dilevko.p65 56 College & Research Libraries January 2004 Reviews of Independent Press Books in Counterpoise and Other Publications Juris Dilevko and Keren Dali Although Counterpoise claims that it reviews books that are reviewed by other publications either infrequently or not at all, almost three-quarters of the books (74.7%) reviewed by Counterpoise are reviewed by a wide variety of other publications, including popular magazines and newspa­ pers. Four core library review tools (Booklist, Choice, Library Journal, and Publishers Weekly) review 48.2 percent of all book titles reviewed by Counterpoise, and their reviews are favorable 74.4 percent of the time. Of the books not reviewed anywhere else except Counterpoise, more than half fall into six Library of Congress classification categories, including E (History: America), HQ (The family. Marriage. Women), HV (Social pathology. Social and public welfare. Criminology), and HD (In­ dustries. Land use. Labor). In addition, there is a subset of titles that are frequently and positively reviewed by popular and academic publica­ tions, but not by reviewing journals commonly used by librarians. ithin the field of librarianship, Counterpoise claims to serve a unique purpose. Founded in 1997 by Charles Willett, it prides itself on being “the only review journal that makes alternative points of view widely accessible to librarians, scholars and activists.”1 An outgrowth of the Social Responsibilities Round Table (SRRT) of the ALA, then briefly a part of CRISES Press (owned by Willett), and currently a venture of the Civic Media Center, a nonprofit alternative library in Gainesville, Florida, Counterpoise pub­ lishes, among other items, “original es­ says; comparative review articles; and many careful reviews of books, periodi­ cals and non-print materials overlooked by other review journals.”2,3 As such, it sees its mission as providing a counter­ balance to mainstream and corporate media outlets. As Willett comments in the Editor’s Notes of the inaugural issue of Counterpoise, one of the journal’s found­ ing premises is, “If we castigate the New York Times for its news bias, why trust its book reviews? And what about main­ stream library journals—aren’t they wed­ ded to profit, fame and privilege…. Re­ view journals, aping commerce and government, have chosen money as their first variable.”4 As a result, mainstream journals and newspapers have a tendency to review materials that are produced by large, corporate-controlled publishers who have significant marketing and ad­ vertising budgets. Such mainstream ven­ ues may not necessarily present “alterna- Juris Dilevko and Keren Dali are members of the Faculty of Information Studies at the University of Toronto; e-mail: dilevko@fis.utoronto.ca and dali@fis.utoronto.ca. 56 mailto:dali@fis.utoronto.ca mailto:dilevko@fis.utoronto.ca Reviews of Independent Press Books in Counterpoise and Other Publications 57 tive points of view encouraging social re­ sponsibility, liberty and dissent, as af­ firmed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, The Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, the Library Bill of Rights, the Talloires Declaration (aca­ demic environmental stewardship), the Valdez Principles (corporate environmen­ tal responsibility), and related docu­ ments.”5 In fact, because “six media con­ glomerates and the public relations industry—operating in close association with corporations, governments and uni­ versities—control the production and dis­ semination of most mainstream informa­ tion and entertainment, concerned librarians, educators and activists around the world look to Counterpoise for access to materials and ideas that liberate the mind and defend democracy, peace, so­ cial justice, and the environment.”6 This is especially true because “[w]hat distin­ guishes Counterpoise from review journals that just mirror the global, profit-oriented, capitalist culture is its concern for posi­ tive social change; what distinguishes it from other alternative journals is the breadth, depth and reliability of its cov­ erage.”7 Invoking the names of Howard Zinn, author of A People’s History of the United States, and Edward Herman, author of an essay entitled “Toward a Democratic Media” and coauthor with Noam Chomsky of Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, Willett suggests that for-profit media follow an agenda that perpetuates historical bias by telling stories from the point of view of victors, not victims. On the other hand, the ideas and publications of the alterna­ tive press are “often ignored, misrepre­ sented or suppressed by corporate and government media,”8 despite the fact that, taken collectively, the alternative press is “an enormous body of books, pamphlets, magazines, zines, and audiovisual and electronic materials presenting socially responsible knowledge, points of view and choices.”9 In short, the alternative press is “a democratic media organized and controlled by ordinary citizens and their grassroots organizations.”10 Given this background, Counterpoise “describes, criticizes, defends and promotes these [al­ ternative] publications and products against this bias,”11 that is, the bias of be­ ing overlooked by mainstream reviewing publications. And, as Willett suggests at the conclusion of his editorial, fighting against the bias of “money-oriented, mainstream review journals” is a never- ending “struggle” that calls for a steady infusion of monetary resources.12 Literature Review The mere existence of a publication such as Counterpoise testifies to the lively de­ bate within librarianship about the effi­ cacy of reviewing tools, especially with regard to what Willett identifies as the alternative press. The explosive growth of small presses (or alternative presses) in the 1960s and 1970s caused the library community to ask itself hard questions about the degree to which publications of these small presses (or alternative presses) were being collected by libraries. The views of scholars such as Ross Atkinson, who noted that a novel reviewed on the front page of the New York Times Book Re­ view would be purchased by libraries “re­ gardless of who wrote the novel, where it was published, what it is about, or even what the review says about it”13 and that academic titles reviewed in core journals will invariably be acquired, led others to ponder the responsibility of libraries in collecting small press titles that may not be reviewed at all, let alone in core jour­ nals. In 1984, Judith Serebnick and John Cullars observed that 47.2 percent of small press titles published in 1980 re­ ceived at least one review, with ten jour­ nals publishing 54.3 percent of those re­ views.14 In 1992, Serebnick reported that, of 450 small press titles published in 1986, only 38.9 percent received at least one re­ view and only twelve titles received six or more reviews each.15 As in her earlier study, a small number of journals (14) accounted for a majority of all reviews (53.4%).16 Journals most frequently re­ http:53.4%).16 http:views.14 http:resources.12 58 College & Research Libraries January 2004 viewing small press titles were Booklist, Choice, Library Journal, and Publishers Weekly, each with more than twenty re­ views of such titles.17 In 2000, Juris Dilevko and Alison Hayman demon­ strated that both Library Journal and the New York Times Book Review consistently reviewed independently published fic­ tion titles “at a rate of between 30% and 40% of all fiction titles” reviewed by each publication in 1994–1997 (Library Journal, 35.3%; New York Times Book Review, 37.2%).18 These two publications therefore reviewed corporately published books at a rate of 64.7 percent and 62.8 percent, re­ spectively, of all published books—a per­ centage that “quite closely parallels the market share of the seven corporate pub­ lishers (66.2% in 1997), according to fig­ ures supplied by Book Publishing Report.”19 Given the fact that the presence or absence of reviews of small press titles is positively related to the number of libraries owning such titles,20 much energy has been de­ voted to making publications of all types more cognizant of small presses and thus more amenable to reviewing the books produced by them. Nevertheless, believ­ ing that these efforts were insufficient, Willett founded Counterpoise in 1997. Purpose Before outlining the purpose of this ar­ ticle, a word needs to be said about the use of the terms “small press” or “alter­ native press.” First, the very concept of small press is problematic because it has undergone a major transformation from the BC era (“before personal computers” or “prior to 1980”) to the beginning of the twenty-first century.21 Indeed, the evolu­ tion has been such that Tom Person sug­ gests replacing “small press” with the more pragmatic term “independent pub­ lishing” or “independent press,” which he defines as “a company that does not belong to another company or corpora­ tion.”22 From this point of view, then, the terms “small press,” “independent press,” and “alternative press” are syn­ onymous because these presses produce titles that present an alternative to main­ stream or corporate publishers. Michael Albert agrees with this formulation, not­ ing that “an alternative media institution (to the extent possible given its circum­ stances) doesn’t try to maximize profits, doesn’t primarily sell audience to adver­ tisers for revenues (and so seeks broad and non-elite audience), is structured to subvert society’s defining hierarchical social relationships, and is structurally profoundly different from and as inde­ pendent of other major social institutions, particularly corporations, as it can be.”23 Of course, “society’s defining hierarchi­ cal social relationships” can be subverted from both the left wing and the right wing and thus, from a political, social, or cul­ tural perspective, the independent or al­ ternative press can be either leftist (some­ times called progressive) or rightist. Notwithstanding discussions about the intricacies of terminology, Counter­ poise has effectively positioned itself as one of the few champions of oppressed and neglected voices paying concerted attention to publications produced, in general, by the “progressive or leftist” alternative (or independent) press.24 Col­ lection development librarians in many universities and colleges in the United States and Canada, convinced that Coun­ terpoise reviews materials that are rarely reviewed elsewhere, subscribe to Coun­ terpoise so that they can keep up with these kinds of alternative publications.25 However, is it really the case that other publications do not review the titles re­ viewed by Counterpoise and that titles published by leftist or progressive alter­ native presses are overlooked, ignored, misrepresented, or suppressed by such “money-oriented” media as Library Jour­ nal, Publishers Weekly, the New York Times, and others? The purpose of the present article is to examine these issues in detail through the following six research ques­ tions: 1. How many of the titles reviewed in Counterpoise were reviewed at least once in another publication? 2. Which types of publications (i.e., library review journals, academic jour­ http:publications.25 http:press.24 http:century.21 http:37.2%).18 http:titles.17 Reviews of Independent Press Books in Counterpoise and Other Publications 59 nals, newspapers, magazines, etc.) re­ viewed Counterpoise-reviewed titles, and how often did they do so? 3. What was the general tone (i.e., fa­ vorable, mixed, unfavorable, etc.) of the reviews of Counterpoise-reviewed titles that appeared in publications other than Counterpoise? 4. Can any patterns be detected with regard to the subject matter of titles that are reviewed in Counterpoise, but not re­ viewed in other publications? 5. Can any patterns be detected with regard to the Counterpoise-reviewed titles that also are frequently reviewed in popu­ lar and academic publications but are not reviewed in review publications com­ monly used by library professionals? 6. Can any patterns be detected with regard to the book titles that are reviewed in Counterpoise and also received frequent reviews in other publications? If the claims made by Counterpoise are valid, namely, that other publications typically do not review the types of titles that it reviews, a case can be made for the utility, even the vital necessity, of public and academic librarians using Counter­ poise on a regular basis. Conversely, if other reviewing tools commonly used by librarians are reviewing the same mate­ rial that Counterpoise claims as its exclu­ sive purview, the claims made by Coun­ terpoise about its singular mission should be revisited and the willingness of other media to review books published by (pro­ gressive) independent (or alternative, or small) presses should be acknowledged. Procedures All titles reviewed in the Book Reviews section of Counterpoise for the four-year period 1997–2000 formed the basis of this study. That is, the researchers worked from the list of books that Counterpoise editors had chosen to include in their Book Reviews section; the assumption here is that, by their very presence in Counterpoise, those titles present the kind of alternative viewpoints that mark them as the types of titles published by alter­ native presses. Counterpoise also has sepa­ rate sections that review reference titles, magazines, pamphlets, zines, comics, and audiovisual materials, but the present study did not include these titles.26 Be­ tween 1997 and 2000, the Book Reviews section of Counterpoise consisted of 434 unique titles (453 total titles minus 19 du­ plicates). Identifying information (title, author/editor, publisher, place of publi­ cation, year of publication, etc.) about each of those 434 titles was entered into an Excel spreadsheet. A unique identify­ ing code was assigned to each title (e.g., A46, B78, C159, D231). To track the sub­ ject matter of titles, the researchers also recorded subject headings and the broad Library of Congress (LC) classification number assigned to the titles listed in tables 7 through 10 below, as found in the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) WorldCat database. Then, using the ProQuest database, the researchers searched for the presence of book reviews for each of the 434 titles in the thousands of publications indexed by ProQuest. From the “Search Methods” menu, the researchers chose “Guided Search”; article type was set as “book re­ view.” Both current and back file data­ bases were searched. Retrieved hits were scanned for relevancy (i.e., the research­ ers ensured that the retrieved review did, in fact, review the title in question) and marked, if relevant. “Marked list & du­ rable links” from “Results & Marked List” was displayed. Using the “Export Cita­ tions” feature of ProQuest, complete bib­ liographical information about each rel­ evant review was exported to the biblio­ graphic software package EndNote and subsequently transferred to an Excel spreadsheet. In addition to the necessary identify­ ing information, the following fields were created for each review: source title; pub­ lication type; and review type. The pub­ lication type of each review was catego­ rized as follows: A. core library reviewing journals (Booklist, Choice, Library Journal, and Pub­ lishers Weekly); B. other reviewing publications com­ http:titles.26 60 College & Research Libraries January 2004 monly used by librarians (e.g., New York Times Book Review, Women’s Review of Books, Times Literary Supplement, World Literature Today, etc.); C. newspapers and large-circulation popular magazines (e.g., Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, The Nation, Village Voice, Washington Post, etc.); D. consumer magazines and trade publications as identified by the 2002 online version of Ulrich’s Periodicals Di­ rectory; E. academic/scholarly publications as identified by the 2002 online version of Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory. In reporting data below, category A was occasionally split into two subcatego­ ries. Publishers Weekly (category A-1) was place in one subcategory, and Booklist, Choice, and Library Journal (category A-2) were placed in the other subcategory. In addition, categories A and B were some­ times combined to form a supercategory that could be thought of as professional reviewing tools and categories C and D were sometimes combined into a supercategory that could be thought of as popular publications. Finally, categories A and B sometimes were juxtaposed with categories C, D, and E to make the dis­ tinction between, on the one hand, pro­ fessional reviewing tools and, on the other, publications (both popular and aca­ demic) that were not primarily review oriented. Review type was derived from the classification of reviews provided by ProQuest: favorable, unfavorable, mixed, comparative, and rating not present.27 The categories of “comparative” and “not present” were combined to form a cat­ egory of “not rated.” All spreadsheets and databases were linked and queried by means of the unique identification code assigned each Counterpoise-reviewed title. All procedures were carried out in Janu­ ary–February 2003. This study method thus differs slightly from the work of Serebnick mentioned above. She and her colleagues chose ran­ dom book titles from the Small Press Record of Books in Print and then deter­ mined the extent to which those titles were reviewed in book review indexes, whereas the researchers of this study be­ gan with book titles that already had been reviewed by Counterpoise in order to gen­ erate a list of independent press titles for which the researchers subsequently de­ termined the presence or absence of re­ views in a variety of other publications. Results Rusber and Frequency of Reviews in Nther eublications Of the 434 unique book titles reviewed in Counterpoise between 1997 and 2000, 324 (74.7%) generated at least one other book review in a publication indexed by ProQuest (first research question). More specifically, 249 Counterpoise-reviewed TABLE 1 Book Titles Reviewed and Not Reviewed by Professional Reviewing Tools (Category A and B Publications) That Were Reviewed by Academic and Popular Publications (Category C, D, and E Publications) Number of Reviews in Category C, D, and E Publications One (%) Two (%) Three or more (%) Total Not reviewed in category A and B publications 39 (40.6)* 19 (38.8) 17 (18.3) 75 (31.5) Reviewed in category A and B publications 57 (59.3)* 30 (61.2) 76 (81.7) 163 (68.5) Totals 96 (100) 49 (100) 93 (100) 238 (100) * Percentages in this column do not add to 100 because of rounding. http:present.27 Reviews of Independent Press Books in Counterpoise and Other Publications 61 TABLE 2 Number of Reviews in Other Publications of Book Titles Reviewed in Counterpoise Number of Number of Book Reviews Titles (%) One 87 (26.9) Two 68 (21.0) Three to five reviews 106 (32.7) Six to ten reviews 48 (14.8) More than 10 reviews 15 (4.6) Total 324 (100) titles (57.4%) generated at least one review in either the four core library reviewing publications (category A) or other review­ ing publications commonly used by li­ brarians (category B). Of these 249 titles reviewed by category A and category B publications, 163 (65.5%) also were re­ viewed by category C, D, or E publica­ tions. More specifically still, only 209 (out of 434) Counterpoise-reviewed titles (48.2%) generated at least one review in category A publications (Booklist, Choice, Library Journal, and Publishers Weekly). Conversely, 238 (out of 434) Counterpoise- reviewed titles (54.8%) generated at least one review in category C, D, or E publi­ cations. Of these 238 titles, 72 also were reviewed in Publishers Weekly; 132 also were reviewed in either Booklist, Choice, or Library Journal; and 68 also were re­ viewed in category B publications. More­ over, of these 238 titles generating at least one review in a category C, D, or E publi­ cation, 96 generated a single review, 49 generated two reviews, and 93 generated three or more reviews. Table 1 shows the extent to which category A and B publi­ cations (professional reviewing tools) re­ viewed book titles that were reviewed by category C, D, and E publications. Pro­ fessional reviewing tools used by librar­ ians did not review 75 book titles (31.5%) that were reviewed by popular and aca­ demic publications (categories C, D, and E). Of these 75 titles, 19 had received two reviews and another 17 had received three or more reviews. The four core library reviewing tools (category A publications alone) did not review 115 publications that were reviewed by category B, C, D, and E publications. Generally speaking, however, the more reviews that a Coun­ terpoise-reviewed title received in cat­ egory C, D, and E publications, the greater the chance that it also was re­ viewed in category A and B publications (table 1). For instance, of the 93 Counter­ poise-reviewed titles that were reviewed three or more times in category C, D, and E publications, 76 (81.7%) were reviewed in a category A and B publication, whereas of the 96 Counterpoise-reviewed titles that were reviewed once in a cat­ egory C, D, and E publication, only 57 (59.3%) were reviewed in a category A and B publication. In total, the 324 titles generated 1,225 reviews across all types of publications in ProQuest. Table 2 shows the frequency of reviews per book title. Of the 324 titles reviewed by other publications, a plurality (32.7%) was reviewed between three and five times, with a further 14.8 percent of titles being reviewed between six and ten times. Over­ all, 52.2 percent of the titles (169) were re­ viewed three or more times in publications other than Counterpoise, and 73.1 percent (237) were reviewed two or more times in publications other than Counterpoise. What types of publications reviewed Counterpoise-reviewed book titles (second research question)? As indicated in table 3, the four core library reviewing journals produced 30 percent (8.1% + 21.9%) of the total number of reviews (in other publi­ cations) of Counterpoise-reviewed titles (367). Newspapers and large-circulation popular magazines produced 15.5 percent (190) of total reviews, and academic/ scholarly journals produced 28 percent (343) of total reviews. Table 4 provides additional details about the publications (within each publication-type category) that reviewed Counterpoise-reviewed pub­ lications. For instance, within category B, Lambda Book Report (39) and Women’s Re­ view of Books (26) reviewed Counterpoise- reviewed titles most frequently, followed by the New York Times Book Review (23) and 62 College & Research Libraries January 2004 World Literature Today (14). Within cat­ egory C, The Nation reviewed Counter­ poise-reviewed titles most frequently (19), followed by the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle (15 each). Within category D, The Advocate, The Progressive, and Off Our Backs most frequently in­ cluded reviews of Counterpoise-reviewed titles. Table 5 approaches research question 2 from a slightly different angle. The re­ searchers wanted to know how often Counterpoise-reviewed titles were re­ viewed by a specific type of publication, notwithstanding the number of total re­ views of that title within each separate publication-type category. For example, if title XYZ was reviewed by three aca­ demic/scholarly journals, once by Choice, and once by Library Journal, for the pur­ poses of table 5, this would be counted as follows: “Title XYZ” was reviewed once by a category E journal and once by the category of core library journals that in­ cludes Booklist, Choice, and Library Jour­ nal (category A-2). As shown in table 5, then, the 324 titles that were reviewed in publications other than Counterpoise gar­ nered 721 “category reviews.” Of these 721 “category reviews,” 280 (38.8%) were in the category of core library reviewing journals (categories A-1 and A-2) and an­ other 181 (25.1%) were in the combined category of newspapers and large-circu­ lation popular magazines, and consumer and trade publications (categories C and D). Types of Reviews Of the 1,225 total reviews generated by the 324 Counterpoise-reviewed titles that were reviewed in another publication, 748 (61.1%) were favorable, 187 (15.3%) were mixed, 42 (3.4%) were unfavorable, and 248 (20.2%) were “not rated” (third re­ search question). As shown in table 6, the rate of favorable reviews was highest in category A-2 publications (78.4%) and second highest in category A-1 publica­ tions (63.6%). When categories A-1 and A-2 are combined, the rate of favorable reviews in the four core library journals of Booklist, Choice, Library Journal, and Publishers Weekly is 74.4 percent. The rate of favorable reviews was lowest in com­ bined category C and D publications (53.3%). When the rate of favorable re­ views of all category A and B publications is compared with the rate of favorable reviews of all category C, D, and E publi­ cations, it is clear that, taken collectively, the rate at which all professional review­ ing tools used by librarians (categories A and B) give favorable reviews (69.4%) is greater than the rate at which popular and TABLE 3 Total Number Of Reviews Of Counterpoise-reviewed Book Titles in Other Publications Category Description of Publications Number of Total Book Belonging to This Category Reviews in All Publications within Each Category (%) A-I Core library reviewing journal: Publishers Weekly 99 (8.1) A-2 Core library reviewing journals: Booklist, Choice, and Library Journal 268 (21.9) B Other reviewing journals commonly used by librarians 149 (12.2) C Newspapers and large-circulation popular magazines 190 (15.5) D Consumer and trade publications 176 (14.4) E Academic/scholarly journals 343 (28) Total reviews in all publication types 1,225 (100)* * Percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding. Reviews of Independent Press Books in Counterpoise and Other Publications 63 TABLE 4 Publications Containing Five or More Reviews for Examined Titles Number Type of Publication Title of Reviews Core library reviewing journals Library Journal 110 (Category A) Publishers Weekly 99 Booklist 90 Choice 68 Other reviewing journals Lambda Book Report 39 commonly used by librarians Womenss Review of Books 26 (Category B) New York Times Book Review 23 World Literature Today 14 School Library Journal 9 Times Literary Supplement 8 College & Research Libraries 5 Newspapers and large-circulation The Nation 19 popular magazines (Category C) Los Angeles Times 15 San Francisco Chronicle 15 Village Voice 14 National Catholic Reporter 13 Boston Globe 11 Chicago Tribune 11 Washington Post 10 Ms 9 Oregonian 9 Utne Reader 7 Consumer and trade The Advocate 11 publications (Category D) The Progressive 10 Off Our Backs 9 Ecologist 8 Hispanic 7 Whole Earth 6 Communities 5 Multinational Monitor 5 New Statesman 5 Academic/scholarly journals Journal of American History 12 (Category E) Monthly Review 9 New Scientist 8 American Historical Review 7 Environmental Politics 7 Journal of Womenss History 6 Labor History 6 Alternatives Journal 5 NWSA Journal 5 64 College & Research Libraries January 2004 TABLE 5 Number of Reviews of Counterpoise-reviewed Book Titles in Each Category of Publication Category Description of Publications Number of Reviews of Belonging to this Category Different Books in Each Category of Publication* (%) A-I Core library reviewing journal: Publishers Weekly 97* (13.5) A-2 Core library reviewing journals: Booklist, Choice, and Library Journal 183* (25.4) B Other reviewing journals commonly used by librarians 115* (16) C and D Newspapers and large-circulation popular magazines; consumer and trade publications 181* (25.1) E Academic/scholarly journals 145* (20.1) Total 721* (100)** * Multiple reviews of the same book within a publication type category count as one review for the purposes of this table. ** Percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding. academic publications (categories C, D, and E) give favorable reviews (55%). In total, 185 Counterpoise-reviewed titles were reviewed favorably at least once in a category C, D, or E publication (popular and academic publications that are not primarily reviewing tools). Of the 185 titles that were reviewed favorably at least once, 50 were not reviewed by cat­ egory A or category B publications taken as a whole. More specifically, of the 185 titles that were reviewed favorably at least once, 123 were not reviewed by Publish­ ers Weekly (category A-1), 73 were not re­ viewed by Booklist, Choice, and Library Journal (category A-2), and 125 were not reviewed by any category B publications. Of the 185 titles that were reviewed at least once favorably in a category C, D, or E publication, 119 were reviewed fa­ vorably at least once in a category A or B publication, 40 had at least one mixed re- TABLE 6 Ty(es of Reviews According to Publication Ty(e Publication Type Favorable Type of Review Mixed Unfavorable Not Rated Category A-1 (99) Category A-2 (268) Category B (149) Total of categories A and B (516) 63 (63.6) 210 (78.4) 85 (57)* 358 (69.4) 27 (27.3) 35 (13.1) 20 (13.4)* 82 (15.9) 8 (8.1) 6 (2.2) 4 (2.7)* 18 (3.5) 1 (1) 17 (6.3) 40 (26.8)* 58 (11.2) Category C and D (366) Category E (343) Total of categories of C, D, and E (709) 195 (53.3) 195 (56.9)* 390 (55) 42 (11.5) 63 (18.4)* 105 (14.8) 11 (3) 13 (3.8)* 24 (3.4) 118 (32.2) 72 (21)* 190 (26.8) Grand total (1,225) 748 (61.1) 187 (15.3) 42 (3.4) 248 (20.2) *Percentages in these rows do not add to 100 because of rounding. Reviews of Independent Press Books in Counterpoise and Other Publications 65 TABLE 7 Library Of Congress (LC) Classifications of Books Reviewed by Counterpoise But Not Reviewed by any Other Publication LC Main Class/ Subclass Letters LC Main Class/Subclass Titles Number of Items B Philosophy 1 BL Religions. Mythology. Rationalism 4 DK Russia. Soviet Union. Former Soviet Republics - Poland 1 DT Africa 3 E History: America 9 F History: America 3 GE Environmental sciences 1 GF Human ecology. Anthropogeography 1 GV Recreation. Leisure 1 HC Economic history and conditions 1 HD Industries. Land use. Labor 6 HE Transportation and communications 1 HF Commerce 1 HM Sociology (General) 2 HN Social history and conditions. Social problems. Social reform 2 HQ The family. Marriage. Women 14 HV Social pathology. Social and public welfare. Criminology 8 HX Socialism. Communism. Anarchism 1 IC Political theory 3 K Law 1 LILAILC EducationIHistory of educationISpecial aspects of education 4 ML Literature on music 3 NINC Visual ArtsIFine Arts. Drawing. Design. Illustration 2 P Language and literature 2 PH Uralic languages. Basque language 1 PI Oriental languages and literatures 1 PN Literature (General) 9 PR English Literature 4 PS American Literature 9 QIQC Science (General)IPhysics 2 RIRA Medicine (General). Public aspects of medicine 2 SB Plant culture 1 TD Environmental technology. Sanitary engineering 1 TX Home economics 2 Z Bibliography. Library science. Information resources (General) 3 E e n h n hon n l th t � w o r v v d loa ow � � � � g � E p 4 � g E p p e i � E i g E p v iew in a categ ory A or B p u b lication , an d on ly 10 h ad at least on e u n fa­ v orab le rev iew in a cat­ eg o ry A o r B p u b lica­ tion . O f th e ten titles th at receiv ed at least on e u n ­ fav o rab le rev iew in a categ ory A or B p u b lica­ tion , fou r h ad receiv ed tw o o r m o re fav o rab le rev iew s in a categ ory C , D , or E p u b lication . P attern s in U n review ed T itles A s m en tio n ed p rev i­ o u sly, 74.7 p ercen t o f b o o k titles (3 2 4 ) re­ v iew ed in C ou n terpoise also w ere rev iew ed else­ w h ere. A ccord in g ly, 110 b ook s (25.3% ) rev iew ed by C ounterpoise w ere n ot rev iew ed elsew h ere. A re th ere an y p attern s to b e d etected am o n g th ese 110 u n rev iew ed titles? T ab le 7 g ro u p s th ese titles accord in g to th eir L C b road classifi­ catio n (research q u es­ tion 4). Six categ ories of books d om in ate th is list: H Q (T h e fam ily. M ar­ riag e. W om en ) (14); P N (L iteratu re. G en eral) (9); E (H istory: A m erica) (9); P S (A m erican literatu re) (9); H V (So cial p ath o l­ o g y. So cial an d p u b lic w elfare. C rim in o lo g y ) (8); an d H D (In d u stries. L an d u se. L ab o r) (6). T h ese fifty -fiv e titles com p rise 50 p ercen t o f a ll u n rev iew ed b o o k titles. B ook s in th e H Q class in clu d e su ch titles as: F irst P erson S exu al: W om en & M en W rite abou t S elf-p leasu rin g ; 66 C ollege & R esearch L ib raries Jan u ary 2004 Reviews of Independent Press Books in Counterpoise and Other Publications 67 Anal Pleasure & Health: A Guide for Men and Women; Like There’s No Tomorrow: Meditations for Women Leaving Patriarchy; American Sex Machines: The Hidden History of Sex at the U.S. Patent Office; and Much More Than Sexuality: Listening to 70 Gay People Talk about Their Lives. Books in the PN class include: Barbie Unbound: A Parody of the Barbie Obsession; The Solo Sex Joke Book: Jokes, Cartoons, and Limericks about the World’s Most Popular Sex Act; and Hot & Bothered: Short Short Fiction on Les­ bian Desire. Books in the E class include five titles about various aspects of North American Indian life, as well as Roots of Justice: Stories of Organizing in Communi­ ties of Color and Talking about a Revolution. Books in the PS class include two titles with subject headings of “erotic litera­ ture” or “erotic stories,” as well as fiction and poetry collections from marginalized groups such as Appalachian mountain families, punk rockers, North American Indians, and recent immigrants. Six of the eight books in the HV class deal specifi­ cally with the injustices of prisons and/ or the politics of the criminal justice sys­ tem both in the United States and over­ seas. Finally, in the HD class, three of the six titles deal with exploited laborers and another title discusses rent strikes and land struggles. (As an example of the types of subclass titles assigned to unreviewed titles in certain LC classes, see table 8.) If 110 Counterpoise-reviewed titles were not reviewed at all by any other publica­ tions, were some titles reviewed by popu­ lar and academic publications (categories C, D, and E), but not by reviewing publi­ cations typically used by library profes­ sionals (categories A and B) (research question 5)? To get as specific a set as pos­ sible of such titles, the researchers gener­ ated a list of titles that were reviewed at least three times by category C, D, and E publications with at least one favorable review, but not reviewed by category A and B publications. As shown in table 9, there were sixteen such titles. Nine of the titles are published by small and relatively obscure publishers (Common Courage Press [3]; New Society Publishers [3]; Aperture [1]; ILR Press [1]; and Orbis Books [1]) that, for the most part, are based in small towns away from the nexus of publishing power (i.e., New York and Boston). Another three publishers could be characterized as small- to me­ dium-sized publishers (New Press, Cleis Press, and South End Press). Two are uni­ versity presses and the final two are presses connected with political think tanks (Brookings Institute) or government entities (International Labour Organiza­ tion). With regard to the subject matter of these sixteen books, many, if not all, chal­ lenge the fundamental bases of American social and military power (e.g., School of Assassins, Atomic Audit, An Enemy of the State), capitalist economic foundations (e.g., Top Heavy, Juarez, We Are All Lead­ ers), corporate arrogance (e.g., Against the Grain, Our Ecological Footprint), and pa­ triarchal social hierarchies and systems (e.g., Body Alchemy, Natural Eloquence) from what could be described as radical perspectives. Finally, were there any patterns with regard to the types of books reviewed by Counterpoise and frequently reviewed by other publications (research question 6)? To address this question, the researchers generated a viable list of Counterpoise-re­ viewed titles that were reviewed ten or more times in all other publications and at least once in category A publications. This allowed the researchers to see whether there were any differences be­ tween the kinds of titles not reviewed by library reviewing tools and the kinds of titles that generated numerous reviews across all publication types. As shown in table 10, there were fifteen such books. In comparison with the list of publishers in table 9, the publishers in table 10 are larger and better known. For example, there are four university press titles, four books from the Free Press in New York, Seal Press in Seattle, and Beacon Press in Bos­ ton, and one book from internationally known Blackwell Publishing. Many of these publishers are based in the New York–Boston–Washington corridor. With TABLE 9 Book Titles Not Reviewed by Professional Reviewing Tools (Category A or B) but Reviewed at Least Three Times in Po�ular or Academic Publications (with at least one favorable review) LC Main Class/Subclass Letters Book Title LC Subject Headings Ti�es �e�ie�ed in �ther Publisher Publications BR E Eternal hostility: The struggle between theocracy and democracy Uprooting racism: How white people can work for racial justice Conservatism-Religious aspects-Christianity. Conservatism- United States-History-20th century. Theocracy. Christian Coalition. United States-Church history-20th century. United States-Politics and government-1993­2001. Racism-United States. Race awareness-United States. Whites-Race identity-United States. United States-Race relations. Common Courage Press (Monroe, Maine) New Society Publishers (Gabriola Island, British Columbia� Philadelphia) 3 3 F Landscapes of the interior: Re­ explorations of nature and the human spirit Landscape-Canada, Western. Landscape-West (U.S.). Philosophy of nature. Nature (Aesthetics). Canada, Western- Description and travel. West (U.S.)-Description and travel. New Society Publishers (Gabriola Island, British Columbia� Philadelphia) 3 HC Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth Sustainable development. Nature-Effect of human beings on. Human ecology. Economic development-Environmental aspects. New Society Publishers (Gabriola Island, British Columbia� Philadelphia) � HD We are all leaders: The alternative unionism of the early 1930s Labor unions-United States-History-20th century. Labor movement-United States-History-20th century. University of Illinois Press � HD Gender inequality in the labour market: Occupational concentra­ tion and segregation, a manual of methodology Sex discrimination in employment-Data processing- Methodology. International Labour Organization (Geneva, Switzerland) 3 68 C ollege & R esearch L ib raries Jan u ary 2004 TABLE 9 (CONT.) Book Titles Not Reviewed by Professional Reviewing Tools (Category A or B) but Reviewed at Least Three Times in Po�ular or Academic Publications (with at least one favorable review) LC Main Ti�es �e�ie�ed Class/Subclass in �ther Letters Book Title LC Subject Headings Publisher Publications HJ Top heavy: The increasing inequality Wealth tax-United States. Income distribution-United States. New Press (New York} � of wealth in America and what can be done about it HN Juarez: The laboratory of our future Ciudad Juarez (Mexico}-Social conditions. Ciudad Juarez Aperture (New York} � (Mexico}-Economic conditions. HQ Body alchemy: Transsexual portraits Transsexualism-United States. Transsexuals-United States- Cleis Press (Pittsburgh} � Portraits. Transsexuals-United States-Interviews. P Powers and prospects: Reflections Language and languages-Philosophy. World politics-1989. South End Press � on human nature and the social Philosophical anthropology. (Boston} order PN An enemy of the state: The life of Journalists-United States-Biography. War-Press coverage- Common Courage Press � Erwin Knoll United States. (Monroe, Maine} PN Working stiffs, union maids, reds, Working class in motion pictures. ILR Press (Ithaca, NY} � and riffraff: An organized guide to films about labor Q Natural eloquence: Women Women in science. Science news. University of � reinscribe science Wisconsin Press S Against the grain: Biotechnology Agricultural biotechnology. Food-Biotechnology. Food. Common Courage � and the corporate takeover of your Nutrition. Press (Monroe, food Maine} R eview s of In d ep en d en t P ress B ook s in C ounterpoise an d O th er P u b lication s 69 . 70 College & Research Libraries January 2004 regard to subject matter, there are, to be sure, titles that deal with thorny and dif­ ficult issues but, on the whole, the gen­ eral tone of these books is less provoca­ tive (e.g., Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference; The Old Neighborhood: What We Lost in the Great Suburban Migration, 1966–1999); the topics dealt with seem safer, more conventional, or more histori­ cally oriented (e.g., Power Loss: The Ori­ gins of Deregulation and Restructuring in the American Electric Utility System), as if it was acceptable to talk about past injus­ tices (e.g., Remembering Slavery: African Americans Talk about Their Personal Experi­ ences of Slavery and Emancipation; Cherokee Women: Gender and Culture Change, 1700– 1835), but not to discuss current ones. Discussion Contrary to the claims of Counterpoise editors, other publications, including mainstream journals and newspapers, are reviewing book titles that present alter­ native viewpoints on a wide variety of cultural, political, and social issues. In­ deed, 74.7 percent of the alternative titles (324 out of 434) reviewed by Counterpoise were reviewed 1,225 times in other pub­ lications. (See table 3.) Of these titles, 52.2 percent received three or more reviews. (See table 2.) To be sure, many of these reviews appear in journals such as The Nation, The Progressive, and Multinational Monitor, but many others are printed in the Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, and Washington Post. (See table 4.) As indicated in table 5, each publication-type category reviews a large number of different alter­ native titles that have been reviewed by Counterpoise. Popular publications (cat­ egories C and D) review nearly the same number (181) of Counterpoise-reviewed titles as category A-2 publications (183). An individual who reads academic and popular publications (category C, D, and E publications) without glancing at pro­ fessional reviewing tools (categories A and B) would find that these publications (categories C, D, and E) covered 238 out of 434 Counterpoise-reviewed titles. (See table 1.) There also was significant over­ TABLE 10 Table 10. Counterpoise-reviewed Titles That Were Reviewed Ten or More Times in Other Publi�ations LC Main Class/Subclass Letters Book Title Ti�es �e�ie�ed in �our Core Librar� �e�ie�ing LC Subject Headings Publisher �ournals DT Woman between two worlds: Portrait of an Ethiopian rural leader Women, Gamo-Biography. Gamo (African people}-Politics and government. University of Illinois Press 2 E The opening of the American mind Education, Higher-United States. United States-Intellectual life. Beacon Press (Boston} 4 E Cherokee women: Gender and culture change, 1700-1835 Cherokee women-History. Cherokee women-Social condi- tions. Cherokee Indians-Social life and customs. Sex role- United States. Sexual division of labor-United States. University of Nebraska Press 1 E E Remembering slavery: African Americans talk about their personal experiences of slavery and emancipation Promoting polyarchy: Globalization, U.S. intervention, and hegemony Slavery-United States-History. African Americans- Biography. African Americans-History. Democracy-History-20th century. Democracy-United States-History-20th century. World politics-1985-1995. United States-Foreign relations-1981-1989. United States- Foreign relations-1989- New Press (New �ork} Cambridge University Press 3 1 GE Betrayal of science and reason: How anti-environmental rhetoric threatens our future Anti-environmentalism. Environmental degradation. Island Press (Washing- ton, DC} 3 HD Power loss: The origins of deregulation and restructuring in the American electric utility system Electric utilities-Deregulation-United States. Electric utilities-Government policy-United States-History. Electric utilities-Law and legislation-United States-History. Competition-United States-History-20th century. Pressure groups-United States. MIT Press 1 R eview s of In d ep en d en t P ress B ook s in C ounterpoise an d O th er P u b lication s 71 TABLE 10 (CONT.) Table 10. Counterpoise-reviewed Titles That Were Reviewed Ten or More Times in Other Publi�ations Ti�es �e�ie�ed LC Main in �our Core Class/Subclass Librar� �e�ie�ing Letters Book Title LC Subject Headings Publisher �ournals HM Justice, nature and the geography of difference Social ustice. Social change. Social values. Global environmental change. Cultural relativism. Space and time. Blackwell Publishing 1 HQ Listen up: Voices from the next feminist generation Feminism-United States. Feminists-United States-Biography. Seal Press (Seattle) � HQ The sex side of life: Mary Ware Dennett's pioneering battle for birth control and sex education Birth control-United States. Sex educators-United States- Biography. Women social reformers-United States- Biography. Sex instruction-United States. Women- biography. Sex Education-United States. Family Planning- United States. Social Change-United States. New Press (New �ork) 2 HT Exterminate all the brutes Racism. Racism in literature. New Press (New �ork) � HT The old neighborhood: What we lost in the great suburban migration, 1966-1999 Cities and towns-United States. Neighborhood-United States. City and town life-United States. Free Press (New �ork) � HV Drawing life: Surviving the Unabomber Social pathology. Social and public welfare. Criminology Crimes and offenses. Victims of terrorism-United States- Biography. Bombings-United States. Free Press (New �ork) � PS Gore Vidal: Sexually speaking: Collected sex writings Sex. Sex in literature. Homosexuality in literature. Homosexuality and literature. English literature-20th century-History and criticism. American literature-20th century-History and criticism. Cleis (San Francisco) 1 RC Victims of memory: Sex abuse accusations and shattered lives Repression. Crime Victims-psychology. Incest. Child Abuse, Sexual. Psychotherapy. False memory syndrome. Recovered memory. Adult child sexual abuse victims. Memory. Repression (Psychology). Upper Access (Hinesburg, Vermont) � 72 C ollege & R esearch L ib raries Jan u ary 2004 Reviews of Independent Press Books in Counterpoise and Other Publications 73 lap, that is, the more often a Counterpoise- title was reviewed in a category C, D, or E publication, the greater the chance that it would be reviewed by professional re­ viewing tools (categories A and B). On the other hand, from the perspec­ tive of a collection development librarian who works outward from a core set of li­ brary reviewing tools to an ever-broader universe of journals, the picture is differ­ ent. The four core library review tools (Booklist, Choice, Library Journal, and Pub­ lishers Weekly [category A]) cover only 48.2 percent of all 434 Counterpoise-reviewed titles (209). If this theoretical library pro­ fessional then expanded her or his range of reading to include what the researchers have called category B publications, she or he would find reviews covering forty additional Counterpoise-reviewed titles. Finally, if a library professional expanded her or his reading range to encompass popular and academic publications (cat­ egories C, D, and E), she or he would dis­ cover reviews discussing seventy-five ad­ ditional Counterpoise-reviewed titles, bringing the grand total up to 324 book titles. In other words, the collection devel­ opment librarian would have to read a very large number of publications (table 4) to receive 74.7 percent (324 books out of 434 books reviewed in Counterpoise) of the same information about alternative book titles that is contained in Counterpoise. With regard to book reviews, the role of Coun­ terpoise is therefore not so much one of uniqueness but, rather, one of concentrat­ ing information in one place so that a li­ brarian can save time, money, and effort. However, although Counterpoise re­ views almost always tend to be positive in their evaluation of an alternative title, this is not the case with other publication types. For instance, publications in catego­ ries C, D, and E collectively evaluate Coun­ terpoise-reviewed books favorably only 55 percent of the time. (See table 6.) This is approximately the same as category B pub­ lications (57% favorable reviews), but far below category A-2 publications, which evaluate Counterpoise-reviewed book titles favorably at a rate of 78.4 percent. Collec­ tion development librarians who rely solely on Counterpoise reviews may not receive as objective an evaluation of a par­ ticular book title as they may receive from another type of publication. In addition, collection development specialists who are specifically interested in books that fall under such broad LC classifications as HQ (The family. Mar­ riage. Women), HV (Social pathology. Social and public welfare. Criminology), and E (History: America), as well as fic­ tion titles by members of marginalized groups or those that deal extensively and boldly with sexual topics (such as those in PN and PS classes), should make Coun­ terpoise book reviews required reading, especially if they have been accustomed to exclusively using professional review­ ing tools (category A and B publications). (See tables 7 and 8.) Why? As shown in tables 9 and 10, there are often stark dif­ ferences in both the nature and the pub­ lishers of the titles that are not reviewed by category A and B publications and the titles that are frequently reviewed by cat­ egory A and B publications. The difference can perhaps best be seen by comparing “Exterminate All the Brutes”: One Man’s Odyssey into the Heart of Dark­ ness and the Origins of European Genocide (published by New Press in New York) (table 10) with Uprooting Racism: How White People Can Work for Racial Justice (published by New Society Publishers in Gabriola Island, British Columbia) (table 9). The former title concentrates on his­ torical aspects of colonialism and racism in Africa; the latter dissects and offers advice to counteract numerous instances of racism in contemporary life. In other words, Uprooting Racism does not present racism simply as a historical construct but, rather, as an ongoing phenomenon that assumes untold manifestations in even the most seemingly innocuous set­ tings. Similarly, in table 9, the question of sex and sexual orientation is touched on through either historical work, as in The Sex Side of Life: Mary Ware Dennett’s Pio­ neering Battle for Birth Control and Sex Edu­ cation, or the writings of a renowned and 74 College & Research Libraries January 2004 prolific intellectual, such as Gore Vidal. Conversely, in table 10, the question of sexual orientation assumes a more radi­ cal form, as seen in Body Alchemy: Trans­ sexual Portraits, which is described as an “intensely personal photo documentary of female-to-male transsexuals (FTMs) … [that] document[s] the transformation of a number of FTMs in [the] transsexual community.”28 Conclusion To read some of the editorial statements published in Counterpoise after its break with the ALA is to become aware of the often visceral animosity that exists be­ tween Counterpoise editors and what they refer to as the “overarching command structure” of the ALA, a command struc­ ture described as “hierarchical, corporate, bureaucratic, self-important and domi­ neering,” one that has a proclivity for “elevat[ing] the few and subordinat[ing] the many” and has not supported the ef­ forts of Counterpoise to the degree that Counterpoise believes it should be sup­ ported.29,30 In many ways, Counterpoise has become a vehicle for a personal crusade against institutional librarianship, what Willett ironically refers to as a constant series of meetings of “big bottoms.”31 There is nothing wrong with this: Anger and frustration often fuel much-needed change. And change seems to be called for because, despite increasing attention to alternative presses, publications of these presses are not being collected to any great extent by OCLC libraries. For instance, 61 of the 114 books (53.5%) re­ viewed in Counterpoise in 2001 were held by fewer than 200 OCLC libraries, and 84 of those 114 books (73.7%) were held by fewer than 300 OCLC libraries.32 Of course, such figures may represent suc­ cess to some alternative publishers,33 but in relation to mass-market best-sellers and well-promoted mainstream titles, these numbers are nevertheless miniscule. Such statistics are all the more trou­ bling in light of the propensity of chain stores such as Wal-Mart to “typically carry an assortment of fewer than 2,000 books, videos, and albums,” “carefully screen content to avoid selling material likely to offend their conservative customers,” and be ruthless about returning goods “if they fail to meet a minimum threshold of weekly sales.”34 Not only has Wal-Mart banned books by Kurt Cobain, it has been instrumental in helping to “produce a string of best sellers by conservative au­ thors like Bernard Goldberg, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage and Bill O’Reilly” and contributed to the decision of AOL Time- Warner to start a religious imprint “be­ cause a book buyer for Wal-Mart [said] that more than half its sales were Chris­ tian books.”35 Because mass merchandis­ ers such as Wal-Mart accounted for 12.6 percent of all books sold in the United States in 2002 (up from 9.1% in 1992) and for “more than 40 percent for a best-sell­ ing book,” their growing influence “has bent American popular culture towards the tastes of their relatively traditional customers.”36 If the tactics of stores such as Wal-Mart lead to an increasing level of homogenization in the number and types of books available for public consump­ tion, the role of the library, whether aca­ demic or public, as a provider of alterna­ tive voices becomes all the more crucial, especially because Wal-Mart supported books typically become best-sellers, which increases the likelihood that these titles will make their way to library shelves. And if the example of the Minneapolis Community and Technology College (MCTC), which now spends 10 percent of its materials budget on alternative press resources, is taken into consideration, Counterpoise has had a significant positive effect on the ability of colleges and uni­ versities to collect alternative press publi­ cations.37 At the same time, as the present study has demonstrated, numerous other publications, including mainstream maga­ zines and newspapers, review alternative press book titles, and a significant major­ ity of those reviews are favorable. For the most part, those reviews appear before reviews appear in Counterpoise. The four core library reviewing publications review http:cations.37 http:libraries.32 Reviews of Independent Press Books in Counterpoise and Other Publications 75 48.2 percent of Counterpoise-reviewed titles, with 74.4 percent of the reviews being fa­ vorable. When a collection development librarian supplements the four core library reviewing publications with other publi­ cations, even more reviews of alternative press titles become available. In summa­ tion, information about such titles is readily available to those librarians who read widely and extensively in a variety of library reviewing tools, popular maga­ zines, and academic journals. When all is said and done, it is not libraries who pur­ chase books, but individual librarians who purchase books on behalf of their institu­ tions. If libraries do not own a large num­ ber of alternative press titles, and if there are nevertheless numerous reviews about such titles in a wide variety of publications that are ostensibly read by collection de­ velopment librarians, the reason for a lack of alternative press titles in libraries lies more with uninterested and unaware in­ dividual librarians who do not read widely (or who rely on approval plans) than with the libraries for which these individuals work and the organizational structures that bring these libraries together. To be sure, adequate financial resources are necessary to buy alternative titles. But adequate financial resources also are nec­ essary to buy any type of titles. Ultimately, it is the decision of individual collection development librarians that makes the dif­ ference. The example of MCTC is instruc­ tive in this respect. When the Minnesota state legislature granted academic librar­ ies additional funds with the proviso that 20 percent of those funds be used “to build collections in unique subject areas,”38 staff of MCTC could have spent their allotment on any type of materials. They did not do so, choosing, instead, “as a result of the extra money, and other decisions made by the staff,” to systematically devote 10 per­ cent of their materials budget to alterna­ tive press materials.39,40 To judge by the 1,225 reviews of Coun­ terpoise-reviewed titles in other publica­ tions, at the beginning of the twenty-first century interest in the publications of al­ ternative and small presses has reached a critical mass in publications of all types, not just Counterpoise. Accordingly, the fail­ ure of libraries to own books published by alternative and small presses may be a re­ flection of the disinterest that individual librarians have for questions surrounding the issue of corporate control of cultural industries, a failed understanding of the true implications of balance and neutral­ ity (vaunted principles underlying collec­ tion development work) in an era where organizations such as Wal-Mart shape cul­ tural tastes through their book merchan­ dising policies, and a disinclination to read widely in order to find out about as many books as possible on a given topic so as to be able to make informed and socially re­ sponsible decisions about book purchases. But the case of MCTC shows that local, small-scale efforts can have a large impact. Of course, it would have been easy for MCTC staff members (or others like them) to blame the dearth of alternative press titles in their library’s collection on the in­ flexibility of (or gaps inherent in) approval plans, cutbacks forced by restrictions in the current budget, the ever-present need to develop core collections in teaching areas, or perceived administrative disapproval of purchases of titles that do not have the im­ primatur of recognized and esteemed pub­ lishers or authors. But they did not elect to do so, instead taking it upon themselves as individuals to act. Notes 1. Civic Media Center. Available online from http://www.civicmediacenter.org/counter­ poise/. (Accessed 16 May 2002.) 2. Charles Willett, “Editor ’s Notes,” Counterpoise 4 (July 2000): 4. 3. Civic Media Center. Available from http://www.civicmediacenter.org/counterpoise/. (Ac­ cessed 16 May 2002.) 4. Willett, “Editor ’s Notes.” 5. “Counterpoise Business Plan: FY 2001, Part I: Mission Statement,” Counterpoise 4 (Jan./Apr. http://www.civicmediacenter.org/counterpoise http://www.civicmediacenter.org/counter 76 College & Research Libraries January 2004 2000): 4. 6. Ibid. 7. Ibid. 8. Willett, “Editor ’s Notes.” 9. Ibid. 10. Ibid. Willett quotes Herman. 11. Ibid. 12. Ibid. 13. Ross Atkinson, “The Citation as Intertext: Toward a Theory of the Selection Process,” Li­ brary Resources & Technical Services 28 (Apr. 1984): 113. 14. Judith Serebnick and John Cullars, “An Analysis of Reviews and Library Holdings of Small Publishers’ Books,” Library Resources & Technical Services 28 (Jan. 1984): 4–14. 15. Judith Serebnick, “Selection and Holding of Small Publishers’ Books in OCLC Libraries: A Study of the Influence of Reviews, Publishers, and Vendors,” Library Quarterly 62 (July 1992): 259–94. 16. Ibid., 275, 276. 17. Ibid., 277. 18. Juris Dilevko and Alison Hayman, “Collection Development Patterns of Fiction Titles in Public Libraries: The Place of Independent and Small Presses,” Library & Information Science Re­ search 22 (2000): 35–59. 19. Ibid., 43. 20. See Serebnick, “Selection and Holding,” 264. 21. Tom Person, “The Surviving Small Press: What Is Small Press?” Available online from http://www.laughingbear.com/articles/137_what_is_small_press.html. (Accessed 12 Septem­ ber 2003.) 22. Ibid. 23. Michael Albert, “What Makes Alternative Media Alternative?” Available online from http:/ /whorlpool.905host.net/files/edarchive10.htm. (Accessed 12 September 2003.) 24. Subsequent uses of the term “alternative” in this article should be interpreted in light of the editorial statements appearing in Counterpoise, which have been discussed in the opening paragraphs of this article. 25. As one of the reviewers of this article pointed out, we may be naïve in our assumption that collection development librarians rely on reviews (in any publication, including Choice) to any great extent for collection development purposes. We acknowledge, as this reviewer noted, that many librarians rely “almost exclusively” on approval plans and that approval plans “select books prior to the publication of reviews making them [the reviews] irrelevant regardless of where they are published.” We would like to think, however, that reviews do serve an important purpose in decisions about what to purchase or what not to purchase and that librarians are not, as this reviewer observed, “lazy.” 26. As pointed out by one of the reviewers of this article, it may not be appropriate to exclude zines and other nonbook formats in any analysis of the content of Counterpoise because zines and other nonbook formats are an integral part of the universe of alternative publications and of Counterpoise. 27. Although we recognize that there is a debate about whether ProQuest ratings are mis­ leading, ProQuest is, to our knowledge, one of the only tools that provides a readily quantifiable rating of reviews. 28. Cleis Press. Available online from http://www.cleispress.com/Pages/bodyalchemy.html. (Accessed 19 May 2003.) 29. Willett, “National Structures Do Not Represent American Librarians,” Counterpoise 5 (July/ Oct. 2001): 4. 30. ———, “Editor ’s Notes.” 31. ———, “National Structures Do Not Represent American Librarians,” 4. 32. Earl Lee, “OCLC Holdings of Books Reviewed in Counterpoise,” Counterpoise 6 (Jan./Apr. 2002): 18–20. 33. We thank both reviewers for bringing this point to our attention. And, as the reviewers also pointed out, print runs for alternative press publications are typically small and may result in low levels of holdings of these titles in OCLC libraries. In addition, numerous libraries have sizable original cataloging backlogs, and so they may not have been able to upload originally cataloged records of alternative publications to OCLC in a timely manner, which results in OCLC undercounts. Both these observations should be kept in mind when looking at these, or any other, OCLC statistics. 34. David D. Kirkpatrick, “Shaping Cultural Tastes at Big Retail Chains,” New York Times (May 18, 2003): B1, B7. http://www.cleispress.com/Pages/bodyalchemy.html http://www.laughingbear.com/articles/137_what_is_small_press.html Reviews of Independent Press Books in Counterpoise and Other Publications 77 35. Ibid., B7. 36. Ibid., B1. 37. Tom Eland, “Letters & Messages,” Counterpoise 4 (July 2000): 2. 38. Ibid. 39. Ibid. 40. The question of why MCTC staff members only began to purchase alternative press pub­ lications after a funding increase is a very valid one, and we thank one of the reviewers of this article for bringing it to our attention.