614 College & Research Libraries June 2021 scope of the book or perspective of the author. Thankfully, Wilson accompanies the textbook with a website listing the projects and people mentioned in the book so students can explore on their own. The website is a wonderful and welcome companion to the book and facilitates easier updating and inclusion, which aligns much better with the rapid development of DH. As it is, the website provides a explore-at-your-own-pace or pause-and-play approach to studying DH in addition to providing more dynamic content in the form of interviews with project col- laborators and direct links to the DH projects that are threaded throughout Digital Humanities for Librarians. The website is a clean compromise to the evolving nature of DH and presents the author with an opportunity to continually update and include additional voices that were excluded from the textbook. Even for the relative lack of project diversity or diversity of voices in this book, I found much to be useful and the prose engaging (a feat for a textbook!). The author is both open and candid about their experience as a new DH Librarian and is able to pose questions that many of us in the profession have asked in our beginnings. By providing these prompts, often as exercises or available resources at the end of each chapter, the author sets up a generation of DH Librarians with firmer footing than many of us had getting started—and if not firmer footing, then at least a sense of solidarity. I only wish this single-author tome had delivered a more inclusive, future-looking perspective of DH and gave me the fire to build my own DH project rather than simply giving me the grounding to support someone else’s.—Hannah Scates Kettler, Iowa State University Notes 1. https://www.hastac.org/blogs/nikkistevens/2018/01/19/list-dh-lists 2. Started by @CCP_org. | Short link: bit.ly/Black-DH-List Jutta Haider and Olof Sundin. Invisible Search and Online Search Engines: The Ubiquity of Search in Everyday Life. London, New York: Routledge, 2019. 160p. Hardcover, $160.00 (ISBN: 978- 1-138-32860-0). What is the most recent thing you searched for online? A recipe to try? A favorite brand of clothes on sale? Contact information for your dentist’s office? A movie to watch? Jutta Haider and Olof Sun- din, Professors of Information Studies at Lund University, use this prompt in focus group studies with people of different age groups and professions, as one illustration of their central thesis: search engines and online search are deeply embedded in our daily lives, often without our recognition. The responses represent the array of information that is sought online throughout a given day, indica- tive of the search-ification of everyday life, a key concept explored in this book. Platforms such as Google gather personal data on an immeasurable scale, learning every monetizable component of our lives to more efficiently sell us things while maintaining our atten- tion and driving our continued use. Search engines know so much about our interests, desires, and day-to-day existence. Shouldn’t we know more about them? https://twitter.com/CCP_org http://bit.ly/Black-DH-List Book Reviews 615 Haider and Sundin consider how search engines are used and the ways online search occurs in everyday life with an emphasis on implications for media and information literacy. They draw upon sources that include a thorough literature review, focus groups, and their own analyses from years studying search and information practices. Online searching, which in the recent past was a highly specialized activity that could not be conducted without assis- tance from information professionals, is now done in the blink of an eye, seamlessly enmeshed with and a part of everyday life. As an infrastructure that has become as essential to accessing information as it is monopo- lized by a small handful of corporations, search engines are increasingly invisible. As with any infrastructure, invisibility is a fundamental characteristic, and this extensive reliance on search engines is best demonstrated at the points where use breaks down. Information avoid- ance, from avoiding spoilers for a book’s ending to self-diagnosing symptoms that will lead to undue concern are examples, reminding us that access to information and the accompanying evaluation of it is not a cure-all. In fact, it is perfectly reasonable to avoid information in some cases, not least because these platforms often feel inescapable. Many people are experienc- ing a rapid context collapse between work and leisure, precipitated by neoliberal capitalism: Zoom is a current platform de rigeur used for work meetings, video calls with friends and family, and funerals, while Google attends to search needs for one’s job, personal life, and the increasingly indistinguishable line between the two. Yet, as the authors demonstrate, cracks exist in online search’s seemingly all-encompassing scope. In another section of the book, the authors address bias in search engines. In their view, one which can be extrapolated to debates regarding “neutrality” in librarianship, the question is not whether bias exists, but which and whose values are represented, and how. As numer- ous scholars including Safiya Noble, Ruha Benjamin, and Joy Buolamwini have demonstrated, a neutral or objective technological tool is not possible. In fact, one reason search engines have been so successful at becoming a part of everyday life is exactly because they use bias and subjectivity to their advantage; they make constantly calculated decisions that seek to anticipate user needs, in accordance with the algorithms and code written by predominantly white and male tech employees in the service of accumulating capital. The distorted looking- glass of online search, reflecting society’s racist and patriarchal violence while simultaneously amplifying the loudest content as measured by clicks, views, and shares, poses an array of issues to consider, including for information literacy and the work of librarians. A chapter on Search and Media and Information Literacy suggests infrastructural meaning- making—that is, the understanding of not only search results but how they came about—as an important area for those involved in information literacy efforts to grapple with. Users frequently trust the search engine’s processes and results, which aids in Google and other tech corporations’ desires to be fully woven into the fabric of everyday life and thus unquestioned as they continue their dominance. If information literacy is indeed essential to informed par- ticipation in society, as is frequently argued to be the case, how do we account for its being so contextual and tied to specific practices, while also often dependent upon the use of products that thrive on surveillance and content created largely by the same consumers? Though information literacy is important, Haider and Sundin argue that it “can only par- tially address what is ultimately a crisis of trust in societal institutions of knowledge.” Appeals to information literacy as an answer to political polarization fail to account for the complexi- ties of search and online information, from personal emotion and unwillingness to have one’s 616 College & Research Libraries June 2021 mind changed to the endless cycle of content based on one’s interests, whether unsubstanti- ated health information or far-right conspiracy theories. At the same time, librarians have a significant role to play in drawing attention to the perceived banality of search and to make apparent the workings of search engines and the commodification of information to library users. Doing so is an important step toward identifying the different shapes and forms of the search-ification of everyday life, making evident the impacts as well as the immense amount of trust we put into the results appearing on our screens.—Eamon C. Tewell, Columbia University Amy Hildreth Chen. Placing Papers: The American Literary Archives Market. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2020. 192p. Paper, $33.95 (ISBN 978-1-62534-485-4). Published as part of the University of Massachusetts Press series on Studies in Print Culture and History of the Book, Placing Papers: The American Literary Archives Market is a well-written and fascinating history of how various stakeholders—and their differing motiva- tions—shaped the literary archives trade in the United States of America. Amy Hildreth Chen, who holds a PhD in English from Emory University, previously was an academic librarian at the University of Iowa and now is an independent scholar. She traces the largely overlooked history of the trade in literary papers from its post-World War II origins through to the mid-2010s. The book comprises an introduction, conclusion, and six chapters. After a brief first chapter on the vari- ous values implicated in archives (financial, scholarly, and public), Placing Papers examines the literary archives market from the perspective of several key stakeholder groups: authors and their families (chapter 2), agents and dealers (chapter 3), directors and curators (chapter 4), archivists and digital archivists (chapter 5), and, finally, scholars and members of the public (chapter 6). Chapters on “Brand: Authors and Families” and “Access: Scholars and the Public” book- end Placing Papers. Plenty of archival literature already exists on both donor relations and on reference and access. Chen places this discourse into a much wider context by examining how authors’ cultural capital on the one hand, and scholars’ fetishization of literary manuscripts on the other, create value and drive demand in the literary archives market. The chapter “Profit: Agents and Dealers” discusses the two professions often involved in sales of authors’ papers. While agents are focused on obtaining the best prices for their authors, and dealers value their relationships with institutions and downplay the financial aspects of their transactions, both are invested in ensuring “the survival of their business by looking out for writers’ best interests” (43). A subsequent chapter on “Competition: Directors and Curators” explores dynamics among institutions vying for papers that bring in the most cultural capital, while attempting to balance (in some cases enormous) budgets. Of particular note is the chapter on “Provenance: Archivists and Digital Archivists.” It acts as a corrective to the frequent oversight that leaves archivists’ work uncited in research. Especially sophisticated is the discussion of acquisition, preservation, and access challenges created by the advent and increase of born-digital records. As Chen demonstrates, these are particularly acute for archivists working with personal born-digital records. If the current lack of resources to deal with digital records continues, the utility of collections to depict an