Alternatives to Sellotape

Yesterday, Alice and I were set free from the SSL in order to attend 'First-Aid for Books' training course. It was nice to *finally* go, as we (through our acquisitions librarian) have been bugging the Bod about this for months (they were withholding supplies until we'd complete the training, before they'd actually arranged to put any on!)

In attendance were representatives from the SSL (us) the RSL, the Sackler and the Oriental Institute (2 from each.) The only other trainee there though was Adrienne from the Union, everyone else was assistants/catalogers etc. All of us were at different levels of experience, from people who only send damaged books for binding to a woman from the RSL who'd actually been to one of the old 'Alternatives to Sellotape' course a few years ago.

In general it was a great course. As well as teaching the techniques of repair, such as guarding, tipping and hinging spines (and the jargon that goes with them ;) they also told us about different types binding, the pros and cons of, and steps we could take to minimise book damage. It was all helpful knowledge, theory as well as practice, and I thought it worked well as a course.

There was one, admittedly huge, sticking point though and that came when we were told (quite early on) that paperbacks are not repairable.

The key to successful book repairs are flexibility. Flexible books are healthy books and the moment you stiffen a book, say by adding hinging tape or a large amount of paste to one page, you compromise the book's flexibility and with it, it's shelf life. This is not a hard concept to grasp, but one that hadn't really occurred to me before.

And that's great for conservators working with special collections, who are thinking long term and whose priority is to preserve the books. But for us, assistants in incredibly busy circulating libraries our priority is availability: getting the books into a usable condition and back out onto the shelves as soon as possible.

And here was where the session broke down a little

(It didn't actually break down - it lead to a very interesting discussion, with the RSL women explaining the issues to the course leader, with Alice backing up the RSL for good measure. I, being a wimp, just sat back and took mental notes, and I think the rest of the group were cowering too!)

C&C's suggestion was that when paperbacks come apart (even when one of two pages come out) they should be replaced and retired. The damage has come about because their binding (the glue holding them together) is too cheap, too old, and thus too stiff - trying to stick them back together will ultimately exasperate this problem.

But of the, say 10, books we have added to the repair pile a week, at least half will be paperbacks, almost all textbooks, ranging in cost between £10-£50 usually. That would eat up most of a yearly acquisitions budget without beginning to factor in actual acquisitions. Replacing that volume of books would be so impractical it would be impossible.

There was also a suggestion that replacement is quicker than repairs - again, this shows the huge gulf between what C&C perceive our libraries to be like, and the realities. Book ordering can take months. If book repairs take longer than a week, then there is something seriously wrong.

The debate ended amicably, with the new head of book and paper conservation concluding that if we're going to repair paperbacks, doing them properly with the right equipment, is a good way to encourage readers to treat damaged books carefully. In the interim, or for books who just can't be repaired, we were advised to tie them with cotton tape and attach notices to ask readers to be careful.

It seems that (as per) I have gone off on a bit of a rant here, but I didn't mean too. Yesterday, as the conversation was taking place, I was frustrated because of the huge discrepancy between what us in-house repairs *should* be doing (in the eyes of C&C) and what we *have* to do, to give our readers the service they require (and that is set out in our good practice standards.) In hindsight, I thought that the eventual agreement was a good one, and both sides ended up understanding each others views.

What was also great, is that we were told Virginia (new head of book + paper conservation) is planning to do alot to raise awareness of book conservation, including meeting with head librarians to discuss what should be expected of in-house repairs, and training on handling books correctly to prolong their life.

The chance to explore these issues was a great aside of this course, which would have been helpful and informative anyway. I found all the theory (binding types etc) fascination, and was pleased to find answers for all the smaller, niggling questions I've had during my time doing repairs. I'm glad the bod have decided to bring back these 'First-aid' courses, and I hope they continue to work at raising awareness with all library staff, and with readers as well, to the ins and outs of conservation.


(Moral of this blogpost - clearly there is a conservationist in me dying to get out, and if I were to stop in the library profession, that would be my area!)