Wolfgang wrote:

"Conan The Librarian" wrote in message
...

Oh please do. :-) From what I've read about him, it appears that
above all else he was determined to bring immediate academic credibility
(similar to an "instant classic" :-) to the center and the university. He
was ruthless, calculating, driven, eccentric and possibly a bit mad. In
other words, he was the perfect man for the job.

Basbanes was much kinder (while giving good account of Ransom's critics),
but that's about the gist of it. I can't really give you much more from
memory and, as I guessed, you already appear to know more about him than I
do.

Lest I appear to be too harsh on old HR, I should clarify that I
have the utmost respect for what he did. To create a cultural/academic
centerpiece such as the HRHRC in the climate he did was nothing short of
amazing.

How does he botch the Blumberg case? I would think that's one case
that is pretty open and shut (so to speak).

Poor phrasing on my part. Basbanes actually did a good job of reportage on
Blumberg. What he really botched was the inclusion of Blumberg's story in
this book. In retrospect, it looks to me like Basbanes couldn't decide what
he wanted to do. In the first place, the word "madness" in the title
suggests that he is going to treat bibliomania in the sense of
pathology....a ripe field as anyone who pays much attention to books and
bookish people knows. As I stated, he glosses over this with little more
than a nod and then goes on to a relatively brief look at serious collectors
through history, finally settling on an in depth examination of (mostly)
nineteenth and twentieth century American and British collectors, with a
great deal of emphasis on their relations with dealers and the ultimate
disposition of their collections. And then, at the very end of the book, he
includes this Blumberg stuff. It's looks very much like Basbanes, a: is
saying "I know that a lot of this is boring and it's not what I promised,
and, b: decided on including Blumberg because he was available (and a pretty
hot topic in the book world) and would jazz the whole thing up a bit. The
whole thing is a discordant note in what is otherwise a competent (if
unexciting) look at modern book collecting on a grand scale and/or a tacit
confession that he hadn't done what he led the reader to believe he would.

OK, now I understand your point. (Frankly, I should have gotten it
the first time as your Mozart and Stravinsky analogy was clear enough.)
It does seem odd to feel the need to "spice up" a book like that. I
wonder if there may have been editorial pressure on him to include it.

Thanks for the citation. And as to your previous point: There is
another option. You can love *and* hate them. I love them for what they
contain, but I hate them because I can't resist being immediately drawn to
their content; I always jump directly to the footnote.

Yeah, I was aware of that third option, but the whole love/hate thingy gets
messy......not the sort of thing we want to go into in depth in a family
newsgroup.

Yeah, ROFF is certainly no place for any sort of love/hate
dichotomies. :-}

I *must* read that book, thanks.

It should come as no surprise that Zerby appears entirely unapologetic about
making it a tricky read.

As long as it's done with a sense of humor, I think I'll be fine. :-)

I already knew that. :-)

Masochist.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.


Chuck Vance