College and Research Libraries By G R A C E A . E N G L A N D Local Author Collections in Libraries' Miss England is librarian, Downtown Library, Detroit Public Library. AT FIRST this study was to cover defini-tions of the term "local author" only. As the plan evolved, other matters assumed importance, as, for example, the location of local author collections, their purpose and scope, their usefulness, policies of exclusion and inclusion, and cooperative collecting and maintenance schemes. A trial ques- tionnaire, sent to N e w England libraries by Philip M c N i f f , of Harvard, elicited so much interest that the committee decided to make a questionnaire survey of libraries throughout the United States. A questionnaire prepared by the late John V a n M a l e , then chairman of the com- mittee, was answered by 284 libraries. T h e replies came from n o public libraries, 103 college and university libraries, 35 state libraries, and 36 from a miscellaneous group which included society and institu- tional libraries not belonging in any of the previously mentioned categories. O f these libraries, 175 reported the existence of local author collections. From the replies received it would be possible to select considerable information that might be of interest in a more extended report. Whether or not a library buys for such a collection or relies upon gifts; is inclusive or excludes all but "meritori- ous" titles; reserves a first or only copy or 1 Report of a survey undertaken by the A m e r i c a n L i b r a r y Association Bibliography Committee. T h i s study of the scope, content, and handling of local author collections was undertaken in response to a request f o r information from R u b y E g b e r t , technical processes librarian, Washington State L i b r a r y . duplicates freely; shelves such a collection as a whole or classifies and relies upon the catalog to bring out the locality tie; in- cludes or eliminates fiction; stresses first editions; stresses " m a j o r " writers—these are questions which because of limitations of time and space have been excluded from this report. A n analysis by geographical areas might produce interesting data, al- though the honors seem to belong, unchal- lenged by any of the reports received, to the State of Ohio and its Martha Kinney Cooper Library at Columbus. Policies of Collection T h e importance of understanding the sectional structure of our country is gen- erally recognized, and many libraries have attempted to secure and preserve the works of local authors as a record of the intel- lectual and cultural development of a com- munity or an area. Such collections have validity for their psychological and adver- tising value for the area covered, and can be justified as records of local intellectual activity. However, as printed materials continue to pour from presses in ever in- creasing amounts, these collections show a tendency to grow out of bounds and to become "white elephants," especially if a nonselective, all-inclusive policy is fol- lowed. O n the other hand, if a selective policy is pursued, it can be successfully argued that the purpose of the collection is thereby defeated, but that the intellectual growth or level of the area cannot be de- termined solely by what is "best" in its output. OCTOBER, 1948 35 7 A t the outset it should be noted that in a great many of the replies the term "local author collections" appears to be regarded as synonymous with "local history collec- tion," and for that reason many of the data submitted have proved difficult to interpret. Some local author collections are merged in local history collections. Indeed, in all but a handful of libraries, existing current practice tends to include in such collections only writers of fiction, or history, occasion- ally belles lettres, and to disregard writers in the fields of art, music, technology, busi- ness, and the social sciences. Surely these latter are as illustrative of community progress, and therefore as important to col- lect as are the former. These collections of miscellaneous works which have no common denominator except that of the local birth or residence of the writers seem, for the most part, to have been assembled on a guesswork basis of what might prove interesting to readers or useful in some other way. A few libraries aim at bibliographical completeness, but one library has limited its field of interest to five authors only and collects only auto- graphed first editions of these. Criteria for Inclusion Definitions of the term "local author" vary widely. Birth in the area is a gen- erally accepted criterion, but one librarian remarked that there is no point in claiming as native sons or daughters authors who do not reciprocate. She cited the case of Edna Ferber who, it was said, remembers with loathing her days in Ottumwa, Iowa. Education in the area is another but less generally accepted criterion. Residence for a specified period of years—the lowest men- tioned is four—during which creative work was produced, is commonly accepted, but one reply points out that an author w h o has lived in the area less than fifteen years is not regarded as "local." Caroline Engstfeld's Bibliography of Alabama Authors limits its scope to those who "are Alabamians by birth and education, or who have written books during actual residence in Alabama, but authors who merely happened to have lived a few years in Ala- bama during childhood are excluded." O n the other hand, J. M . Agnew's Southern Bibliography includes "those born in the South whether they continued to live there or not and those who have contributed in any way to the social, economic, historical or cultural life of the region." T h u s we see birth, education, residence, quite gen- erally accepted as criteria for inclusion in most local author collections, but accepted with qualifications by a few. One library, incidentally, recognizes as a local author any writer whose family or relatives still live in the city. A few libraries also in- clude as local authors those who have written about the area, but w h o remain guiltless of the other qualifications of birth or residence. One university library re- ports that the usual test is "residence rather than birth." Policies regarding selection and inclusion are equally varied. In one state library, Oregon, any book by an Oregon author on Oregon is included, but other material by Oregon authors is carefully selected. M a n y college and university libraries regard faculty members as local authors per se, and include all of their works, including textbooks, but one library definitely ex- cludes such writings. One state library reports that all local authors except state employees are acceptable, and one public library admits "any local author, if sane." O n e library, in the miscellaneous group, reports a large collection of local reference material but "strictly avoids collecting any- thing by local authors." T h e Grosvenor Library reported that it takes no notice of 340 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH. LIBRARIES the fact of local authorship, while the op- posite extreme is represented by the W e s t Virginia State Library, which reports that under its rules and regulations it is required to collect copies of all writings by W e s t Virginians. T h e Boston Public Library reports that it does not have such a local collection but that one of its branches has a collection for its immediate area. O n e library includes local authors only if an autographed copy is presented by the author or if the work is of permanent value or interest. Handling and Use of Collections W h o uses these collections and how much are they used? M a n y of them are regarded as archival in character and their use is much restricted. T h e y are so solicitously protected as to be of little value to anyone. One notes with interest that where considerable use is reported, the col- lection is as a rule closely identified with a more general local history collection. A suspicion arises that the source of interest is not in the writers but in the subject. O f the libraries reporting on this matter of use, sixty-two state their collections are but slightly used, nineteen say "frequently," twenty-three "considerably," and eighteen say "a great deal." N o measure of such use seems to exist and five frankly state "they can't tell." Eleven report its chief use to be for exhibit purposes, and eight say " f o r research." Certain libraries, notably Enoch Pratt, St. Paul, and the Martha Kinney Cooper Library, have worked out definite pro- cedures for handling of such collections. Some libraries substitute a card index for a collection of local authors' writings, re- garding it as more important to maintain a complete listing than to assemble the books themselves. One reply is as f o l l o w s : " A card record of books by local authors should be sufficient in a general library. T o duplicate books by them seems a need- less expense, and single copies should be placed with related subject material if they have any value at all. A f t e r all, a record of local intellectual activity can be esti- mated more easily from a card record than from shelves of unrelated books." Some libraries which follow this policy in a modified way stamp their books to indicate local authorship, thus guarding against in- discriminate discarding. In reply to a question regarding "neigh- borhood understanding between libraries on the local author problem," only thirty- eight indicate that any division of responsi- bility exists. T h e University of Utah does not try to duplicate materials which are the natural specialty of other libraries, such as the library of the Church of Latter Day Saints. T h e Alderman Library of the University of Virginia reports an interest- ing cooperative collecting plan which in- volves the Virginia State Library and the library of the College of William and M a r y in Williamsburg. T h e y endeavor to avoid competition by setting up a plan for "control by information." T h e University of Kentucky Library makes no effort to assemble a Kentuckiana collection since a comprehensive one exists in the Louisville Public Library. Both look to the Filson Club for rare items which the public li- brary cannot afford. In Georgia, the Georgia Archives and History Department tends to acquire manuscript and museum material, while the Georgia State Library and the Carnegie Library of Atlanta tend to collect printed books. T h e North Caro- lina State Library attempts to make a complete collection of North Carolina authors and encourages county and munici- pal libraries throughout the state to collect for their own immediate localities. One college library reports that "it aims at in- OCTOBER, 1948 35 7 clusiveness" for material about the town, and records considerable rivalry on the part of the local historical society. Location T h i s brings us to a consideration of the location of such collections. A wide range of opinion was evident as to the most de- sirable point at which such collections should be maintained. Some favored the state university library, some the state li- brary, some a large public library. Nearly all w h o commented on the question at all indicated a strong feeling that joint or regional collecting should be encouraged, with the state as a convenient area; that local collecting should be for the im- mediate town or county only, with close interchange of information and possible de- posit of material with the regional collect- ing agency. Some such plan has been worked out by the Ontario Library Association, and is under study by some other groups. T h e program of the Martha Kinney Cooper Library is the most comprehensive and well-organized to show up in this survey, and would well repay close study by any- one interested in the problem of local author collections on a regional basis. Here is a definite attempt to represent all Ohio writers, composers, artists, in as com- plete a collection of each as possible, through a state-wide organization with active agents in each county. Its many activities include promotion work for Ohio authors, sponsorship of research, awards of merit to contemporary writers, and publication and distribution of annual bibliographies. Recommendations T h e information obtained through this study tends to support the conclusion that the libraries of any one state or region should come to an understanding as to how extensively they are going to collect local authors, by whom it is to be done, and how. Quite possibly the state library as- sociation or a regional association is the agency to initiate such a project. T h e study indicates the need for a division of responsibility not only to prevent duplica- tion but to insure proper coverage. As to definition of the term "local author," the wide disparity of policies indicates that a more or less arbitrary decision must be reached upon the purpose of the collection, the use to be made of it, and the physical factors of housing and maintenance. T h e distinction between regional historical ma- terial and local author collections should be clarified. A different concept of the underlying philosophy of such collections is of paramount importance. It must be realized that to be truly effective they must include more than history and belles lettres, but must represent all fields in which the people of an area are active—art, industry, business, music, the professions, and the sciences. These conclusions are of value chiefly as further evidence of the growing need for intelligent cooperation among librarians, to the end that the best interests of all may be insured. 342 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH. LIBRARIES