'An intensive yet enjoyable week' - LRBS Student Reflections from our Summer School

What do publishers and their archives mean to you? I believe most of us are familiar with those big names such as Longman, Chatto & Windus, and Duckworth, and probably have a copy published by them on our bookshelves. Me too. But other than that, these names also represent the cornerstones that propelled and witnessed the prosperity of the book marketplace in Britain, especially during the late 19th to early 20th century. It was my research on D. H. Lawrence that acquainted me with these big names in the late-Victorian to Edwardian publishing culture. Though my doctoral research mainly focused on Lawrence’s neglected engagement with the journalistic marketplace, his prolific literary outputs across various genres, along with his controversial and complicated relationship with early 20th-century censorship in the book publishing industry (yes I’m talking about his controversial novel Lady Chatterley’s Lover [1928]), made me interested in the role(s) publishers played in disseminating Lawrence’s works and, more broadly, in the development of English-speaking book marketplaces. If you happen to be a lover of archives and manuscripts, you can probably imagine how excited I was when I found this LRBS course and it was led by Dr Andrew Nash, a leading expert in bibliographical studies and the history of books in Britain. I was fortunate enough to be awarded this prestigious and competitive bursary to attend this module.

Like other LRBS modules, ‘Using Publishers’ Archives’ has around four sessions every day, focusing on publishers’ archives such as their internal and external correspondence, ledgers, and contracts. One of the best parts of this module is the diverse range of perspectives contributed by the participants. In our group of eight students, we have two academic researchers, three archivists, and three professional publishers. Everyone brings their own experience of working with archives to discussions, which is quite inspirational to me, especially when perspectives differ on topics and ideas that I often took for granted previously. For example, during a session on the first day, one of the topics we discussed was the different approaches in cataloguing archives. As a researcher, I found it quite inconvenient that certain archives were organised by correspondent’s name rather than by year or a period of time. This arrangement can complicate academic research, which often requires a comprehensive understanding of a publisher’s operations over a specific period as reflected in their correspondence with various authors and/or their agents. While archives arranged by names can aid in understanding relevant parties’ long-term relationships with the publisher, they can also increase the labour involved in managing requests for and returns of various folders, if not boxes, particularly for large publishers.

However, one of the archivists shared an insight that I had not thought of before: such arrangement enhances the accuracy of record-keeping. As we all understand, physical archives, either deposited in or acquired by special collections, are often the only copies extant. If not grouped by individual correspondent, putting all documents from the same time period in a single folder/box could potentially lead to the misplacement of individual items, especially smaller documents, during the retrieval, consultation, and returning processes. This could hence affect future researchers’ interpretations of the archives. This discussion is just one of the many from which I’ve gained valuable insights, challenging my preconceptions and encouraging me to consider new viewpoints. Though there is no definitive answer as to which cataloguing practice is better, as both are valid and adopted in practice, I find it immensely beneficial to question my own ‘stereotypical’ assumptions, gain new perspectives, and engage thoughtfully with others’ ideas during our discussions inside and outside the classroom.

Another aspect that impressed me the most is this module’s exceptionally well-designed structure, with just about the right level of difficulty. As my doctoral research is on single-author studies, I was a bit worried about my ability to contribute effectively to discussions. Though I had read the recommended materials in advance, I expected that I would still need to Google amid discussions to familiarise myself with certain names and background information to understand the archives. But these sessions have proven that I was overly worried. The archives were meticulously selected and aligned closely with the session’s themes. We were paired up, meaning that we could collaborate and bring our individual expertise to the task of deciphering the information and stories hidden in those archives. Most importantly, Dr Nash frequently walked around the room to discuss with each pair. We were hence able to share our preliminary observations and gain further insights from him to deepen our understanding of the archives. Dr Nash’s extensive knowledge of the archives and the publishers was invaluable, especially as I often found myself stuck in rabbit holes that were interesting yet somehow tangential to the session’s topic. In a session on publishers’ advertisements, my teammate and I examined newspaper clippings of advertisements that Chatto & Windus had placed in both mainstream and specialised periodicals. Our task was to identify any patterns or techniques used in these advertisements. After reaching a consensus with my teammate, I looked into an area of particular interest to me – the graphic designs used in sub-series such as the Centaur Library and Dolphin Books, both of which, like the logo of Chatto & Windus, feature two figures in their design. Dr Nash told me that the designer was Edward Bawden, who had a longstanding collaboration with Chatto & Windus. In my understanding, graphic design plays an important role in shaping a publisher’ identity among its target audience; hence, knowing the designer’s name is unquestionably helpful for my follow-up research.

In addition to these, one of my favourite aspects of the module ‘Using Publishers’ Archives’ is the opportunity to explore allocated archive folders independently. This arrangement allows us to focus not only on the questions of each session but also to pursue our own interests, making the best use of these abundant archives. At the end of Thursday morning’s sessions at the British Library, Dr Ben Fried left us with some intriguing questions about the nature of literary editing. On our way back to Senate House and during lunch, I enjoyed an inspirational discussion with another participant. Drawing on the archives of Virago and Bill Buford’s magazine Granta, we observed a clear distinction between two literary editing practices: one is pure literary editing, which aims to enhance a work’s readability and literary quality without making major changes that could alter the author’s original intentions. On the contrary, we have also identified a more controversial editing practice, which we termed as ‘market editing’. This approach is aimed at boosting book/magazine sales; sometimes editors intervene or even violate the authorship of the work, as evidenced in the Granta archives. However, as these materials predominantly cover the latter half of the twentieth century, I was curious about finding more evidence from earlier periods to support our observations. Luckily, while examining the folder containing Duckworth’s correspondence with Edith Sitwell on Friday’s sessions, I encountered some letters between Duckworth and a freelance editor who provided professional proofreading services on several titles. In one instance, he was paid six guineas instead of the originally agreed five, due to the ‘more than usually tiresome’ task, which he completed in an ‘excellently clear way’.[1] This instance, though an isolated example from the archives, exemplifies the traditionally expected role of a literary editor. After working extensively on publishers’ archives for five days during this module, one has to admit that it is a remarkable skill for a literary editor to strike a balance between maintaining a work’s literary integrity and marketing its juicy aspects according to market trends. However, when editing necessitates compromises, it probably is my cue to dig deeper into the archives to uncover the hidden stories behind a work’s preparation and publication.

This five-day module on examining publishers’ archives is indeed intensive yet enjoyable, thanks to well-designed sessions, knowledgeable leaders and archivists, and my brilliant peers whose passion for archives and insightful ideas enriched our discussions both in and outside the classroom. This experience was truly remarkable. From this and my discussions with students taking other modules during coffee breaks, I think it’s safe to say that LRBS, especially ‘Using Publishers’ Archives’, is a great place to expand your knowledge about archival research skills, book publishing history, and to meet fabulous peers and learn more about their research. Do consider applying for this course and keep an eye on LRBS’s arrangements for next year, which I believe will be full of interesting topics!