College and Research Libraries An Examination of the Inclusion of a Sample of Selected Women Authors in Books for College Libraries Lynn Silipigni Connaway This exploratory study identifies some of the characteristics of the three editions of Books for College Libraries (BCL) in relation to literature by women. A sample of fifty authors selected from The Norton Anthology of Literature by Women: The Tradition in English, a canon in the field of women's studies, is compared to the holdings of BCL, a highly respected core bibliography for undergraduate libraries. Forty-two of the fifty authors in the sample are included in BCL. Three hundred eighteen unique titles appear in BCL for the sample of au.thors. Sixty-four percent of the publishers of the titles in this study that appear in BCL are published by trade publishing companies. D he American Library Associa- tion has published three edi- tions of Books for College Libraries (BCL). The first edi- tion of Books for College Libraries (BCLl) was intended to update Charles B. Shaw's 1931 List of Books for College Li- braries. It is a list of approximately 53,400 titles based on the initial selection made for the University of California's New Campuses program and selected with the assistance of college teachers, librari- ans, and other advisers. "The size and subject balance of the list are similar to the already successful working collec- tions of the Lamont Library at Harvard University and the Undergraduate Li- brary at the University of Michigan."1 As the preface to BCLl states, "This list does not claim to be a list of the best books or a basic list for any college library ... [it] is a list of monographs designed to sup- port a college teaching program that de- pends heavily upon the library, and to supply the necessary materials for term papers and suggested and independent outside reading."2 The following two editions of BCL state similar objectives. BCL2, which ap- peared in 1975, states in the "Introduc- tion" that it is intended for use by the same audience of undergraduate librar- ies as BCLl and that the number of titles included has been reduced to 38,651 to reflect a minimal "core collection. "3 The "Introduction" further states, "Books recommended were to constitute 'the bare minimum of titles needed to sup- port an average college instructional program of good quality."'4 The "Intro- duction" to the third edition of BCL (BCL3), which appeared in 1988, again states that the list "presents a third rec- ommended core collection for under- graduate libraries .... "5 BCL3 includes 50,000 titles. Lynn Silipigni Connaway is Assistant Professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia Sclwol of Library and Informational Science, Columbia, Missouri 65211. The autlwr would like to thank John M. Budd, Sclwol of Library and Informational Science, University of Missouri-Columbia, and Wayne A. Wiegand, Sclwol of Library and Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, for their tJwughtful comments and suggestions and for their encouragement to complete this study. 71 72 College & Research Libraries The three editions of BCL have been subject to similar criticisms. The major criticism is the inclusion of a substantial number of out-of-print publications. Lee Ash and Robert W. Wadsworth criticize the fact that at least 40 percent of those titles included in BCL1 were ·out of print at the time the edition was published.6 R. E. Moore and Lee Ash criticize the inclu- sion of out-of-print titles when available reprints of the titles are not listed in BCL2.7 John Budd selected a stratified sample of 381 titles listed in BCL3 and checked for in-print status.8 Of these 381 titles, 163 (about 43 percent) were out of print approximately one year after the publication of BCL3. Although each edi- tion of BCL specifically states the titles were selected without regard to their availability from publishers and in-print availability was not considered a major factor, this does pose limitations on the lists as guides for selection. The reviewers also question the quali- fications of those responsible for selec- tion in each specialized area of BCL2.9 BCL3 attempted to correct this doubt of authority by involving more than four hundred faculty members and about fifty academic reference librarians on "the first-round team" and sixty~four academic librarians on the · reviewing group for the second round. 10 The librari- ans reviewed broader subject areas than the faculty reviewers. The first-round team members were given pages from BCL2 and Choice review cards within their subject areas. They were asked to rank the titles on a scale of one through four and to recommend other titles they believed nec- essary for undergraduate study within their subject areas. The second-round group served as referees and rated the quality and appropriateness of the first- round contributors' selections. 11 The producers of BCL2 are also criti- cized for their unbalanced and uneven selections, as well as the omission of im- portant · works.12 Thomas Gaughan charges BCL2 with emphasizing secon- dary authors and slighting major authorsP Wadsworth berates BCL2' s "striking reduction in number of titles" for specific authors in comparison to BCL1.14 January 1995 Regardless of the criticisms, the litera- ture suggests that BCL is used for evalu- ating and assessing collections as well as for building and maintaining them.15 With the increasing number of revisions and additions to the academic curricu- lum, the need for and use of a core collec- tion guide may be essential in developing collections to support the undergradu- ate curriculum. It is fairly common for small and medium-sized academic li- braries to evaluate the quality of their collections by using basic lists. Stanley Shabowich describes the process used to judge the quality of a library collection by checking the library's holdings against BCL.16 Since BCL proposes to rep- resent a core collection that is designed to support the curriculum of four-year institutions, to be used as a measure to evaluate academic library collections, and to be considered an important canon of the library field, it is also likely to be consulted when building collections to support new courses, programs, and de- partments.17 Because the last twenty years have seen the steady growth of women's stud- ies courses, programs, and academic de- partments, BCL is one of the guides likely to be consulted for building core collec- tions in support of this field.18 Women's studies has gained scholarly recognition and legitimacy as an area of study within academia during this time period. Although feminist scholarship was first integrated into the fields of history and literature, it has expanded into the fields of the social. sciences and profes- sions and is currently spreading to tech- nology and the biological sciences.19 Colleges and universities have inte- grated and are continually integrating scholarship on women and nonwhite cultural groups into the liberal arts core curriculum.20 The study and main- streaming of gender within a discipline have grown in the 1980s, especially within undergraduate programs. 21 Since women's studies draws upon the knowl- edge of many disciplines, with women as the center of intellectual inquiry, it is considered interdisciplinary or transdis- ciplinary.22 By incorporating the study of women into the courses of other disci- plines, feminist faculty hope to integrate women's values and women's concerns into the center of liberal education.23 THE LITERARY CANON In any investigation of an academic core curriculum for literature, the issue of canon must be confronted. Many widely read and popular women authors remain excluded from or in the mar- gins of the literary canon. The exclu- sion of women writers from the canon and their marginal place in literature have been widely challenged during the 1980s. The challenge is attributed to the scholars, critics, and reviewers who defined and codified the Ameri- can literary canon in relation to the masculine world of contemporary so- cial and economic issues and is syn- onymous with power.24 In her discussion of the decanoniza- tion of Willa Cather, O'Brien attributes Cather's establishment as a major writer in the 1920s to her first supporters, "jour- nalists and men of letters who waged their campaign for a national literature with a 'distinctively American spirit' outside the academy."25 O'Brien then at- tributes Cather's demotion from a major to minor writer in the 1930s and 1940s to her later critics, "teachers of literature within English departments as well as book reviewers and authors of literary histories."26 Robert Alter writes: Literature, as has often been claimed over the past quarter century, is neither a stable nor a coherent en- tity. One way you can tell this is by the shifting nature of the literary canon. As cultural fashions change and new values come to the fore, writers once deemed peripheral or uncanonical are brought into the canon, others once thought central, being displaced to the margins .... [This movement suggests] that there may be some- thing arbitrary and indeed slanted about the canon. Literature, then, ac- cording to this line of reasoning is not a fixed entity, but a reflection in any society of the values of the ruling class, abetted by a learned or priestly eliteP A Sample of Selected Women Authors 73 If Alter's line of logic is extended to Willa Cather, she was regarded as a ma- jor author by the values of society in the 1920s and, in turn, was regarded as a minor author by the societal values of the 1930s and 1940s. With the support of this literature, the literary canon is de- fined not as a fixed entity, but as a reflec- tion in any society of the values supported or favored by a learned elite. Since literary anthologists are be- lieved heavily to influence the canon and literary anthologies are believed to iden- tify the major and minor authors of the time, The Norton Anthology of Literature by Women: The Tradition in English (NALW) is considered an important canon of women authors.28 This is also revealed in library .and popular journal reviews. The NALW is characterized as a landmark in feminism, as well as in the study of lit- erature and a solid work that is sure to be a staple in undergraduate English classes. 29-31 In the "Preface" to the NALW, Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar specifically state that the anthology was designed to serve as a core curriculum for women's literature courses and as the canon into which other women authors may be as- similated.32 In the "Preface" to the anthol- ogy the authors apologize for excluding countless women writers, many of whom originated from ethnic backgrounds, but attribute this exclusion to limited space and copyright restrictions. Like other Nor- ton anthologies, the NALW is arranged in chronological order followed by intro- ductions to the historical sections. Like BCL, NALW has encountered its criticisms. Gilbert and Gubar have been criticized for selecting authors for the NALW to support a case against men or a seventies-style political sentimentality or to document and connect female lit- erary experience rather than to present distinguished literary merit.33 Others condemn the authors of the NALW for promoting exactly that which it is sup- posed to critique-the exclusion of black, Chicano, and Native American In- dian women and the adaptation to the standard Norton anthologies of authenti- cating writers by including them in the 1.· 74 College & Research Libraries traditional male canon.34 Gilbert and Gubar explain the exclusion of authors in the "Preface."35 Shari Benstock justifies the style of the anthology by stating that NALW's adaptation of the style of other male-dominated Norton anthologies was to suggest that woman's place is within man's history and to "suggest the ways in which woman is sewn into (and sewn up by) the patriarchal system."36 Despite the negative reviews and flaws of the NALW, it has been lauded as a landmark not only in feminist com- mentary but in the study of literature.37 The reviewer for Library Journal recom- mends most libraries purchase at least two copies of the NALW, one for refer- ence and one for circulating.38 THE STUDY AND ITS METHODOLOGY The number of women's studies courses offered in colleges and universi- ties has grown from sixteen courses in 1969 to over twenty thousand courses in the 1980s.39 Therefore, the implications of the utility of BCL in evaluating, assess- ing, building, and maintaining collec- tions to support the women's studies curriculum of undergraduate programs will be examined in this study. Specifically, this study looks at the in- clusion of women authors in the field of literature in the three editions of BCL with an eye on support for the women's studies curriculum of undergraduate pro- grams in four-year academic institutions. This allows for a comparison of approxi- mately twenty years in relation to the pub- lishing dates of the three editions of BCL and the emergence and growth of women's studies as a discipline. Since the NALW is considered an important canon of women authors in the field of litera- ture, it is compared to the holdings of the three editions of BCL. Other anthologies, such as the Norton and Oxford antholo- gies and The Great Books of the Western World are not used because of their lim- ited inclusion of women authors. The apportionment of authors within each chronological division in the NALW is: • Literature of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance-S (3.4 percent) January 1995 • Literature of the Seventeenth and Eight- eenth Centuries-15 (10.2 percent) • Literature of the Nineteenth Cen- tury-23 (15.5 percent) • Turn-of-the-Century Literature-13 (8.8 percent) • Modernist Literature-31 (20.9 percent) • Contemporary Literature-61 (41.2 percent) Sampling is employed in order to en- sure representativeness within chrono- logical periods and as an exploratory tool to investigate inclusion in BCL. A systematic sample includes the first author listed in the anthology and then every third author listed throughout NALW for this study. The sample con- sists of fifty authors selected from the total of 148 authors included in the NALW. This sample is also proportional to the number of authors included in each chronological division. The appor- tionment of the sample of fifty authors within each chronological division is: • Literature of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance-2 • Literature of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries-5 • Literature of the Nineteenth Cen- tury-8 • Turn-of-the-Century Literature-4 • Modernist Literature-10 • Contemporary Literature-21 The sample of fifty authors within each chronological division is included in appendix A. Each edition of BCL is checked for the inclusion of each author included in the NALW. For every author included in the NALW, the inclusion or exclusion of the author in each edition of BCL is docu- mented. For each author in the sample included in BCL, the following informa- tion is documented: the title, publisher, and publication date of the work and the edition, volume number, entry number, page number, and subject heading of the citation in BCL. By documenting this information, the study identifies (1) the women authors of literature included in The Norton An- thology of Literature by Women and in each of the three editions of Books for College Libraries; (2) the titlesoftheworks written by the sample of fifty authors included in any of the three editions of Books for College Libraries; (3) the titles of the works written by the sample of fifty authors included in all three editions of Books for College Libraries; and (4) the characteristics and trends of the authors and titles included in Books for College Libraries. FINDINGS The NALW is included in BCL3 under the subject heading "American Litera- ture. Special Classes of Authors." Forty- two of the fifty authors in the sample are included in at least one of the editions of BCL. Of the 148 authors included in NALW, twenty-nine are not included in any edition of BCL. The number of authors included in both NALW and BCL is 119 or about 80 percent, while twenty- nine authors or just over 19 percent are not included in BCL. Table 1 presents the number and percentage of authors in- cluded in NALW and in BCL by chrono- logical divisions. Table 2 presents the number and per- centage of authors included in NALW and in the three editions of BCL by chronological divisions. The mean percentage of authors rep- resented in BCL1 is about 54 percent. Seventeen of the contemporary authors included in NALW had not published their works until after 1967 and most of those who had published prior to BCL1' s 1967 publication date had not yet achieved critical acclaim. The percentage of authors from the Middle Ages and the Renaissance repre- A Sample of Selected Women Authors 75 sented in BCL2 is a 20 percent decline from BCL1; however, the representation of the modernist authors in BCL2 re- mains consistent with the representation in BCL1. The representation of authors in the seventeenth and eighteenth centu- ries, nineteenth century, turn-of-the-cen- tury, and contemporary divisions in BCL2 indicates an increase in repre- sentation from BCL1. Four of the con- temporary authors included in NALW had not published their works until after 1975, the publication date for BCL2. The mean percentage of authors represented in BCL2 is nearly 56 percent. The percentage of authors represented in BCL3 in the Middle Ages and the Ren- aissance is equivalent to the percentage represented in BCL1, which is greater than the percentage represented in BCL2. The percentage of authors represented in BCL3 in the turn-of-the-century is equivalent to the percentage represented in BCL1 and is less than the percentage represented in BCL2. The representation of authors in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, nineteenth century, modernist, and contemporary divisions in BCL3 indi- cates an increase in representation from BCL1 and BCL2. The mean percentage of authors represented in BCL3 is about 70 percent. The eight authors from the fifty author sample, within the chronological divi- sions, who are not included in BCL are: Literature of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries • Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of New- castle (1623-7 4) TABLEt NUMBER AND PERCENTAGES OF AUTHORS INCLUDED IN NALW AND BCL Number of Number of %of Chronological Authors Included NALW Authors Authors Division inNALW Included in BCL Included in BCL Middle Ages and the 5 4 80 Renaissance 17th and 18th centuries 15 9 60 19th century 23 20 87 Turn-of-the-century 13 12 92 Modernist 31 24 77 Contemporary 61 50 82 76 College & Research Libraries January 1995 TABLE2 NUMBER OF AUTHORS INCLUDED IN NALW AND THE THREE EDITIONS OF BCL NALW Authors NALW Authors NALW Authors Included in Included in Included in BCL1 (1967) BCL2 (1975} BCL 3 (1988} Chronological Division Number of of Authors Included Authors inNALW Included in NALW No. % No. % No. % Middle Ages and the Renaissance 5 2 40 1 20 2 40 17th and 18th centuries 15 4 27 6 40 9 60 19th century 23 13 56 15 65 20 87 Tum-of-the-century 13 10 77 11 85 10 77 Modernist 31 20 64 20 64 23 74 Contemporary 61 24 58* 34 60t 49 80 Total number of authors 148 73 56* 87 60t 113 76 • NALW includes 61 authors in the Contemporary period, however only 44 of these authors published before 1967, the publication date for BCLl. t NALW includes 61 authors in the Contemporary period, however only 57 of these authors published before 1975, the publication date for BCL2 . • Mary Rowlandson (c.1636-c.1678) • Anne Killigrew (1660-85) Turn-of-the-Century Literature • Charlotte Mew (1870-1928) Modernist Literature • Anna Wickham (1884-1947) • Anzia Yezierska (c.1885-1970) Contemporary Literature • Kamala Das (1934-) • Maxine Hong Kingston (1940- ) The demographics of both the forty- two authors included in BCL and the eight authors not included in BCL are of interest to this study. Of the forty-two authors included in BCL, six of the women are women of color (Phyllis Wheatley (black slave), Linda Brent (black slave), Mourning Dove (Native American), Gwendolyn Brooks (African American), Toni Morrison (African American), and Leslie Marmon Silko (Native American, Mexican, and Caucasian descent); eight are writers concerned with women's issues (Margaret Fuller, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Louisa May Alcott, Virginia Woolf, Djuna Barnes, Tillie Olsen, Marge Piercy, and Margaret Drabble); two are known to be lesbians or bisexual (Virginia Woolf and Djuna Barnes); three lived with a female companion in a union comparable to marriage (Sarah Orne Jewett, Willa Cather, and Gertrude Stein); three are Jewish (Gertrude Stein, Lillian Hellman, and Grace Paley); seven are poets (Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke; Dorothy Wordsworth and Elizabeth Drew Stoddard (both wrote some poetry); Emily Dickinson; Mary Elizabeth Coleridge; Edith Sitwell; and Judith Wright.) Twenty-five of the forty-two authors in- cluded in BCL are American writers: Phyl- lis Wheatley, Margaret Fuller, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Linda Brent, Elizabeth Drew Stoddard, Emily Dickinson, Louisa May Alcott, Sarah Orne Jewett, Willa Cather, Gertrude Stein, Mourning Dove, Djuna Barnes, Lillian Hellman, Eudora Welty, Mary McCarthy, Tillie Olsen, Gwendolyn Brooks, Grace Paley, Flannery O'Connor, Ursula K. LeGuin, Toni Morri- son, Marge Piercy, Joyce Carol Oates, Louise Gluck, and Leslie Marmon Silko. Four held unconventional political be- liefs (this is addressed below): Tillie Ol- sen, Judith Wright, Lillian Hellman, and Marge Piercy. 40 Six of the authors' works address un- conventional perspectives on society or controversial social problems and sub- jects. These authors are ·Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, Elizabeth Drew Stod- dard, Jean Rhys, Tillie Olsen, Judith Wright, and Marge Piercy. One of the authors, Ursula K. LeGuin, is a science fiction writer. Of the eight authors not included in BCL, four are poets (Anne Killigrew, Charlotte Mew, Anna Wickham, and Kamala Das). Four are American (Mary Rowlandson, Anne Killigrew, Anzia Yez- ierska, and Maxine Hong Kingston); three are English (Margaret Cavendish, Char- lotte Mew, and Anna Wickham); and one is East Indian (Kamala Das). One of the authors, Maxine Hong Kingston, is Chi- nese American and one, Anzia Yezierska, is Jewish. Yezierska was a Jewish immi- grant who lived in New York and wrote of the assimilation process!1 Kamala Das writes in an "English fashioned to retain Indian cadences."42 Maxine Hong King- ston is one of the only Chinese-American authors to be included in the canon of women's literature.43 Charlotte Mew was "passionately at- tached to another woman" and dressed as a transvestite.« Margaret Cavendish was regarded as a freak by her contem- poraries because of "the oddity of her writings and the peculiarity of her dress. "45 Anna Wickham was said to be "a woman who lived by her own rules" and "a rebel- lious wife."46 Mary Rowlandson wrote about her captivity with a New Hamp- A Sample of Selected Women Authors 77 shire Indian tribe and described the In- dians as humans rather than beasts. An examination of the demographics listed above, suggests that the majority of female authors included in BCL are not women of color, but white, American Caucasians. The demographics also in- dicate that women who reflect uncon- ventional perspectives or ideas in their works or lifestyles are less likely to be included in BCL, as are female poets. The titles by the forty-two authors in the sample that appear in BCL are docu- mented in this study. There are a total of 513 titles included in the three editions of BCL. Some titles are repeated in sev- eral editions. Therefore, 318 unique titles appear in BCL for the sample of authors. Table 3 presents the number of titles listed in each edition of BCL by chrono- logical division. As the table indicates, there is little difference between the three editions of BCL in the number of titles included in the representation of the Middle Ages and Renaissance and the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. There is a slight decline in the number of titles in- cluded in the representation of the litera- ture of the nineteenth century from BCL1 to BCL2 and an increase in the number of titles included in this representation from BCL2 to BCL3. There is a steady decline in the number of titles included in the representation of the turn-of-the- century literature from BCL1 to BCL2 to TABLE3 NUMBER OF TITLES INCLUDED IN BCL * Total Number of Titles Included Chronological Division in BCL within Number of Number of Number of of Titles included in BCL EachNALW Titles Included Titles Included Titles Included within Each NALW Division Division in BCLl (1967) in BCL2 (1975) in BCL 3 (1988) Middle Ages and the Renaissance 2 1 0 1 . 17th and 18th centuries 5 1 2 2 19th century 42 13 11 18 Tum-of-the-century 32 15 11 6 Modernist 217 111 54 52 Contemporary 215 42 58 115 Total number of titles 513 183 136 194 • These are not unique titles. Some of the titles are repeated in several editions of BCL. There are a total of 318 unique titles in this sample. 78 College & Research Libraries BCL3. This decline in the number of titles corresponds with the decline in the num- ber of titles represented in the three edi- tions of BCL for this same chronological division, as illustrated in table 3. The number of titles included in the repre- sentation of the modernist period de- creases about 48 percent from BCL1 to BCL2 and decreases by two titles from BCL2 to BCL3. The high number of titles included in BCL1 may be attributed to the fact that the authors included in the modernist period had reached their criti- cal acclaim and had published a majority of their works prior to the publication of BCL1. The number of titles included in the representation of the contemporary period increases by just over 36 percent from BCL1 to BCL3 and increases by six- teen titles from BCL1 to BCL2. This may be attributed to the fact that approxi- mately 40 percent of the contemporary authors included in NALW had not pub- lished their works until after 1970. Those who had published prior to the 1967 publication date of BCL1 and the 1975 publication date of BCL2 may not have achieved critical acclaim by BCL1 and BCL2 publication dates. Eleven authors have the greatest num- ber of titles included in the three editions of BCL. Table 4 presents the number of titles by each of these authors included in each edition of BCL by chronological division. There is a steady decline in the num- ber of titles by Lady Isabella Augusta Gregory, a turn-of-the-century author, included in each edition of BCL. Among the modernist authors, Ger- trude Stein, Willa Cather, Elizabeth Bowen, and Edith Sitwell, the number of titles included in BCL progressively de- creases in each edition. This again is consistent with the decline in titles rep- resented for the modernist period in each edition of BCL portrayed in table 3. The representation of Virginia Woolf's work in BCL does not follow this trend of decline. This may be attributed to her vast critical acclaim. The large number of titles included in BCL1 for these writers of the modernist period may be attrib- uted to the fact that they had reached ' January 1995 their critical acclaim and had published a majority of their works prior to the publication of BCL1. All of the contemporary authors listed above, except for Mary McCarthy, have more titles included in BCL3 than in- cluded in either BCL1 or BCL2. This may be because these authors had not pub- lished their works until after 1970. Those who had published prior to the 1967 publication date of BCL1 and the 1975 publication date of BCL2 may not have achieved critical acclaim prior to the BCL1 and BCL2 publication dates. For all of the authors listed above, ex- cept for Joyce Carol Oates, Margaret Drabble, and Eudora Welty, there is a reduction of titles included in BCL2 in comparison to BCL1. This supports Wadsworth's criticism of the reduction in number of titles for specific authors in BCL2 in comparison to BCL1.47 The reduc- tion of titles in BCL2 and BCL3 for Mary McCarthy and in BCL3 for Gertrude Stein and Elizabeth Bowen in comparison to BCL1 may be a result of the inclusion of collected works by these authors. Willa Cather is represented by twenty- three titles in BCL1 and by two titles in BCL2 and three titles in BCL3. A majority of the titles listed in BCL1 are single sto- ries, while BCL2 and BCL3 include a col- lection of short fiction and a collection of novels and short stories. The inclusion of these collections may also be the reason for omitting the individual titles in BCL2 and BCL3. The decline in the number of titles for the other authors cannot be at- tributed to the inclusion of collected works. Another possible theory for the reduction of titles by Willa Cather in- cluded in BCL2 and BCL3 is the removal of Willa Cather from the canon. By re- ducing the number of titles, the contribu- tors of BCL2 and BCL3 may have participated in the removal of Willa Cather from the canon as did her critics in the 1930s and 1940s.48 Heinzkill believes that publishers are a factor in the determination of the canon. "Texts are in print because they are canonical, a non-canonical text is not kept in print" and therefore cannot ac- quire a wide readership or a place in the I A Sample of Selected Women Authors 79 TABLE4 AUTHORS WITH GREATEST NUMBER OF TITLES INCLUDED IN BCL Authors with Greatest Number Number of Number of Number of of Titles Included in Each BCL Titles Included Titles Included Titles Included within NALW Divisions in BCL1 (1967) in BCL2 (1975) in BCL3 (1988) Turn-of-the-century lady Isabella Augusta Gregory (1852-1932)1 11 9 6 5 Modernist Gertrude Stein (1874-1946) 2 32 27 9 9 Virginia Woolf (1882-1941}3 28 23 20 24 Willa Cather (1873-1947)4 26 23 2 3 Elizabeth Bowen (1899-1973)5 25 19 18 12 Edith Sitwell (1887-1964}6 17 16 3 1 Contemporary Doris Lessing (1919- 24 9 6 17 Joyce Carol Oates (1938- )7 14 0 5 12 Margaret Drabble (1939- )8 13 0 5 13 Mary McCarthy (1912- )9 13 12 10 9 Eudora Welty (1909- )10 12 8 8 10 1 A 1963 edition of Selected Plays by Lady Gregory is included in all three editions of BCL. Seven Short Plays is included in BCL1 and BCL2. BCL3 includes a 1976 publication of Lady Gregory's autobiography. 2 BCL1 includes individual titles by Gertrude Stein. BCL2 and BCL3 include Selected Writings of Gertrude Stein and Selected Operas and Plays of Gertrude Stein. BCL3 also includes a selection that is not included in BCL1 or BCL2. 3 BCL3 includes the addition of four newer publications consisting of Virginia Woolf's letters, diary, and unpublished autobiographical writings, as well as a complete book of shorter fiction. 4 BCLl includes individual titles by Willa Cather. BCL2 and BCL3 both include a collection of short fiction, 1892-1912 and a collection of the novels and short stories of Willa Cather. 5 BCL3 includes a 1981 collection of Elizabeth Bowen's short stories. 6 BCL1 and BCL2 include Collected Poems of Edith Sitwell's. BCL2 and BCL3 include A Poet's Notebook. 7 Two of the Joyce Carol Oates titles included in BCL2 are not included in BCL3. 8 The five titles of Margaret Drabble included in BCL2 are also included in BCL3. 9 BCL2 and BCL3 include a collection of Mary McCarthy's literary essays. 10 Two of the eight Eudora Welty titles included in BCL1 are not included in BCL2 and BCL3. 80 College & Research Libraries January 1995 TABLES TYPE OF PUBLISHER IN SAMPLE INCLUDED IN BCL % of Publishers in NAWL % of Titles in NAWL Type of Publisher Sample Included in BCL Sample Included in BCL American trade University British trade Small presses Unknown Academic trade Australian trade canon.49 Commercially motivated pub- lishers publish those texts that will sell and generate profits, therefore control- ling the materials available to consum- ers. Table 5 presents the type of publisher and percentage of publishers in the sample of fifty authors from NALW included in BCL. It should be noted that 23 percent of the trade publishers and 47 percent of the university presses listed in BCL for the sample distribute catalogs or lists specifically identifying titles relevant to women's studies or have established se- ries in women's studies. By producing series or catalogs in women's studies, these publishers have identified the im- portance of and the market for women's studies. 50 These trade publishers are con- tributing to and supporting the women's studies field. Seven percent of the sample titles are published in England by trade publish- ers. Of the eighty-four publishing com- panies responsible for the publication of the sample titles included in BCL, six of these companies are small presses. Two of these small presses are religious presses; one is a feminist press, one is an African-American press, and one is a col- lege press. In the sample included in BCL, one private press is responsible for the publication of seven titles. This press is Hogarth Press, founded by Virginia Woolf and her husband, Leonard Woolf, in the early 1920s and established in Lon- don.51 During the years 1922-60 Hogarth Press published five of Virginia Woolf's titles, one of Edith Sitwell's titles, and one of Gertrude Stein's titles included in BCL. These three authors are among 50 18 14 8 8 1 1 73 11 7 6 2 0.3 0.3 those authors of the sample with the greatest number of titles included in BCL. The inclusion of the small press, Hogarth Press, may be because of the publicity associated with one of its own- ers, Virginia Woolf. This sample of titles and publishers indicates that BCL tends to include trade publishing companies more often than university and small presses. This could be the result of the revenue and time trade publishers expend on advertising in comparison to that of university and small presses. Another possible reason for the large number of trade publishers included in the sample of BCL titles is that library-related journals tend to re- view titles published by a limited num- ber of large mainstream publishers. 52 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY The results of this exploratory study give an indication of the number of women authors included in NALW (an important canon of women's literature) who are also included in the three edi- tions of BCL (an important canon of the academic library field). Since BCL is a recommended core collection for under- graduate libraries and the literature sug- gests it is used for collection development and selection as well as evaluation and assessment of academic libraries, it is important that future work examine and compare the authors and titles included in this core collection to undergraduate programs. The women authors' movement be- tween editions of BCL supports Robert Alter's contention that authors move from the center of the canon to its mar- gins, reflecting the values of those members of society who are in author- ity and who exert a symbolic power over the formation of the canon~53 It also reflects the evolution and growth of the women's studies field. The fluc- tuation of the number of titles included in BCL for this sample of authors may also be an indication of the mutability and instability of the entity of the canon. The reduction of titles by Ger- trude Stein, Willa Cather, and Edith Sitwell from the first edition of BCL to the third edition suggests a decanoniza- tion of these authors. Although 80 percent of the authors included in NALW are also included in BCL, the findings indicate that 55 per- cent of the women excluded from the library field canon are unconventional members of society rather than the socie- tal norm. BCL, an important canon of the academic library field, again supports Alter's idea of the canon as "a reflection in any society of the values" supported or favored by a learned elite. 54 Sixty-four percent of the publishers in- cluded in BCL are trade publishers, indi- cating that titles published by trade publishers are more likely to be included in BCL than those published by univer- sity or small presses. This may be influ- enced by the publishers' control of the titles published, access to their public, trade publishers relationship with a learned elite, and the marketing strate- gies employed by trade publishers. This may also determine the titles re- viewed in library journals, which tend to be published by a limited number of large mainstream publishers. 55 This exploratory study supports Al- ter's perspective, noted above, that the literary canon is a reflection of the values favored by a learned elite. The study also suggests that the learned elite may in- clude the authors, editors, and contribu- tors of core collections or lists, publishing companies, and review sources. More investigation of the uses of BCL by academic librarians is needed to iden- tify the extent of its utility. This study A Sample of Selected Women Authors 81 also indicates a need for further studies documenting women authors, African- American authors, and Native-Ameri- can authors in BCL. A comparison of the number of women and minority authors included in each edition of BCL would also assist in documenting changes in the canon. An examination of the pub- lishers of the titles included in the three editions of BCL by these women and minority authors would also be a great contribution to the library, women's studies, and literature fields. It would be interesting to sample the number of male authors and their titles included in the literature section of each of the editions of BCL and to compare this sample to the number of female authors and their titles included in this . section in each of the editions of BCL. Publishers of the titles of both samples could also be analyzed. Further study of the use of review materials in the selec- tion process as well as the publishers of the titles included in these review sources is needed in the library field. An investigation and analysis of the demographic profiles of the contribu- tors to each edition of BCL would be advantageous in examining the core collection. This information would be useful in identifying those responsible for establishing the canon of the library field and in examining and comparing the trends and characteristics of the authors and titles included in each edi- tion of BCL. The NALW is an accepted canon in the field of women's studies, but is it an accepted canon in the field of literature? By using the 148 authors included in NALW as the sample, the inclusion of these authors in other literary anthologies at- tempts to answer this question. A compari- son of the number of male and female authors included in other literary antholo- gies would also assist in documenting the inclusion of women in the canon. This com- parison could also include minority authors in order to document their inclu- sion in the literary canon. This exploratory study has identified some of the characteristics of BCL in re- lation to literature by women. It is only 82 College & Research Libraries January 1995 a beginning or starting point. Additional questions pertaining to the women's studies and library fields have been identified by this investigation and need to be addressed. The women's studies field is relatively young in comparison to other fields and is continually evolv- ing and growing. Future study and re- search is needed to reflect and document this evolution and growth. REFERENCES 1. Melvin J. Voight and Joseph H. Treyz, "Preface," Books for College Libraries (Chicago: ALA, 1967), v. 2. Ibid. 3. Association of College and Research Libraries, "Introduction," Books for College Libraries: A Core Collection of 40,000 Titles, 2d ed. (Chicago: ALA, 1975), vii. 4. Ibid. 5. Virginia Clark, "Introduction," Books for College Libraries: A Core Collection of 50,000 Titles, 3d ed. (Chicago: ALA, 1988), vii. 6. Lee Ash, "Review of Books for College Libraries," Library Journal92 (Oct. 1, 1967): 3390; and Robert W. Wadsworth, "Review of Books for College Libraries," California Librarian 28 (Oct. 1967): 245-47. 7. R. E. Moore, "The Checklist Selection Syndrome: Review of Books for College Libraries: A Core Collection of 40,000 Titles," PNLA Quarterly 40 (Spring 1976 ): 22; and Lee Ash, "Review of Books for College Libraries: A Core Collection of 40,000 Titles," Library Journal101 (Mar. 1, 1976): 672-73. 8. John M. Budd, "The Utility of a Recommended Core List: An Examination of Books for College Libraries," 3d ed., Journal of Academic Librarianship 17 Ouly 1991): 140-44. 9. Ash, "Review . .. : A Core Collection"; and Moore, "The Checklist." 10. Clark, "Introduction," ix. 11. Ibid. 12. Thomas Gaughan, "Review of Books for College Libraries: A Core Collection of 40,000 Titles," RQ 16 (Fall1976): 77-79; and Moore, "The Checklist." 13. Gaughan, "Review.". 14. Robert W. Wadsworth, "Review of Books for College Libraries: A Core Collection of 40,000 Titles," College & Research Libraries 37 Oan. 1976): 71. 15. "Reference and Subscription Books Reviews: Review of Books for College Libraries: A Core Collection of 40,000 Titles," Booklist 72 (May 1, 1976): 1284-86; Michael Kreyche, "BCL3 and NOTIS: An Automated Collection Analysis Project," Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory 13 (1989): 323-28; Barbara MacAdam, "Review of Books for College Libraries: A Core . Collection of 50,000 Titles," Library Journal 114 (Feb. 15, 1989): 181; and James Rettig, "Review of Books for College Libraries: A Core Collection of 50,000 Titles," Wilson Library Bulletin 63 Oan. 1989): 120. · 16. Stanley Shabowich, An Approach to Assessment of Quality of a University Library Collection (Hammond, Ind.: Purdue Univ., 1977). 17. Budd, "The Utility"; and Richard Heinzkill, "The Literary Canon and Collection Building," Collection Management 13 (1990): 51-64. 18. Joan Ariel, ed. Building Women's Studies Collections: A Resource Guide (Middletown, Conn.: CHOICE, 1987). 19. Susan E. Searing, An Introduction to Library Research in Women's Studies (Boulder, Colo.: Westview, 1985). 20. Helen B. Josephine and Deborah K. Blouin, "New Reference Sources on Women: An Analysis and Proposal," The Reference Librarian 15 (Fall1986): 109-22; Mark Emery, "Considerations regarding Women's Studies Collection Development in Academic Libraries," Collection Management 10 (1988): 85-94; and Catherine Stimpson, "Access or Impasse?: Meeting the Research Needs of Women's Studies," (paper presented at ALA Annual Conference, Womens' Studies Section, June 24,1990, Chicago). 21. Stimpson," Access or Impasse?" 22. Searing, An Introduction; and Stimpson," Access or Impasse?" A Sample of Selected Women Authors 83 23. Catherine R. Loeb, Susan E. Searing, and Esther F. Stineman, Women's Studies: A Recom- mended Core Bibliography, 1980-1985 (Englewood, Colo.: Libraries Unlimited, 1987). 24. Jane Tompkins, Sensational Designs: The Cultural Work of American Fiction 1790-1860 (New York: Oxford Univ. Pr., 1985); Susan H. Aiken, "Women and the Question of Canon- icity," College English 48 (Mar. 1986): 288-301; Cathy N. Davidson, Revolution and the Word: The Rise of the Novel in America (New York: Oxford Univ. Pr., 1986); Nancy K. Miller, "Parable and Politics: Feminist Criticism in 1986," Paragraph: The Journal of the Modern Critical Theory Group 8 (Oct. 1986): 40-54; Susan S. Heinzelman, "Hard Cases, Easy Cases and Weird Cases: Canon Formation in Law and Literature," Mosaic: A Journal for Interdis- ciplinary Study of Literature 21 (Spring 1988): 59-72; Robert Alter, The Pleasures of Reading: In an Ideological Age (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989); Sharon O'Brien, "Becoming Noncanonical: The Case against Willa Cather," in Reading in America, ed. Cathy N. David- son (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Pr., 1989); and Jane Tompkins, "Literary Canon," in International Encyclopedia of Communications, ed. Erik Barnouw and others (New York: Oxford Univ. Pr., 1989). 25. O'Brien, "Becoming Noncanonical," 243. 26. Ibid., 248. 27. Alter, The Pleasures of Reading, 25. 28. Tompkins, Sensational Designs; and Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar, The Norton Anthology of Literature by Women: The Tradition in English (New York: Norton, 1985). 29. Laura Shapiro,"' A' Is for Austert, 'B' Is for Bronte ... ,"Newsweek, July 15, 1985, 64B-64F. 30. Sally Mitchell, "Review of The Norton Anthology of Literature by Women, by Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar," Library Journal111 (Apr. 15, 1986): 34. 31. Booklist 81 (Apr. 15, 1985): 1152. 32. Gilbert and Gubar, The Norton Anthology, xxvii. 33. Gail Godwin, "Review of The Norton Anthology by Women, by Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar," New York Times Book Review, Apr. 28, 1985, 13; Phyllis Rose, "Review of The Norton Anthology of Literature by Women, by Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar," Atlantic, Aug. 1985, 88; and Denis Donoghue, "Review of The Norton Anthology of Literature by Women, by Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar," New Republic, July 15, 1986, 30. 34. Lee Edwards, "Review of The Norton Anthology of Literature by Women, by Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar," The Women's Review of Books Oune 1986), 17; and Heinzelman, "Hard Cases, Easy Cases and Weird Cases," 1988. 35. Gilbert and Gubar, The Norton Anthology, xxviii-xxxi. 36. Shari Benstock, "Women's Literary History: To be Continued," Tulsa Studies in Women's Literature 5 (Fal11986): 175. 37. Rita D. Jacobs, "Review of The Norton Anthology of Literature by Women, by Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar," World Literature Today 60 (Spring 1986): 314-15; and Shapiro, "'A' Is for Austen." 38. Sally Mitchell, "Review of The Norton Anthology of Literature by Women, by Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar," Library ]ournalllO (Apr. 15, 1985): 74; and Mitchell, "Review," 34. 39. Josephine and Blouin, "New Reference Sources." 40. These categorizations are based on substantiated evidence and not conjecture. 41. Gilbert and Gubar, The Norton Anthology, 1206. 42. Ibid., 2247. 43. Elaine Kim, "Workshop conducted at the University of Wisconsin-Madison," Spring 1990. 44. Gilbert and Gubar, The Norton Anthology, 1206. 45. Ibid., 72. 46. Ibid., 1404. 47. Wadsworth,"Review." 48. O'Brien, "Becoming Noncanonical.". 49. Heinzkill, "The Literary Canon," 55. 50. Ariel, Building Women's Studies. 51. Gilbert and Gubar, The Norton Anthology. 52. Judith Serebnick, "An Analysis of Publishers of Books Reviewed in Key Library Journals," Library and Information Science Research 6 Ouly /Sept. 1984): 289-303. 84 College & Research Libraries January 1995 53. Alter, The Pleasures of Reading. 54. Ibid., 25-26. 55. Serebnick, "An Analysis of Publishers of Books." APPENDIX A Literature of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance Julian of Norwich (1342-?) Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke (1561-1621) Literature of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle Anne Killigrew (1660-85) (1623-74) Lady Mary Wortley Montagu (1689-1762) Mary Rowlandson (c.1636-c.1678) Phillis Wheatley (c.1753-84) Literature of the Nineteenth Century Dorothy Wordsworth (1771-1855) Linda Brent (1818-98) Mary Shelley (1797-1851) Elizabeth Drew Stoddard (1823-1901) Margaret Fuller (1810-50) Emily Dickinson (1830-86) Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902) Louisa May Alcott (1832-88) Tum-of-the-Century Literature Sarah Orne Jewett (1849-1909) Mary Elizabeth Coleridge (1861-1907) Lady Augusta Gregory (1852-1932) Charlotte Mew (1870-1928) Willa Cather (1873-1947) Gertrude Stein (1874-1946) Virginia Woolf (1882-1941) Anna Wickham (1884-1947) Anzia Yezierska (c.1885-1970) Stevie Smith (1902-71) Lillian Hellman (1907-84) Eudora Welty (1909-) Mary McCarthy (1912-) Tillie Olsen (1913-) Judith Wright (1915-) Gwendolyn Brooks (1917-) Doris Lessing (1919-) Grace Paley (1922-) Flannery O'Connor (1925-64) Margaret Laurence (1926-) Modernist Literature Edith Sitwell (1887-1964) Mourning Dove (Hum-Ishu-Ma) (1888-1936) Djuna Barnes (1892-1982) Jean Rhys (1894-1979) Elizabeth Bowen (1899-1973) Contemporary Literature Ursula K. Le Guin (1929-) Toni Morrison (1931-) Edna O'Brien (1932-) Kamala Das (1934-) Marge Piercy (1936-) Joyce Carol Oates (1938-) Margaret Drabble (1939-) Maxine Hong Kingston (1940-) Louise Gluck (1943- ) Leslie Marmon Silko (1948-)