library stuff: the Library of Congress
Apr. 30th, 2011 10:45 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jaebilityStudying for my cataloging final and just got to the section about the foundation of the Library of Congress subject headings, and my irritation over the system went through a glorious rebirth. It's time to whine.
Now, it's important to note that in the early 1800s, when the country was emerging from is pupa stage, books were a rare and expensive commodity. Most books were being created in Europe, with only a few publishers in Boston and New York. The early leaders of the United States wanted to develop an intellectual community and discussions of a national library began; what eventually came from this was the Library of Congress, set in the country's capital. Which was then burned to the ground by the British in 1812. A new collection was started with Jefferson's books, which the government bought to replace what they had lost. I can't stress enough how important books were to the foundation fathers - books and libraries are the symbols for as well as result of democracy; America wasn't always so opposed to knowledge and intellectualism. Having a national library, having a research collection, was not only validation that the country was succeeding, but the fruition of the ideologies held so highly by men like Jefferson.
Anyway, onto the Library of Congress. At the end of the 19th century, it became obvious that the traditional organizational schemas were no longer appropriate for the size of the collection. So the librarians adapted the list of terms published by the American Library Association; Library of Congress Subject Headings were born. Two head librarians, Haykin (1941-52) and Angell (1954-66) turned the LCSH into what it is today.
So what is it? Honestly, unless you're a library student or researcher, most people don't really use - or even know - LCSH. Basically it's a long, long, long, and complicated list of terms that describe subject content. Back in the days of yore, a librarian named Charles Cutter developed a method of organization called Cutter numbers - these allowed books to be searched for in a catalog by title, author, and subject. ...Ok, ok, less history. I could go on forever. The point is, being able to search like this was revolutionary. LCSH expanded on the subjects to a massive extent.
I mean massive. And that's why I hate studying it.
Because it's government funded, it has no money. There is no pattern, no rhyme or reason to the terms - each head librarian has changed it to fit his/her needs and the lack of funds mean that new policies aren't applied retroactively - it would cost to much to change everything. Sometimes terms are inverted, sometimes in natural order; sometimes with commas, sometimes with dashes. Coding the headings is just as bad. There are tons of fields you can use: 650, 651, 655... the subfileds $a, $v, $x...
It's a huge, sprawling monster of a library; it's complex history is what makes it so fascinating, but it's also what makes it a bitch to study.
Now, it's important to note that in the early 1800s, when the country was emerging from is pupa stage, books were a rare and expensive commodity. Most books were being created in Europe, with only a few publishers in Boston and New York. The early leaders of the United States wanted to develop an intellectual community and discussions of a national library began; what eventually came from this was the Library of Congress, set in the country's capital. Which was then burned to the ground by the British in 1812. A new collection was started with Jefferson's books, which the government bought to replace what they had lost. I can't stress enough how important books were to the foundation fathers - books and libraries are the symbols for as well as result of democracy; America wasn't always so opposed to knowledge and intellectualism. Having a national library, having a research collection, was not only validation that the country was succeeding, but the fruition of the ideologies held so highly by men like Jefferson.
Anyway, onto the Library of Congress. At the end of the 19th century, it became obvious that the traditional organizational schemas were no longer appropriate for the size of the collection. So the librarians adapted the list of terms published by the American Library Association; Library of Congress Subject Headings were born. Two head librarians, Haykin (1941-52) and Angell (1954-66) turned the LCSH into what it is today.
So what is it? Honestly, unless you're a library student or researcher, most people don't really use - or even know - LCSH. Basically it's a long, long, long, and complicated list of terms that describe subject content. Back in the days of yore, a librarian named Charles Cutter developed a method of organization called Cutter numbers - these allowed books to be searched for in a catalog by title, author, and subject. ...Ok, ok, less history. I could go on forever. The point is, being able to search like this was revolutionary. LCSH expanded on the subjects to a massive extent.
I mean massive. And that's why I hate studying it.
Because it's government funded, it has no money. There is no pattern, no rhyme or reason to the terms - each head librarian has changed it to fit his/her needs and the lack of funds mean that new policies aren't applied retroactively - it would cost to much to change everything. Sometimes terms are inverted, sometimes in natural order; sometimes with commas, sometimes with dashes. Coding the headings is just as bad. There are tons of fields you can use: 650, 651, 655... the subfileds $a, $v, $x...
It's a huge, sprawling monster of a library; it's complex history is what makes it so fascinating, but it's also what makes it a bitch to study.
