs,
> > Archivist, Literary Archives (English-language) Library and
> Archives
> > Canada WS 598, 550 Blvd de la Cité Gatineau, QC, K1A 0N4
> >
> > Tel: (819) 934-8331 Fax: (819) 934-8333
> > e-mail: catherine.hobbs at lac-bac.gc.ca
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: personal_archives-bounces at mailman.yale.edu
> > [mailto:personal_archives-bounces at mailman.yale.edu] On Behalf Of
> > Maryanne Dever
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 5:04 PM
> > To: Personal_archives at mailman.yale.edu
> > Subject: Re: [Personal_archives] Singular moments and some
> destruction
> >
> > I think Sylvia's point is a really important one and it comes up
> > frequently in literary studies - but maybe isn't commented on
> very
> > much. I'm thinking here of the way a particular sentiment
> expressed in
> > a single archived letter will be quoted as though it represented
> a
> > enduring life philosophy rather than, as you say, something
> expressed
> > in the moment! The example that has troubled me is another
> Barnard
> > one. Barnard maintained a correspondence for decades with critic
> > Nettie Palmer and when in 1935 she learned from Nettie that she
> was
> > keeping her letters, Barnard responded
> > thus: "By the way what possessed you to tell me that you kept my
> > letters? It was enough to scuttle me as a correspondent". This
> line is
> > quoted frequently to suggest that Barnard had a "life long"
> anxiety
> > about her letters being preserved which simply isn't so. She
> learned
> > in the 1940s that Palmer was quoting from them in a published
> > selection of her journals and was evidently quite chuffed. She
> was
> > also cons ulted about the transfer of her letters to the
> National
> > Library as part of the Palmers' papers and she not only appears
> to
> > have agreed but later drew people's attention to
> them.
> >
> > On the conditions under which letters are sometimes written (and
> how
> > this affects handwriting, choice of stationery etc) I always
> like this
> > description Barnard gives of her letter-writing habits:
> >
> > At one o'clock in the morning I'm liable to say anything. I'm
> writing
> > in bed, the lamp carefully draped with a dark blue slip so that
> my
> > family shall not see it and come to reproach me for getting a
> little
> > more out of the day than they think proper. A devious creature
> but I
> > must milk the night if I'm to get any time to myself.
> > Marjorie Barnard to Nettie Palmer, 30 March 1939.
> >
> > Barnard was 41 years old at this point! Her worst handwriting is
> when
> > she is writing on the morning ferry.
> >
> >
> > On the question of destruction/survival and material literacy,
> there
> > is a very interesting essay by Lynda K. Bundtzen, 'Poetic Arson
> and
> > Sylvia Plath's "Burning the Letters"' which I've just found. She
> talks
> > about how 'acts of textual violence or abuse [destruction of
> each
> > other's work/papers] ...were...habitual in the Plath-Hughes
> marriage.'
> > She then talks about how when Smith College rare books collction
> > purchased some of Plath's papers they also received parts of
> Hughes'
> > papers because Plath had written her work on discarded of Hughes'.
> > Bundtzen
> > writes: "Many of her final poems are written on his backside, so to
> > speak: Plath recycles old manuscripts and typescripts by Hughes,
> and
> > often she seems to be back talking, having the last word in an
> > argument. The friction between these two bodies is palpable at
> times,
> > as text clashes with text, and one intuits Plath's purposeful
> coercion
> > and filleting of Hughes's poems and plays as she composes ... If
> > Plath's "rare" body is skillfully re-membered for public viewing
> and
> > scholarly dissection, Hughes'
> > seems
> > at times hopelessly dismembered, scattered and disordered. Her
> words
> > are on top and one peeks at the other side, often finding her
> ink has
> > bled through, indelibly splotching and staining Hughes' work'.
> >
> > (That essay is in Anita Helle, ed. "The Unravelling Archive:
> > Essays on
> > Sylvia Plath". Ann Arbor: Uni of Michigan Press, 2007, pp.236-53.)
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Maryanne
> >
> > --
> > Assoc. Prof. Maryanne Dever
> > Centre for Women's Studies and Gender Research, Monash
> University,
> > Melbourne President, Australian Women's and Gender Studies
> Association
> > (AWGSA)
> >
> > Visiting Scholar, McGill Center for Research and Teaching on
> Women
> > (MCRTW), Apr-Jun 2008
> >
> > Bank of Montreal Visiting Scholar in Women's Studies University
> of
> > Ottawa, Jan-Mar 2008
> >
> > Mailing Address:
> > Centre for Women's Studies & Gender Research School of Political
> &
> > Social Inquiry Faculty of Arts Monash University Victoria 3800
> > AUSTRALIA
> >
> > Tel. 61 3 99053259
> > Fax. 61 3 99052410
> > http://arts.monash.edu.au/womens-studies/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Hobbs Catherine <catherine.hobbs at lac-bac.gc.ca>
> > Date: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 4:14 am
> > Subject: [Personal_archives] FW: FW: Re: 'the fragmentary,
> > shifting ice floe'
> > To: Personal_archives at mailman.yale.edu
> >
> > > Aha! That's a strong draw from my perspective as well...
> > ...what
> > > does "material literacy" as Maryanne and others (like Ala
> > Rekrut)
> > > call it indicate about state of mind? Are we not a forensic
> > > profession in a very strong sense? Can we not look for motive
> > and
> > > the state of mind of the documentor at the particular moment
> in
> > > time... (when the clues are there)?
> > >
> > > I am reminded of a wonderful group of letters held here
> between
> > > novelist Elizabeth Smart and her friend Didy Asquith. The
> > letters
> > > are in pencil, written hastily in pages torn from small
> > notebooks
> > > while ES was looking after her three young children on a farm
> in
> > > Ireland. The letters contain many references to her poverty
> (having
> > > to feed her children on boiled nettles, for example) and her
> lover
> > > George Barker's repeated visits (one where he racks up an
> immense
> > > bar bill at the local pub which ES has no hope of paying off).
> The
> > > content is important to understanding her psychology but it is
> made
> > > ever more present and ever more momentary when you notice the
> > > crescent shaped finger nail holes which ES has made along the
> side
> > > of a number of the sheets.
> > >
> > > I love the fact that you situate the creator at a particular
> moment
> > > in his/her present.
> > >
> > > Catherine
> > >
> > >
> > > Catherine Hobbs,
> > > Archivist, Literary Archives (English-language) Library and
> Archives
> > > Canada WS 598, 550 Blvd de la Cité Gatineau, QC, K1A 0N4
> > >
> > > Tel: (819) 934-8331 Fax: (819) 934-8333
> > > e-mail: catherine.hobbs at lac-bac.gc.ca
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > > From: SYLVIA LASSAM [mailto:sylvialassam at rogers.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 1:56 PM
> > > To: Hobbs Catherine
> > > Subject: Re: [Personal_archives] FW: Re: 'the fragmentary,
> shifting
> > > ice floe'
> > >
> > >
> > > Good afternoon,
> > >
> > > One of two things have occured to me while reading the
> comments from
> > > Catherine and Maryanne. Not only is our documentation
> fragmentary,
> > > but our sense of a letter-writer's persona is reflective of a
> very
> > > particular place and time, of which we may know nothing. The
> moment
> > > a specific letter was written is dependant on so many things,
> > > including the writer's mood, the swirl of activity surrounding
> them
> > > (or not), important events
> > they
> > > may assume their reader is aware of... There's a real danger,
> I
> > > think, that archivists and researchers may extrapolate too
> much, and
> > > make too many assumptions, from any one surviving letter.
> > >
> > > On a practical note, as a way to help researchers
> contextualize the
> > > document, we might want to consider a description of the
> physical
> > > object if it throws any light on the contents of the letter,
> > > especially if we can compare it to others. Was it
> > written
> > > in haste, carefully typed on nice stationery, can the envelope
> tell
> > > us of a temporary re-location? In other words, the
> > physical
> > > presentation may give us clues to the writer's state of mind
> and/or
> > > frame the recipient's initial reaction.
> > >
> > > I'm enjoying this immensely so far.
> > >
> > > Sylvia Lassam
> > > Archives of Ontario
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message ----
> > > From: Hobbs Catherine <catherine.hobbs at lac-bac.gc.ca>
> > > To: Personal_archives at mailman.yale.edu
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:03:27 AM
> > > Subject: [Personal_archives] FW: Re: 'the fragmentary,
> shifting ice
> > > floe'
> > >
> > > Good morning,
> > >
> > > For my part, I agree with du Bois' propositions which you've
> > > outlined and think that this approach is very transferrable to
> > the
> > > archivist. >From this perspective, archivists need to
> > foreground
> > > the facts that the fonds which survives is fragmentary. This
> means
> > > including details in archival appraisal and description about
> the
> > > decisions and forces which made the fonds fragmentary
> > in
> > > the first place.
> > >
> > > For my part, I do spend time asking creative writers if there
> > was
> > > a time when they made a decision not to create documents or
> decided
> > > to destroy documents, or when moving house or moving a
> > job
> > > (or a break in in their car) meant that part of their records
> > were
> > > lost. It seems to me that archivists are understanding of
> this when
> > > it comes to judging the rarety of what survives but they don't
> > > transfer this part of the story to the researcher through
> archival
> > > description all that often. I guess there is also the next
> layer
> > > where part of the story becomes the creator's relationship to
> what
> > > was lost. Was the fragmenting a decision
> > to
> > > act (such as a bonfire which has never been regretted) or is
> the
> > > creator mourning the loss of certain documents because they
> > relate
> > > to an earlier self and take on an ideal form? These
> additional
> > > elements can help us to see the psychology of the documentor
> and
> > > hence better reveal the fonds.
> > >
> > > Of course, as the ability to "read fragmentarily" suggests, we
> need
> > > to be clear that there are gaps even when there is no clue
> > to
> > > their context.
> > >
> > > (The Sylvia Plath example reminds me of the novel Swann by
> Carol
> > > Shields, black comedy where the scholars are ransacking the
> > > fragmentary archives of a murdered (in fact dismembered) poet
> whose
> > > ouevre was naive or possibly completely talentless--sorry, the
> > > literary references keep coming).
> > >
> > > Other thoughts on the practical aspects of this or reflections
> > on
> > > particular archival fonds?
> > >
> > > Catherine
> > >
> > > Catherine Hobbs,
> > > Archivist, Literary Archives (English-language) Library and
> Archives
> > > Canada WS 598, 550 Blvd de la Cité Gatineau, QC, K1A 0N4
> > >
> > > Tel: (819) 934-8331 Fax: (819) 934-8333
> > > e-mail: catherine.hobbs at lac-bac.gc.ca
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: personal_archives-bounces at mailman.yale.edu
> > > [mailto:personal_archives-bounces at mailman.yale.edu] On Behalf
> Of
> > > Maryanne Dever
> > > Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 7:16 PM
> > > To: Personal_archives at mailman.yale.edu
> > > Subject: [Personal_archives] Re: 'the fragmentary, shifting ice
> > floe'>
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > Hello. Thanks for the opportunity to participate in this. I'm
> really
> > > looking forward to the discussion over the week.
> > >
> > > So, how to approach 'the fragmentary, shifting ice floe'? And
> > how
> > > to live with ambiguity?
> > >
> > > On this question I've been really intrigued by the work of
> classics
> > > scholar, Page duBois, which I've found quite productive when
> > > pondering this. I thinking here of her book 'Sappho is
> Burning'
> > > (University of Chicago Press, 1995). While those of us who
> work on
> > > contemporary literary subjects and their personal papers might
> be
> > > able to avoid confronting the question of the fragmentary
> nature of
> > > the material we find in the archives, as a classical scholar
> working
> > > with the fragments of ancient texts (such as surviving
> portions of
> > > Sappho's lyric poems), duBois has no choice but to address the
> > > question pretty much head-on. This
> > is
> > > why I find her work so refreshing.
> > >
> > > She writes of how our attention to the artefacts of the past
> is
> > > inevitably shaped by a desire that is precisely 'a longing for
> what
> > > we cannot have' (p.33). DuBois is more than familiar with the
> > > epistemological challenges routinely thrown up by contending
> with
> > > 'broken things', those 'bits of the past assembled for our
> gaze
> > > through random events and destruction and discovery' (p.
> > 31).
> > > (This is a little bit like what Jacqueline Rose talks about in
> > her
> > > book 'The Haunting of Sylvia Plath' where -- drawing on
> > > psychoanalytic frameworks -- she characterizes Plath's archive
> > in
> > > particular - as the 'corps morcele' or body-in-bits-and-pieces
> -
> > -
> > > as opposed to the fantasy of corporeal unity. Rose is
> > interested,
> > > in the same way as DuBois I think, in how to contend with an
> archive
> > > that is 'scattered and broken'.)
> > >
> > > du Bois highlights the extent to which researchers involved in
> > > various kinds of archival work consciously and unconsciously
> > > understand themselves as agents of recovery and
> reconstitution,
> > > despite the impossibility of such projects in the face of 'what
> > is
> > > in fact irrevocably lost'. She contends that we ought to
> examine
> > > more closely our insistent drive to 'mend' the past, to make
> it
> > > 'whole' in the face of its fragmented and dismembered material
> > > legacy. DuBois suggests that what we need to do is to hold
> that
> > > 'dream of wholeness' in tension with our recognition of what
> is
> > > irretrievable.
> > >
> > > What I take from duBois is that the skill we have to learn is
> to how
> > > to 'read fragmentarily'. I think this links to the question
> of
> > > 'ambiguity' or perhaps to 'contingency'. As
> > literary/historical
> > > researchers we have to realize that when we build a narrative
> > from
> > > the assembled fragments in an archive, for all that we have
> invested
> > > in the idea of ourselves as playing a restorative role, we are
> > > essentially putting pieces together to tell our stories, not
> > > accessing some fully-formed story that lies there waiting
> > for
> > > us. In short, the fragments gain their evidentiary status -
> > their
> > > seeming significance and seeming coherence - primarily from
> the ways
> > > in which they are incorporated into our stories. The challenge
> as I
> > > see it is how to make that contingent element manifest in what
> I
> > > write.
> > >
> > > I'll start with that for now and come back to those other
> > elements
> > > (the role of chance and the self-censorship and role playing
> of the
> > > creator question) next.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Maryanne
> > >
> > > --
> > > Assoc. Prof. Maryanne Dever
> > > Centre for Women's Studies and Gender Research, Monash
> > University,
> > > Melbourne President, Australian Women's and Gender Studies
> > > Association (AWGSA)
> > >
> > > Visiting Scholar, McGill Center for Research and Teaching on
> > Women
> > > (MCRTW), Apr-Jun 2008
> > >
> > > Bank of Montreal Visiting Scholar in Women's Studies University
> > of
> > > Ottawa, Jan-Mar 2008
> > >
> > > Mailing Address:
> > > Centre for Women's Studies & Gender Research School of Political
> > &
> > > Social Inquiry Faculty of Arts Monash University Victoria 3800
> > > AUSTRALIA Tel. 61 3 99053259 Fax. 61 3 99052410
> > > http://arts.monash.edu.au/womens-studies/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Hobbs Catherine <catherine.hobbs at lac-bac.gc.ca>
> > > Date: Monday, April 21, 2008 10:55 pm
> > > Subject: [Personal_archives] Welcome to our SISPA discussion
> > > To: Personal_archives at mailman.yale.edu
> > >
> > > > Good morning,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I am very pleased to welcome Maryanne Dever (of Monash
> > > University) to
> > > > the personal archives listserv. Today is the beginning of a
> > > weeklong
> > > > open discussion of issues arising from our reading of her
> > > articles. I
> > > > hope many questions and examples from our own work have come
> > to
> > > mind
> > > > and
> > > > that these can be bandied about this week. (Just a reminder
> to
> > > > participants to send replies and questions to the entire list
> > > and not
> > > > just the last speaker).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So to begin the discussion...
> > > > Maryanne, it's wonderful to have you with us. Thank you for
> > > agreeing
> > > > to participate. I was a real pleasure to reread your articles
> > > in
> > > > preparation for this, particularly because you have such a way
> > > of
> > > > enticing the reader with vivid examples in combination with
> > > > well-informed interpretation and criticism of existing
> assumptions
> > > how
> > > > we approach archives.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > One of the most important themes arising in both articles, and
> > a
> > > good
> > > > place to start I think, is the idea of the "fissured
> archive"
> > > that is
> > > > that the archival fonds which is brought into the archives is
> > > (as you
> > > > put it) like a fishnet... threads "held taut over pockets
> of
> > > > nothingness". That the personal life is always, inevitably
> > more
> > > than
> > > > the sum of the remains and inevitably ineffable.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As Carol Shields put it in her novel Small Ceremonies, "So
> > much
> > > of a
> > > > man's life is lived inside his own head, that it is impossible
> > > to
> > > > encompass a personality. There is never enough
> > > material.
> > > > Sometimes I read in the newspaper that some university or
> > > library has
> > > > bought hundreds and hundreds of boxes of letters and papers
> > > connected
> > > > with some famous deceased person, and I know every time that
> it's
> > > > nevergoing to be enough, its hopeless, so why even try?"
> > > > (Couldn't resist one of my favourite quotes!)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There are other aspects which you discuss to show how this
> > > fissured
> > > > archives is further complicated such as the role of chance and
> > > the
> > > > self-censorship and role playing of the creator.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So how do you think that you as a scholar interpreting
> > archives
> > > and we
> > > > as archivists should approach this fragmentary, shifting ice
> floe?
> > > > I
> > > > wonder if you could comment further on how to 'live with
> > > ambiguity' ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Catherine
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > (SISPA Chair)
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Personal_archives mailing list
> > > Personal_archives at mailman.yale.edu
> > > http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/personal_archives
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Personal_archives mailing list
> > Personal_archives at mailman.yale.edu
> > http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/personal_archives
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Personal_archives mailing list
> Personal_archives at mailman.yale.edu
> http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/personal_archives
> _______________________________________________
> Personal_archives mailing list
> Personal_archives at mailman.yale.edu
> http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/personal_archives
>
More information about the Personal_archives
mailing list