Search results

It was a great pleasure to read your lucid exposition of the problem of our catalog and very profitable to reflect on your thoughtful solution. Your careful statement requires an equally careful analysis. Let me attempt one:

LIBRARIANS, unlike the Surveyors and others, have not added “Royal” to their Association's title, yet the Library Association is one of the few, and now one of the venerable, societies which draw their Charter Straight from the King. More than that, after we had enjoyed fifty‐three years with such Status, our King became our Patron, and the Consort of the Heir‐Apparent actually our President. It is in this proud position that we may share specially the sense of loss which the untimely death of George VI has caused in the world. Whether his patronage will be extended by his successor or not, we cannot be deprived of the consciousness of privilege which his recognition created, and we pay homage to the fine memory of him who bestowed it. Libraries are places wherein memories endure; our shelves prove that the most brilliant eras have been those with Queens‐Regnant. All who work in them are the loyal servants of the new, youthful Queen Elizabeth, who will be as much Queen of Hearts in her own time as was her namesake four centuries ago.

As our plane roared away from Los Angeles, circled over the Pacific and turned inland over the mountains, I began to wonder in what respects the Midwinter Meeting of the American Library Association might differ from our British conferences. It was a bright sunny day at the end of January this year and the desert stretched endlessly beneath us. My speculations were eventually interrupted by the sight of the Grand Canyon with its immense candelabra of pink and grey rock rising out of the great rift in the earth's surface and I thought of other things as we went on over the vast agricultural plains of the Mid‐West. It was dark before we reached Chicago, and as we stepped from the plane the bitter cold made our ears tingle and made me regret the hat I had forgotten to bring.

The aims of this annual review of the literature were set out at some length in the first article in the series (Aslib Proceedings, vol. 5, no. 1, February 1953, pp. 27–39), but for the benefit of those who have not seen that paper, and also for others who might like to be reminded of the limitations of the series, it is proposed to recapitulate briefly the main points. This series is intended to assist those who need some guidance in selecting from the mass of literature now being published on librarianship and documentation those items most likely to be of assistance in planning and organizing their own work. It is particularly designed for the relatively inexperienced worker, whether special librarian or information officer, working in a small organization without the assistance of more experienced colleagues. Consequently, all theoretical discussions, however important, have been ignored unless it has been felt that they can be of practical assistance in solving day‐to‐day library problems, and descriptions of the practice of large general libraries have been omitted unless it appears that they are capable of adaptation to other conditions. Moreover, since the series is not intended to be used as a bibliographical tool (this purpose being adequately served by existing bibliographies) but as a guide to current reading, no attempt has been made to restrict the list to work actually published during the year under review, but it is hoped that the list is representative of items likely to have been received in British libraries during 1953. Every endeavour has been made, however, to see that the articles in the series shall between them cover the whole of the literature adequately and that no important items are missed.

This attempt to prick Colossus demands an apology and an explanation. The main suggestion outlined below has long revolved in my mind, but I would certainly never have had the temerity to set it down in black and white but for the encouragement received in the Library of Congress itself. During a recent visit to Washington I was invited by the Librarian of Congress, Dr. Luther Evans, and by several members of his learned staff, to express my views on the Library and its catalogue. Intellectual hospitality of this order invites and deserves a frank response. Here it is. It is hardly necessary to say that I alone am responsible for what follows, though I gratefully acknowledge both the encouragement and the information freely given me, especially by Mr. Herman Henkle, Director of the Processing Department of the Library of Congress.