Donald Farren wrote:
"I'm with Eric. As a researcher (albeit mainly bibliographical), having to
use a surrogate is anathema. I'm surprised that booksellers are advocating
the use of surrogates. Of course their stance is high-minded, but are they
planning to abandon selling the real thing in favor of scanning (plenty of
which, regrettably, I am offered on ABE)."
I'm assuming that I am the bookseller to whom you refer as "advocating
the use of surrogates." May I ask that you re-read what I wrote and see if you still think that's what I said. Here, in pertinent part, it is again:
"...could not these rare materials be scanned or microfiched for use in research related to content (e.g., checking a citation), so that the materials would not need to be handled except for research which related to the physical object. I don't know, but it would seem that this would considerably reduce the numbers of people handling these collections physically, and thus make tighter security easier and more efficient when the actual object needs to be handled by the researcher."
My point, which sparked some heady philosophical discussions around issues of "texte" and "chose," etc., was that it may not always be essential to the research to handle the physical object. Recall that the writer to whose posting my reply was in answer, said he had gone to the particular rare book collection to "check a citation," and was held up by inordinate security inspections.
Obviously, as a bookseller, I appreciate the benefits of actually handling material, and nothing in what I said implied otherwise.
Ed Pollack