You may notice some images loading slow across the Open Collections website. Thank you for your patience as we rebuild the cache to make images load faster.

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The acquisition of literary papers in Canada Maclean, Anne M. 1987

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


831-UBC_1987_A3 M33.pdf [ 6.19MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0096788.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0096788-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0096788-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0096788-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0096788-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0096788-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0096788-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

THE ACQUISITION OF LITERARY PAPERS IN CANADA By ANNE M. MACLEAN B.A., The University of British Columbia, 1981 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARCHIVAL STUDIES i n THE SCHOOL OF LIBRARY, ARCHIVAL AND INFORMATION STUDIES We accept this dissertation as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1987 (§) Anne M. Maclean, 1987 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without rriy written permission. The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 DE-6(3/81) i i ABSTRACT During the past thirty years Canadian literature has developed at a remarkable rate, with the result that many Canadian writers now enjoy national and international recognition. The personal papers of these writers have undergone a corresponding increase in their research and monetary value. Literary papers have therefore become highly attractive to archival repositories and libraries, many of which compete to acquire these papers through sales or donations. Open-market competition may be advant-ageous to authors because i t allows them to sell their papers to the highest bidder, but i t is harmful to archivists because'it creates animos-ity within the archival community, inflates prices and causes collections to be split . This clash of interests between authors and archivists, and among archivists themselves, must be resolved i f literary papers are to be preserved and administered properly. A questionnaire was sent to 29 Canadian repositories to determine the ways in which archivists deal with the complex issues associated with acquiring literary papers: acquisition policies; acquisition budgets; the suitability of certain types of institutions to acquire literary papers; copyright/literary rights; tax credits; monetary appraisal; and automation. Results from this survey indicate that an increasing number of archival institutions now recognize the need for developing systematic collections policies in order to reduce competition and encourage cooperation among archivists. However, the majority of institutions in Canada st i l l do not have any formal written policies for acquiring literary papers and have no plans to develop such policies in the near future. It will be some time, i i i therefore, before a complete cooperative network among archivists in Canada becomes a reality. Diverse types of institutions acquire literary papers; university archives and special collections, provincial archives, the National Archives and National Library of Canada, and smaller thematic archives are all involved in this type of acquisition. The survey sought respondents' opinions on this question: can or should the acquisition of literary papers be limited to certain types of institutions? Judging from the res-ponses, the answer is a qualified no. Universities are a logical reposit-ory for authors' papers because literary research is largely an academic activity, but i t is not possible to prevent other types of institutions from acquiring in this area through laws or regulations. Donor preferences play a critical role; ultimately i t is the author or his executors who have the last word on where the author's papers are deposited. The author-archivist relationship lies at the heart of this issue. The onus is on the archivist to educate authors on the nature and function of archives and the legal implications of acquisition. Archivists can also educate themselves regarding authors' economic concerns and the literary activities which produce their records; such understanding will help to resolve the conflicts between authors and archivists and improve acquisit-ion negotiations. Finally, archivists need to develop more systematic written acquisitions policies for literary papers in order to reduce competition and ensure the continued preservation of this important cultural resource. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT 11 LIST OF TABLES v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vi !>• CHAPTER ONE: ! INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER TWO: AUTHORS AND THEIR RECORDS 6 CHAPTER THREE: ACQUISITION OF LITERARY PAPERS: "CANLIT BIZ" OR CANLIT GO-OP? . . 32 CHAPTER FOUR: ACQUISITION POLICIES 58 CHAPTER FIVE: DONOR RELATIONS AND LEGAL ARRANGEMENTS 86 CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION 118 BIBLIOGRAPHY 125 APPENDIX A: INSTITUTIONS SURVEYED . . . 131 APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE 133 / V LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE, 2.1 LITERARY ACTIVITIES AND THEIR RECORDS 19 TABLE 4.1 ACQUISITIONS POLICIES FOR LITERARY RECORDS 60 TABLE 4.2a OPINION AS TO HIGH SUITABILITY OF TYPES OF INSTITUTIONS FOR ACQUIRING LITERARY RECORDS 68 TABLE 4.2b OPINION AS TO NO SUITABILITY OF TYPES OF INSTITUTIONS FOR ACQUIRING LITERARY RECORDS 68 TABLE 4.3 PREFERENCE FOR ACQUIRING LITERARY RECORDS AT STAGES IN AN AUTHOR'S CAREER . . . 80 TABLE 5.1 PERCENTAGE OF DONATIONS VS. PERCENTAGE OF PURCHASES OF LITERARY RECORDS IN CANADIAN REPOSITORIES 107 TABLE 5.2 PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS' OPINIONS ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL ON-LINE LITERARY DATABASE NETWORK IN CANADA 110 vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the following people for their contributions: my thesis supervisor, Terry Eastwood, for all his support and advice; Richard Hopkins of the School of Library, Archival and Information Studies, for his help in preparing the questionnaire; Laurenda Daniells, George Brandak and Anne Yandle at the University of British Columbia Library, Special Collect-ions Division, for their cooperation in pre-testing the questionnaire and suggesting revisions; and the many archivists across Canada who took the time to respond to the questionnaire - their answers and comments were greatly appreciated. CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Many archival repositories and libraries in Canada now have substantial holdings of literary papers, which are acquired either through sales or donations. This thesis examines the issues associated with this type of acquisition in order to determine who is acquiring literary papers and how archivists conduct negotiations with authors. The main issues addressed are acquisition policies, acquisition budgets, the suitability of certain types of institutions to acquire literary papers, cooperation vs. competit-ion, copyright/l iterary rights, tax credits, monetary appraisal, and automation. The author-archivist relationship is crucial to the acquisition of literary papers. It is important for archivists to understand how writers create their records, what types of records they create, how they treat these records, and how the records f i t into the overall context of the author's works. Automation also has important implications for authors, archivists and researchers, as more authors begin using word processors. Such understanding enables archivists to make more informed appraisal and acquisition decisions regarding literary papers. For purposes of this study, l i terary records are defined as the original, unpublished works of a fiction or non-fiction writer and any materials that document the evolution of that writer's creative l i fe . Such materials include drafts, note-books, journals, galley proofs, annotated copies of published works, research notes, original source material, cor-2 respondence, legal and financial documents such as contracts and royalty statements, interviews with the author and book reviews, and may be in many different formats, such as typescripts, computer disk or cassette tape. This definition does not include the records of publishing companies or writers' organizations. These types of records also document part of the literary exercise, but i t was decided not to include them for this study because they deserve a separate study of their own. For our purposes, we are concerned about the records found in an author's own private collecti-on, some of which may duplicate information found in a publishing company's f i les . The thesis focuses primarily on the archivist's concerns in acquisiti-on, although Chapter Two examines the records authors generate during their literary activities. However, i t was not possible to give a full account of the author's perspective within the scope of this study; i t is hoped that further studies will deal with authors' activities in greater detail in order to give a more rounded picture of the records authors create. This topic is important because of the growing awareness of literary records as a significant cultural resource, an awareness which has come about in response to the flourishing of Canadian literature in the past three decades. As more and more Canadian writers become better known in Canada and abroad, their records have increased correspondingly in research and monetary value. Indeed, they have become a saleable commodity and also have value as a gift for tax credit. The fact that most authors try to earn their living from writing means that their lives are often financially precarious. With their economic interests at stake, authors are prepared to negotiate with more than one repository for the acquisition of their 3 papers in order to obtain the best deal they can. Often they split their papers i f they move around the country or abroad, depositing their papers in more than one repository. The main concern of this thesis is to examine this situation and identify ways in which archivists deal with the problems they encounter in acquiring literary papers. A survey was conducted of 29 repositories selected from the Association of Canadian Archivists' Directory of Canadian Archives.1 Of these reposi-tories, there were 16 universities, 9 provincial archives, 2 smaller "thematic" archives, and the National Library of Canada and National Archives of Canada (formerly the Public Archives of Canada; the name was changed on 11 June 1987 when the Archives of Canada Act designated i t the National Archives of Canada). All of these are involved in the acquisition of literary papers. The survey was limited mostly to repositories in English Canada; McGill and Concordia Universities were the only Quebec institutions included (see Appendix A - List of Institutions Surveyed). It was decided not to include French-speaking repositories due to the d i f f i -culties in translating the questionnaire and the differences in the Quebec archival system. There is much scope for further study in this area. In January 1987 a ten-page questionnaire was mailed to the 29 reposit-ories, which were asked to respond by 27 February 1987. By this date a return rate of 73% had been achieved; a follow-up letter was sent to those who st i l l had not responded, and by 16 April 1987 the rest of these had sent in their questionnaire. However, one of these responses was actually a non-response from a university in Ontario, which declined to answer on the grounds that the questionnaire did not meet the criteria of the Ontario Council of University Libraries, to which that university subscribes. This 4 leaves us, therefore, with a usable response rate of 97%. Most respondents added thoughtful comments on various issues concerning acquisition of literary papers; these comments will be quoted anonymously where approp-riate. The central problem in the acquisition of literary papers is the clash between archivists' and authors' interests. In Canada today, there exists an open-market approach for acquiring literary papers. This open market, in which literary papers command high prices to those who can afford to pay, is advantageous to authors but is disadvantageous to archivists because i t violates the archival principle of respect, des fonds, increases competition for literary papers and inflates prices of these papers. It is imperative that archivists and authors resolve this conflict in order to ensure the proper preservation of and access to authors' papers. Clearly-developed, written acquisitions policies are needed to alleviate the effects of the open market and encourage greater cooperation among the archival repositories involved in this type of acquisition. The fact that so many different kinds of institutions acquire literary papers indicates not only their popularity but also a recognition of their importance as a record of our cultural heritage. Literary papers document the development of a writer's creative l i fe and reflect the society in which that writer lives and works. With a clearly defined acquisitions policy and an understanding of writers' activities which produce these records, archivists can better serve the needs of writers as well as the interests of researchers. 5 NOTES - CHAPTER ONE 1. Marcel Caya, David Leonard and Gilles Heon. Directory of Canadian  Archives, 2nd Ed. (Ottawa: Bureau of Canadian Archivists, 1986). 6 CHAPTER TWO AUTHORS AND THEIR RECORDS The process by which authors create their works is highly fascinating and highly mysterious, to authors themselves as much as anyone else. Nobody knows exactly how this process works, nor why i t works for some people and not for others, nor why i t sometimes stops working for a writer at certain times. The act of writing can cause an author to run the full gamut of emotions from sheer delight to total frustration to outright despair or rage. Virginia Woolf, for example, describes her creative power as one which "bubbles so pleasantly in beginning a new book"! but which later becomes "a tiresome bewildering distraction"^ when she is trying to produce the book's final pages. It is no wonder, therefore, that writers are sometimes reluctant to talk about how they write, fearing that too much analysis will destroy the creative spark. Yet despite such reluctance, there is a considerable body of information on the lives of writers in interviews, diaries, letters, biographies, and autobiographies. These provide valuable insights into writers' attitudes toward themselves, their place in their community, the issues that concern them and, following from this, the subjects they write about. This chapter, which focuses primarily but not exclusively on Canadian writers, will examine the environment in which writers write, the activities they engage in, the types of records they produce, how they treat these records, and how these records f i t into the overall context of the author's work. The chapter will also introduce the implications of 7 automation for authors and for archivists, in order to address in greater detail these implications in Chapter Five. The Writers at Work series of interviews from the Paris Review is an excellent source of information on writers' lives and working habits. The authors interviewed discuss, among other things, the technical details of how they write and revise. Most of these authors are either American, Bri t ish or European, although the Paris Review has plans to interview Canadian writer Alice Munro, an interview which, we hope, will appear in a subsequent compilation of Writers at Work. In addition, there are two noteworthy collections of interviews with Canadian authors: Conversations with Canadian Novelists, Parts One and Two, and For Openers: Conversations with 24 Canadian Writers. These Canadian interviews are significant for a number of reasons. First, the fact that there are enough Canadian writers for their interviews to be put together in book-length form shows how much Canadian literature has developed in the past thirty years. We now have many outstanding writers, most of whom are represented in these collections of interviews. Second, these authors give us their own insights into the nature of writing; many of their comments mirror those made by writers in Writers at Work. Third, they talk at great length about what i t means to be a writer living and working in Canada, constrained as they are by a small population, tight markets and competition from the United States. Not surprisingly, these matters are of great concern to the Canadian writers interviewed, particularly Margaret Atwood, who complains that present marketplace conditions are limiting the public receptivity and economic viability of Canadian literature, and could in turn endanger the future of Canadian publishing.3 8 These interviews with Canadian writers also convey a strong sense of community, which the Writers at Work interviews do not. The number of working writers in Canada today has increased considerably, but i t is s t i l l small compared to the number of writers in the United States, and our smaller general population spread out over such vast distances tends to create feelings of isolation and solitude. This situation is particularly difficult for all artists but especially for writers, who need contact with other people in order to observe human behaviour and ward off the loneli-ness of their work. For these reasons, the Canadian authors interviewed by Alan Twigg and Donald Cameron talk about each other as though they were all part of the same family. The threat of isolation causes them to reach out to one another. The comments they make are not always complimentary. Al Purdy, in response to a question about Dorothy Livesay, says, "Oh, she's always complaining about everything . . . to me i t 's a virtue to disappoint Dorothy."4 Generally, however, these writers speak enthusiastically and even affectionately about their colleagues. Jane Rule talks about the importance of maintaining contact with other writers: "Certainly in Canada we're very fortunate that the government helps us keep in touch. We all go to Ottawa once a year on the government. I need to see Marie-Claire Blais once a year. And Peggy Atwood. And Margaret Laurence."5 Significantly, Margaret Laurence praises Hubert Evans by calling him "the elder of our tr ibe. " 6 Laurence's choice of metaphor reveals her perception of the Canadian literary community as tribal and closely-knit. By contrast, the authors interviewed in Writers at Work talk very l i t t le about each other, with the exception of Dorothy Parker, who talks about her friendships with Robert Benchley and other writers of the Algonquin Hotel Round Table in the 9 1920's. A few others also mention their relationships with some of their colleagues, but generally, the Writers at Work interviews give the impress-ion of a far less cohesive American literary community. No doubt our literary community will also become less cohesive as younger writers come to maturity, bringing with them new themes and new concerns. Signs of this change are already appearing, with writers such as Susan Musgrave and Jack Hodgins who tend to focus on West Coast settings and themes. Living and working on "the ragged green edge of the world"? gives them a profoundly different perspective from that of central Canadian writers or writers on the Prair ies, in Quebec or in the Maritimes. Regionalism, as we will see in Chapters Three and Four, is an important consideration in the acquisition of literary papers, with more archivists recognizing the desirability of keeping these papers in or near the region where they were created. In her excellent book, Survival: A Thematic Guide to Canadian Literat- ure, Margaret Atwood says that "Literature is not only a mirror; it is also a map, a geography of the mind. Our literature is one such map, i f we can learn to read i t as our literature, as the product of who and where we have been. "8 The foundations for our literature were established in pre-Confederation times (a period in our literary history which has yet to be fully explored^), and our literature has been building slowly ever since. Literary historians generally agree that 1960 was a watershed for Canadian f ic t ion . Several highly distinctive writers such as Hugh MacLennan, Mordecai Richler, W.O. Mitchell, Malcolm Lowry and Ethel Wilson had already established themselves in the twenty years preceding 1960 and strongly influenced those who came after. Ethel Wilson, for example, gave Margaret 10 Laurence much encouragement and praise early in Laurence's career. Laurence's f i rst novel, This Side Jordan, was published in 1960, and she in turn has helped and influenced a subsequent generation of Canadian writers. As the Oxford Companion to Canadian Literature makes clear, the years immediately preceding 1960 were crucial to our literary development: "The flowering of the Canadian novel in English since 1960 was made possible by the all-important foundation laid by the talented, persistent, often lonely writers of the previous two decades."10 Since the 1960's, Canadian literature has flourished. Among its most significant characteristics are the large number of women writers, many of whom have gained international reputations. Quebec has a rich literary heritage, with many French-Canadian works now available in translation to English-Canadian readers. The West Coast, the Far North, the Prairies and the Maritimes all have their own unique literature. Many ethnic groups also have a distinct literature, such as the Indians, Inuit, Ukrainians and Jews (The Canadian Jewish Congress Archives in Montreal acquires the papers of Jewish writers in Canada). The future looks equally exciting, as more Canadian writers become better known here at home and abroad. Therefore, a great many of the writers Canada has produced are s t i l l living and actively writing, a fact which creates a unique opportunity to capture the archives of a whole generation which has transformed the Can-adian literary scene. This situation presents many challenges to archiv-ists as they try to appraise, acquire and preserve this important document-ary record of our cultural development. The 1980's have brought about many more changes in Canadian literature, with writers such as Jack Hodgins and Susan Musgrave bringing not only a regional flavour but also a great deal of humour to their writing. In Survival Atwood decried the lack of humour in most Canadian fiction, but recently she has acknowledged a number of changes that have taken place since Survival was published in 1972: "Culturally, you could say Canada's doing okay. Writers have a union now and they're standing up for their rights. We've even got a film industry of sor ts . 1 , 1 1 It would be interest-ing i f Atwood would write a new edition of her book, perhaps a Survival II, to discuss the ways Canadian literature has changed in the past 15 years. Atwood is s t i l l pessimistic, however, about the economic problems in Canadian publishing: "So maybe our burst of culture is only a mushroom that will disappear in three or four years." 1 2 one hopes, of course, that Atwood's prediction will not come true, that our culture will continue to thrive for years to come, and that our authors will continue to produce records of their works which will in turn be appraised, acquired and arranged by archivists for the benefit of present and future scholars. These records, then, give an intimate view of authors' personalities, creative struggles, successes and failures, all of which add an important dimension to our understanding of the published record. We can now move on to examine in detail the stages involved in the literary exercise and the types of records authors produce at each stage. In his introduction to the f irst series of Writers at Work, Malcolm Cowley identifies four stages in the composition of a fictional work: 1) the "germ" of the story, where the idea begins to crystallize in the author's mind; 2) conscious meditation or "gestatory period", where the idea expands and develops; 3) f i rst draft; and 4) revision.13 Cowley points out that for short story writers these four stages tend to be fairly distinct, but for the novelist, "the stages 12 are often confused. The meditation may have to be repeated for each new episode. The revision of one chapter may precede or follow the f irst draft of the next." 1 4 The differences between the composition methods for the short story and the novel reflect the differences between the purposes and techniques of the two genres: "The short story is an exposition; the novel is often and perhaps at its best an inquisition into the unknown depths of the novelist's mind."!5 This is a shrewd observation, but Cowley limits his discussion to prose fiction and does not talk about poetry. Are the stages of poetry composition more distinct or more blurred, or somewhere in between? However, subsequent Writers at Work series have included inter-views with poets such as Marianne Moore and Anne Sexton. Their comments suggest that i t is difficult to generalize about the composition of poetry. Marianne Moore says that a poem often begins for her when "a felicitous phrase springs to mind - a word or two, say - simultaneous with some thought or object of equal a t t r a c t i o n . A n n e Sexton praises Robert Lowell for teaching her how to perfect each line in a poem before going on to the next. 1? For Moore, therefore, the f irst and second stages of composition - the genesis and the development of an idea - occur almost simultaneously, while Sexton's method of revising line-by-line causes the third stage to blend into the fourth so that there is virtually no first draft (Dorothy Parker wrote her short stories in much the same way). It is possible to expand on Cowley's ideas and explore the creative process in greater detail. Using his four steps as a point of departure, we can identify three main categories of activity in the writing process: Personal Act iv i t ies , Professional Activities, and Writing Activities. Writing Activities can be further broken down into the Creative Process, in 13 which the writer actually creates the work, and the Marketing Process, in which the writer attempts to get the work published. This type of analysis of activities is now becoming common in the archival literature on acquis-i t ion and appraisal, and has many applications for different types of records. PERSONAL ACTIVITIES Writers' relationships with family and friends play an important role in their lives and the works they produce. Writers may sometimes (but not always) discuss their work in a general way with family members or close friends, especially i f these happen to be writers themselves. In cases like this the writer's personal l i fe and professional l i fe intermingle, and the dividing line between them becomes blurred. A writer's personal correspondence often constitutes the only documentary source for such relationships. Even more important are diaries, which are a crucial record of the writer's deepest thoughts and feelings. For example, the f irst volume of Lucy Maud Montgomery's journals, published in 1985 and covering the years from 1889 to 1910, provide a fascinating account of her girlhood, her college years, her beginnings as a writer, and the creation and publication of Anne of Green Gables. Montgomery regarded her journals as a "personal confidant in whom I can repose absolute trust," and as she grew older her need to "record steadily her most private and intimate thoughts and impressions motivated her until her journals became an essential part of her l i f e , both a duty and a joy."18 T n e s e c o n d volume of Montgomery's journals, covering the years from her marriage in 1911 to her death in 14 1942, will be published at a later date. (The diaries and the rest of her papers are located at the University of Guelph and will be made available to the public in 1992).1 9 Writers frequently struggle to make a living. Records documenting financial matters, therefore, are extremely important in understanding the varying fortunes of an individual writer. Royalty statements and income tax returns provide valuable information on the amount of money earned for a particular work in a given year. Wills are also important in determining the author's financial status and how he planned to dispose of his assets after his death. Recreational activities can involve hobbies such as sports or other artistic pursuits. Many writers also paint or take photographs or play a musical instrument, and will often have in their collections scrapbooks or photo albums which document these endeavours. Many writers are also concerned with political and social issues, and crusade for such causes as nuclear disarmament and world hunger. They may take part in these activities as individuals or as members of professional writers' organizations. Here, the writer's personal and professional activities overlap. Records of these activities often provide insight into writers' personal and professional concerns and their perception of their role within society, and can also belie the image of writers as narciss-is t ic . A writer's education tends to be somewhat nebulous. Many people argue that creativity cannot be taught; either one is born with i t or one is not. That is true, but a young writer needs to develop his skills by reading other people's books, observing human behaviour, and - most important of 15 all - by writing: "Writing has this in common with most other ski l ls: we develop i t best by practicing it . Whatever writing we do helps us to become better writers."20 Creative writing courses can therefore serve a useful purpose by encouraging young writers to write and bringing them in contact with other writers. Stories, poetry and non-fiction pieces submitted as assignments for these courses provide information on the writer's progress, especially when they contain instructors' comments. Essays and stories submitted for English courses in elementary and high school and in university are also an important source of information in tracing the development of the author's creative talent. PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES  Teaching Many writers teach English literature or creative writing courses at colleges and universities. Course outlines, reading l is ts , lecture notes, lectures, examinations, plans for writer's workshops and assignments all reveal much about the individual teacher's approach to the subject. They are also valuable for the evidence they provide about current literary trends. For example, many creative writing courses taught in Canada emphasize Canadian works, using them as models for students to follow in an effort to promote Canadian literature. A writer teaching in Brit ish Columbia might focus on local writers such as Jack Hodgins, while a teacher in Ontario might choose to concentrate on Alice Munro. New writers come into vogue and receive close attention for a while, after which time they either decline in popularity or become well-established in the literary 16 mainstream. This has important implications for archivists seeking to acquire literary papers at a particular point in an author's career. As a teacher, an author often serves on committees and panel discuss-ions and participates in conferences. Speeches generated from these activities can provide invaluable insight into the author's attitude toward the diff icult task of teaching people how to write. Correspondence with students are also important records, as are letters of reference and applications for teaching positions. Professional Affiliations Organizations such as the Writers' Union of Canada and the Periodical Writers' Association of Canada often play an important role in writers' l ives and careers by lobbying for authors' rights. The Federation of British Columbia Writers and similar organizations in other provinces sponsor workshops, readings and writers' retreats, and provide an inval-uable opportunity for writers to get together and share their concerns. The documentation of organizational affiliations found in the writer's papers may duplicate information in the archives of these organizations. Archivists can make appraisal decisions based on the extent of such dupli cation. WRITING ACTIVITIES  The Creative Process Table 2.1 l i s ts authors' activities and the records they generate during each activity. This table was modelled on a recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology guide to the Appraisal of Records of Modern 17 Science and Technology,21 which outlined component activities of the scientific and technological process. Their Guide has many applications for other types of records, including literary records. The creative process consists of developing plot ideas, developing characters, outlining the plot, writing the work itself and rewriting. These activities, however, are far from neat and orderly. Not all writers use outlines, believing that outlines ki l l spontaneity. Some writers produce a completed f irst draft, then go back and revise from the begin-ning; others revise as they go; a few revise very l i t t le i f at a l l . S t i l l , these successive stages are definable and separable, producing records that document an individual writer's working habits. The creative process is usually solitary, but i t can involve the collaboration of two or more authors, especially when working on a stage play, teleplay or film script. In such cases the creative process becomes even more complex, involving input from a number of writers, all of whom bring something unique to the project. Often they will engage in brain-storming, a verbal exchange of ideas that may or may not generate any written record. Notes and drafts of scripts found in the personal papers of one of these writers may duplicate or complement those of his co-authors. Developing plot ideas, the most important stage in the creative process, is similar to brainstorming in that i t may not produce any written record. Once the idea or "germ" of the story is born, i t needs time to develop in the writer's mind before the author can write anything down. Some writers, however, use notebooks, journals, or f i le cards to record ideas that come to mind. Virginia Woolf's reading notebooks, for example, 18 document her love of reading and her knowledge of a wide variety of books in many languages. Woolf used her notebook entries as "a workshop in which to practice her art. . . . Comments, quotations, and ideas recorded in the notes continually reappear, transferred, in her published work."22 Writers' notebooks are a vital part of the creative process because they contain the raw ingredients that later combine to create a story. A writer may use notebooks to record observations of human behaviour and create "thumbnail sketches" to help bring their characters to l i fe , giving them a distinctive appearance, dress, speech, mannerisms, lifestyle and personality. Even i f the author later changes his mind and modifies one or more of his characters, these early notes and sketches are invaluable in tracing the characters' evolution. Some writers use their notebooks for a variety of purposes. Irving Layton used his to compile ideas for poems while travelling through Spain and Portugal. Other Layton notebooks record drafts of poems written while travelling in Greece and other parts of Europe, noting t i t le changes and other revisions. However, Layton also treated his notebooks as a handy place to jot shopping l is ts , telephone numbers and addresses, and to record his annual income, mathematical calculations of his salary, interest, royalties, and so on. Some of these calculations can be found on the covers of his notebooks or scattered throughout the pages.23 Authors can also use notebooks to record outlines of novels, short stories, plays and film scripts. The plot outline, "the equivalent of a painter's preliminary sketches,"24 is a tool that many writers use to help them get a better grasp on a work's overall structure. Outlines are particularly helpful when writing a novel, which can be a daunting prospect 19 TABLE 2.1 TABLE OF LITERARY ACTIVITIES ANO THEIR RECORDS Component A c t i v i t i e s A c t i v i t i e s as R e f l e c t e d of the L i t e r a r y Process in the Records THE CREATIVE PROCESS Developing P l o t Ideas Developing P l o t Ideas brainstorming notebooks, d a i l y j o u r n a l s , f i l e c ards, notes w r i t t e n .on l o o s e - l e a f pages Developing Characters Developing Characters "thumbnail sketches", e n t r i e s in notebooks and j o u r n a l s O u t l i n i n g O u t l i n i n g w r i t i n g o u t l i n e s o u t l i n e s , f i l m treatments f o r novels, s t o r i e s , p l a y s , f i l m - s c r i p t s W r i t i n g W r i t i n g c r e a t i n g the act u a l work rough d r a f t s - handwritten, typed h i t t i n g snags, dead ends, or entered on computer disk f a l s e t r a i l s , w r i t e r ' s block fragments of manuscripts R e v i s i n g R e v i s i n g v a r i a n t successive d r a f t s THE MARKETING PROCESS Getting i t Published notes on current market trends, l i s t s of prospective p u b l i s h e r s , annotations made in p r i n t e d sources such as W r i t e r ' s Market; correspondence (query l e t t e r s , covering l e t t e r s , l e t t e r s of a c c e p t a n c e / r e j e c t i o n , o u t l i n e s , annotated copies of manuscripts; g a l l e y proofs Negotiating with P u b l i s h e r s correspondence, c o n t r a c t s , r o y a l t y statements, w i l l s , l i s t s of a s s e t s , income tax returns P u b l i c i t y / P r o m o t i o n l e c t u r e notes, copies of l e c t u r e s and speeches, annotated copies of published works, copies of book reviews and b i o g r a p h i c a l a r t i c l e s , correspondence (fan mail) Getting i t Published market research w r i t e query l e t t e r s send e d i t o r o u t l i n e and one or two chapters send complete manuscript read g a l l e y proofs N e g o t i a t i n g with P u b l i s h e r s seeking advice from lawyers and agents on l e g a l and f i n a n c i a l matters s i g n i n g c o n t r a c t s P u b l i c i t y / P r o m o t i o n g i v i n g i n t e r v i e w s g i v i n g readings, l e c t u r e s appearing at book-signing sessions 20 even for experienced writers. They vary greatly according to length and level of detail, depending on the individual writer. Opinions differ as to the advisability of outlines; some people argue that outlines are contrived while others claim that they help the author sort out the sequence of ideas. Lawrence Block, author of a how-to book on writing the novel, says that beginning writers should try using outlines to find out whether or not they feel comfortable with them, but he also points out the advantages of outlines in novel-wri ting: "An outline is a tool which a writer uses to simplify the task of writing a novel and to improve the ultimate quality of that novel . . . " 2 5 Outlines can also be extremely important in helping to sell a book, particularly for well-established writers who often arrange for their book's publication before i t is completed. Such outlines can be as long as twelve pages. The more substance a writer includes, the better an editor will understand the writer's intentions in the material to come and there-fore the better able to judge the book's punishability. Writers in the film industry develop "treatments" for scripts, which can run up to fifty pages in length. The film's director and producers will then examine this treatment before giving the writer approval to proceed with the full-length screenplay. This careful consideration is important before undertaking the expensive and time-consuming process of making a film. Outlines, then, can be of two types: the brief outline developed for the writer's own purposes to help him with the inner workings of his novel, story, or script; and the longer, more detailed outline submitted to an editor for consideration. The latter type of outline can sometimes be found in the publishing company's files as well as in the writer's own papers. 21 The creative process is cumulative. Each stage grows out of the preceding one. A writer sets down layer upon layer of ideas, notes, sketches and outlines until he is ready to begin the actual writing, which ultimately produces the completed draft. Sometimes, however, writers encounter snags, false trails or dead ends, when a book takes a wrong turn for no apparent reason. Sometimes fragments do not survive, but many writers keep their fragments in the hope of returning to them some day to complete them or use them as the basis for another work. When the author does retain fragments (the more substantial the better), they can provide important insights into the types of issues and ideas that concerned him, whether and where the fragment fits in the context of his other works, his intended direction of the fragment, and, sometimes but not always, his reasons for abandoning i t . Margaret Laurence produced a lengthy fragment of The Fire-Dwellers which, unfortunately, did not survive. We do, however, know of its existence thanks to her interview with Donald Cameron in 1973. Cameron asks her, "What makes you decide to stage one of the celebrated Margaret Laurence manuscript burnings in the back yard at Penn?"26 in her reply Laurence reveals how agonizing the writing process can be. She describes her repeated efforts to write The Fire-Dwellers and her feelings of dissatisfaction and frustration: I knew it was there, only i t was just that I hadn't found i t yet. I must have written about a hundred pages or more and I could see that i t was just not coming across, so I burned those hundred pages and then I really wanted to go and hang myself. However, I put i t away then for a while, and did something else, and when I got i t out finally after about the fourth try, maybe I'd learned enough, maybe even thought about i t enough, subcon-sciously. I hadn't been ready to write i t before, obviously. 2' 22 Laurence's remarks also illustrate how important the gestatory period is in the creative process. She says she knew the story was there but that she had not found it yet; however, it might be truer to say that the story was not yet ready to be found, just as Laurence admits that she was not yet ready to write i t . It is unfortunate that Laurence burned those one hundred pages because, imperfect as they may have been, they nevertheless would have reflected her efforts to get the ideas out of her mind and onto paper. Completed drafts of works serve as the dress rehearsal for the final performance. Writers use them as the basis for their revisions; literary scholars use them as points of comparison with these revisions. The types of revisions authors make tend to vary greatly. Indeed, the term "revision" is widely used in different contexts, and i t is useful to provide a definition as well as some of the terms used as synonyms for revision. The most specific use of revision "applies to changes made line by line after the f irst draft, while 'rewrite' is sometimes applied to major structural changes."28 Emendation is also used to describe line-by-line changes. Other synonyms for revision include authorial revision, continued revision, corrections, alterations, repairs, modifications, adjustments, adaptations, perfections, prunings, playing down, and f i l ing. It has been noted that "'authorial revision' is rjedundant; any changes made i i by anybody but the author are not revisions, but conscious or unconscious errors. We feel that the most workable overall term for anything written after the f irst note is 'revision.'"29 Writers revise their work for a variety of reasons and in a variety of ways. Types of revisions include additions, expansions, deletions, sub-23 st i tut ions, re-orderings and combinations.^ The aims or purposes of revision vary from such stylistic concerns as avoiding wordiness, altering sentence structure and achieving greater clarity, to more thematic issues of conveying greater psychological complexity, clar i fying character relationships, avoiding sentimentality, and achieving greater tension or irony.31 As one might expect, some writers employ one type of revision more than another. Joyce Cary was a deletionist, as was Georges Simenon.32 In contrast, Dorothy Parker did not spend much time deleting because of the painstaking, step-by-step way in which she wrote her works: "I think i t out and then write i t sentence by sentence - no f irst draft. I can't write five words but that I change seven." 3 3 Hugh MacLennan has said of his own revision process: "I tear up more than anyone I know. I'm apt to be too discursive in the original drafts, one idea leading to another, until I've put too much stuff in, and then perhaps I pare too much out, I don't know."34 Writers like Dorothy Parker tend to be "tricklers", while others, such as Hugh MacLennan, are "gushers" who write the f irst draft of a work at top speed and then go back to revise: "That is probably the best way to write it," Malcolm Cowley observes. 3 5 The "gushers" tend also to be deletionists, while the "trick-lers" would perhaps do more substituting, re-ordering, combining, and possibly adding or expanding. James Joyce was a noteworthy expander; forty-two per-cent of his revisions of the "Ithaca" episode of Ulysses were additions. He also made additions to additions, as well as 348 word changes to Ulysses, including substitutions and some deletions. 3 6 Generally it can be said that most writers revise to a certain extent, thereby producing a number of variant successive drafts. With automation, 24 however, such drafts may change dramatically or disappear altogether. The full impact of automation on archival administration of literary papers is not yet known. We do know already that automation makes writing and revision easier by enabling writers to move or delete words, sentences, paragraphs, chapters, and even entire f i les. Revision, in fact, becomes so easy that i t is no longer necessary to print out drafts; changes can be made on screen, with no trace left of earlier versions. Writers are now able to transmit their ideas instantaneously from their minds to the screen via their fingers on the keyboard; hence the term, "fingertip thinking." Some writers, however, employed fingertip thinking long before word processing became automated. Hemingway fel t that his fingers on the typewriter keyboard did much of his thinking for him. He relied on them so heavily that after he was injured in a car accident and the doctors told him he might lose the use of his right arm, he was afraid he would have to stop writing.37 James Thurber also had the sense of thinking with his fingers on the typewriter keyboard. (After his vision deteriorated he wrote very l i t t le for several years, and when he did he used black crayon on yellow paper, about twenty words to the page, until he eventually trained himself to write stories in his head and dictate them to a steno-grapher).^ Writers who do their composing on the typewriter soon train themselves to build up their speed to the point where they can transmit their ideas on paper almost as rapidly as they could on a word processor. For them, "fingertip thinking" is not a new phenomenon but a method they have been using all their working lives. For many writers, word processing is a natural extension of typing, the next step in a progression towards a higher level of technological sophist-25 ication. Some, of course, will never adapt to computers, but i t seems likely that the majority of writers eventually wil l . Notes and outlines will s t i l l be important records for authors using word processors, and paper generally will s t i l l be used in great quant-i t ies. A recent how-to book on using word processors recommends keeping one's typewriter or a pad of paper and a pencil near the computer as a way of overcoming writer's block; an author can vary his perspective by "writing the way he used to."39 This advice is not as subversive as i t sounds. As the authors of this how-to book cleverly point out, going back to the old method can make one appreciate the efficiency and power of one's word-processing system all the more. However, the authors go on to point out that variant drafts will likely disappear: "You'll probably erase many of the intermediate versions of the work and save only the raw material and the finished writing." 4 0 They then give authors advice on "scheduling and disposition" of their own records. When the author has finished working with a piece of fiction or non-fiction on the computer, he can combine the remaining files onto one or two disks and establish his own permanent archives: "If you have a utility program that squeezes f i les, this is the ideal place for i t - to condense data that you aren't likely to use often, i f ever."41 if writers take this advice, archivists and scholars will be left with a large gap in the documentation of the creative process. With the elimination of intermediate versions of a manuscript, i t will become extremely diff icult , i f not impossible, to tell how the author got from the raw notes to the finished draft. Such changes will have profound effects on the research (and probably also the monetary) value of authors' records. Archivists should work closely with 26 authors using computers in order to make authors realize the importance of their records at all stages of composition, and to ensure that these records are preserved. THE MARKETING PROCESS Once an author finishes revising his manuscript, he tries to get i t published by determining the appropriate market, writing query letters, corresponding with editors and publishers, and, i f the manuscript is accepted, reading galley proofs. (See Table 2.1). Records documenting these activities include correspondence, notes on current market trends, l ists of prospective publishers, annotations made in printed sources such as Writer's Market, annotated copies of manuscripts and galley proofs. Correspondence consists of galley proofs, covering letters accompanying outlines and sample chapters, and letters of acceptance or rejection. Some writers are more methodical than others, keeping notes and copies of outgoing letters. Personal correspondence can also be pertinent to a writer's career, especially i f the writer has friends who are writers themselves. Such records illustrate the complex ways in which one's personal and professional lives can become intertwined. Incoming letters from friends, family, colleagues and admirers can also pose d i f f i cu l t problems concerning the literary rights to these letters, a question to which we will return in Chapter Five. Negotiations with publishers regarding editorial and financial matters involve seeking advice from lawyers and agents and signing contracts. Authors will often have in their papers incoming correspondence from editors, publishers and lawyers, copies of contracts, royalty statements, 27 wil ls, l ists of assets and income tax returns. Some records may be found in unexpected places, as in the case of Irving Layton's notebooks. It is therefore important for archivists to examine carefully all records that seem relevant before discarding anything, keeping in mind the idiosyncratic way in which some writers maintain their records. The final stage in the literary process involves the publication and dissemination of the author's work. Here publicity plays an important role, and the author is expected to help as much as possible in the book's promotion by giving interviews, readings and lectures, and by appearing at book-signing sessions and book-launching parties. Many authors carry out these duties under protest, being reluctant to appear in the spotlight, but in fact such obligations are often written into their publishing contracts. Lecture notes, copies of lectures and speeches are the types of records most likely to be found in the author's papers. Sometimes an author will also keep annotated copies of published work, copies of book reviews and biographical articles, and fan mail. It should be remembered, however, that some literary papers are actually artif icial collections, which have been entirely or partial ly assembled by someone other than the author, that is , by a friend or colleague of the author or even by archivists. It may not always be easy to te l l where the true organic fonds maintained by the author himself leaves off and the artif icial collection begins. This type of artificial collecting is often done in order to f i l l out papers for the convenience of researchers, but of course i t also violates Jenkinson's advice never to add to or subtract from the fonds.42 28 These types of records are related in various and complex ways, reflecting the l i fe of the author who created them. Writers' lives are often arduous, financially, creatively and personally, a fact which can be borne out in such records as income tax returns, correspondence, diaries, and notebooks. By becoming better acquainted with the author's records, the archivist gains a better understanding of the author himself; con-versely, understanding of the author's career will lead to greater under-standing of the author's records. The archivist is constantly involved in a multi-faceted communication with the author and with the author's activities and records. This highly complex dynamic often makes acquisit-ion negotiations extremely complicated for all concerned, but a greater knowledge of how the author produces and uses his records will go a long way toward improving donor relations. With the advent of automation, authors' records may take different forms, but much else will remain the same, as Jean Tener points out: In summary we have no reason to doubt that authors will continue to document their l i terary act iv i ty , that l i terary archives will continue to seek out authors' papers, or that researchers will continue to use them. As individual professionals, we will be challenged to exhibit managerial co-operation and better service to both authors and researchers.4^ Literary manuscripts are the tangible record of an intangible process: "Particle after particle of the l iving self is transferred into the creation, until at last i t is an external world that corresponds to the inner world and has the power of outlasting the author's l i f e . " 4 4 Most writers dream of attaining immortality; the records they create and use during their lifetime remain behind and help us to retrace their footsteps after they are gone. 29 NOTES - CHAPTER TWO 1. Leonard Woolf, ed. A Writer's Diary: Being Extracts from the Diary  of Virginia Woolf (London- Triad Grafton Books, 1985),108. 2. Ibid., 189. 3. Alan Twigg, For Openers: Conversations with 24 Canadian Writers (Madiera Park, B.C71 Harbour Publishing, 1981), 229-230. 4. Ibid., 10. 5. Ibid., 27. 6. Ibid., 253. 7. Jack Hodgins, The Resurrection of Joseph Bourne: Or a Word or Two on  Those Port Annie Miracles (Scarborough, Ontario: Signet Books, 1979),1. 8. Margaret Atwood, Survival: A Thematic Guide to Canadian Literature (Toronto: House of Anansi Press Ltd., 1972),18-19. 9. William Toye, Gen. Ed., The Oxford Companion to Canadian Literature (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1983),ix. 10. Ibid., 576. 11. Alan Twigg, For Openers, 229. 12. Ibid., 230. 13. Malcolm Cowley, ed., Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews, 1st Series (New York: Penguin Books, 1957),7. 14. Ibid., 11. 15. Ibid., 15. 16. George Plimpton, ed. Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews,  2nd Series (New York: Penguin Books, 1977),71. 17. George Plimpton, ed. Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews,  4th Series (New York: Penguin Books, 19/7),406. 18. Mary Rubio and Elizabeth Waterston, eds., The Selected Journals of  L.M. Montgomery, Vol. 1: 1889-1910 (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1985),xx. 19. Ibid., xi. 30 20. Lawrence Block, Writing the Novel from Plot to Print (Cincinatti: Writer's Digest Books, 1979),13. 21. Joan K. Haas, Helen Samuels and Barbara Trippel Simmons, Appraising  the Records of Modern Science and Technology: A Guide (Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1985). 22. Brenda R. Silver, Virginia Woolf's Reading Notebooks (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1983),8. 23. Joy Bennett, Eight Irving Layton Notebooks, 1968-1972, in the  Concordia University Library (Montreal: McGill University Archives, 24. Block, 93. 25. Ibid. 26. Donald Cameron, Conversations with Canadian Novelists, Part One (Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1973),107. 27. Ibid., 108. 28. David Madden and Richard Powers, Writers' Revisions: An Annotated  Bibliography of Articles and Books About Writers' Revisions and Their  Comments on the Creative Process (Metuchen, New Jersey: The Scarecrow Press Inc., 1981),15. 29. Ibid. 30. Ibid., 16. 31. Ibid., 17. 32. Writers at Work, 1st Series, 10-11. 33. Ibid., 79. 34. Donald Cameron, Conversations with Canadian Novelists, Part One, 143. 35. Writers at Work, 1st Series, 10-11. 36. Madden and Powers, Writers' Revisions, 16. 37. Writers at Work, 1st Series, 16. 38. Ibid. 39. Andrew Fluegelman and Jeremy Joan Hewes, Writing in the Computer Age:  Word Processing Skills and Style for Every Writer (New York: Anchor Press/ Doubleday, 1983),19. 31 40. Ibid., 217. 41. Ibid. 42. Sir Hilary Jenkinson, "Reflections of an Archivist," in A Modern  Archives Reader: Basic Readings in Archival Theory and Practice, ed. Maygene F. Daniels and Timothy Walch (Washington, D.C: National Archives and Records Service, U.S. General Services Administration, 1984),20. 43. Jean Tener, "The Future of Literary Archives." Paper presented at the Association of Canadian Archivists 11th Annual Conference, Winnipeg, Manitoba, 5 June 1986, n.p. 44. Writers at Work, 1st Series, 20. 32 CHAPTER THREE ACQUISITION OF LITERARY PAPERS: "CANLIT BIZ" OR CANLIT CO-OP? The issues and problems associated with acquiring literary papers can be separated into two main areas: 1) problems arising from acquisition policies, territoriality and cooperation (or lack of it) among archival repositories; and 2) problems arising from donor relations and legal arrangements. These legal arrangements include negotiations regarding copyright/literary rights, monetary appraisal and tax credits. We will examine each of these two areas in turn, outlining events associated with them. Chapter Four will then analyze the responses to Section A of the questionnaire, which deals with matters related to acquisition policies, while Chapter Five will examine the findings from Section B of the quest-ionnaire, which asked respondents about issues related to donor relations and legal arrangements. ACQUISITION POLICIES, TERRITORIALITY, AND COOPERATION The acquisition of literary papers is a complicated game. The "dram-atis personae" in this game are many, each with his own particular inter-ests and needs. Among institutions, the National Archives of Canada, the National Library of Canada, provincial archives, universities, and smaller thematic archives collect literary papers in Canada today. Besides the archivists and librarians in these institutions, authors, booksellers, publishers, professional appraisers, users, and sometimes private collect-33 ors are also involved in this acquisition game, or "CANLIT BIZ", as one respondent to the questionnaire cynically described i t . The current situation concerning literary papers in Canada is one which concerns archival material generally: the open-market concept. The Report of the Consultative Group on Canadian archives states plainly that "arch-ives are not artificial collections, and archival materials should not be sold on an open market. Doing so runs counter to the entire nature of the archival process and its basic principles. The resulting competition and conflicts over acquisition jurisdiction play havoc with any attempt at systematic action of cooperation among archives." 1 However, some literary papers are artif icial collections, as we saw in Chapter Two; this type of art if icial collecting gives a distorted view of the author's activities and violates archival principles of respect des fonds and original order. The open market approach is a particular problem for literary papers. The development of Canadian literature in the past thirty years has led to a corresponding increase in the research and monetary value of Canadian authors' papers. Monetary value in particular has implications for archiv-ists seeking to acquire authors' papers and for authors seeking to obtain the best "deal" they can for their records. Because of the increase in the reputations of many Canadian writers, their papers have taken on a certain glamour, rendering them a highly desirable commodity. It is this perceived glamour which differentiates the "game" of acquiring literary papers from the general acquisition "game," although there are some similarities with ministerial papers, which are also regarded as prestigious. Literary papers, however, have more in common with other artistic works such as paintings because they are, in Ian Wilson's words, "the tangible, saleable 34 results of [the author's] labours."2 The author relies on his writings for his livelihood (or at least part of i t ) , and therefore his personal papers have the potential to command a high price on the open market. It is no wonder, then, that literary papers are sometimes acquired under questionable circumstances. Hugh MacLennan's biographer, Elspeth Cameron, describes MacLennan's desire to have the manuscript of one of his novels destroyed once i t had been published. Instead his publisher sent the manuscript to Robert Blackburn, then Chief Librarian of the University of Toronto Library, where i t is st i l l located.3 This incident raises a number of complex ethical questions. From a researcher's point of view, i t is fortunate that this manuscript was preserved, but one can certainly question the ethics of the publisher going against MacLennan's wishes, and the ethics of the University of Toronto Librarian for accepting this manuscript under these circumstances. Who owns manuscripts submitted to publishers, the publisher or the author? Does the author give up all rights to his manuscripts once he submits them to a publishing company? Should the author be forced into giving up these rights? Another issue suggested by this episode is the implication that a manuscript may be treated singly rather than as part of an archival fonds and sold or given away as a separate item. Indeed, many of MacLennan's papers have been acquired through auctions. For example, in 1973 the University of Calgary acquired part of MacLennan's papers when MacLennan himself offered them for sale through Montreal Book Auctions Ltd. The chief librarian at Calgary travelled to Montreal to purchase these papers at the auction for an undisclosed amount.4 private collectors, however, can often outbid archivists and librarians, thereby 35 inflating prices even further. Competition from private collectors does not appear to be as prevalent in Canada as competition from other reposit-ories, but the prospect of increasing numbers of private buyers, as exists in other countries, will likely exacerbate the problems arising from an open market for literary papers. / Most authors are likely to regard cooperation among archivists as a restriction on the open market and therefore as an effort to reduce the monetary value of their papers. The conflict between archivists' interests in rational and effective acquisition stands against authors' interests in maximizing their return from the donation or sale of their papers. The most important issue to be addressed is this: whether there will continue to be an open-market approach or whether there will be a concerted effort to work out cooperative acquisition policies for literary papers. There have already been some limited efforts to develop such cooperative policies in certain parts of the country, but we have yet to see a fully developed national network involving al l repositories which acquire literary papers. It is clear that there is a need for well-developed and well-defined acquisition policies not only for literary papers but for all types of archival material. Such policies need not be cast in stone, but can be subject to review periodically as the repository grows and changes. Acquisition policies should be flexible, but they should also be written down in a concise statement which explains in clear, specific terms what the inst i tut ion's mandate is , and which user group(s) the institution wishes to serve. Archivists can then give researchers a copy of their written policy so that researchers will know whether that particular 36 institution has the type of material they are looking for. A written acquisitions policy therefore helps to differentiate one repository's mandate from another's. Repositories may define their mandates by theme, territory, or some other means. However, it is not as easy to define acquisition jurisdict-ions for private papers as i t tends to be for public or official records. Acquiring private papers is , as Kathy Hall has said, the "grey area of archival legal mandates."5 Hall in fact goes on to speculate whether or not i t would be beneficial to archivists, sponsors and users to have clearly defined collecting mandates, expressing doubts that such definition is even possible given the size of the country, the various types of institutions involved in acquisition of archival material, and donor preferences and mobility. Others, notably Ian Wilson,6 have also identi-fied these factors as working against the establishment of cooperative programmes and clearly- developed mandates. Hall also points out the fact that revised legislation may help to provide precise definitions of collecting jurisdictions, especially for public records, but that "legisla-tion alone is not likely to prove sufficient."? For private papers, defining legal jurisdictions may help to some extent, but i t will not solve all the problems in this area: "I do not doubt the efficacy of clearing some of the grey areas, but I cannot support a rigid adherence to binding regulations. Archivists must continue to be flexible, to operate on a give-and-take basis, and to strengthen the ties of communication and cooperation as fully as possible." 8 Acquisition budgets also affect acquisition. Very l i t t le money is spent on acquisition of any type of archival material, including literary papers. 37 Canadian Archives reports that 80% of all archives spend under 10% of their budgets on acquisition, while another 42% do not have any budget at all for acquisition. In contrast, most academic libraries spend from 25% to 30% of their budgets for acquiring new material.9 This situation is discourag-ing, but, as the Consultative Group says, "anyone who has spent any time in Canadian archives can only wonder how so much has been done for so little."1° In developing acquisition policies, archivists have to consider the amount of money available to collect appropriate types of material. The most highly developed example of an attempt to establish a clearly-defined acquisitions policy is the Systematic National Acquisitions Programme (S.N.A.P.) of the Public Archives of Canada. S.N.A.P. was established in 1973 in response to "questionable practices manifested in PAC's areas of acquisition. 1 , 1 1 The architects of S.N.A.P. addressed the following questions: 1) Who collects what? 2) Who collects where? 3) Should the acquisition "fields" of archival repositories be clearly demarcated? Ultimately their answers to these questions were as follows: 1) Collect papers of national significance; 2) Collect such papers anywhere they are available; and 3) Everyone else should follow their example and do as they have done. What S.N.A.P. did, in effect, was attempt to establish clear demarcations by instituting systematic searches for papers and pre-paring nominal l ists of designated repositories. Hoping to determine the papers' ultimate destination while their owners were st i l l alive, S.N.A.P. notified the owners in advance and tried to encourage them to make provis-ions for their papers in their wills. Such provision would not only save owners' widows, widowers or trustees from worrying about what to do with the papers, i t would also help archivists to avoid competition: "Sheer 38 aggressiveness and wealth must not determine the destiny of national heritage. Responsible archivists should not be punished by their reluct-ance to attend funerals and to pressure widows to donate papers."12 Robert S. Gordon reports that S.N.A.P. reached a consensus on papers of national, provincial and local significance and recognized the acquisition programmes of private repositories and university-based manuscript collect-ions. Yet he does not address the question of how one defines national, provincial or local significance, nor does he deal with the problems which occur when these jurisdictions overlap. He only hints at such problems when he points out the fact that private collectors of literary manuscripts have no intention to refrain from acquiring authors' papers "just because the latter enjoy national reputation."13 Therefore, archivists' efforts to establish clearly-defined acquisition policies can be undermined by the preferences of collectors as well as those of donors themselves. Gordon st i l l believes, however, that archivists can alleviate these problems by identifying manuscripts in terms of their scope, theme and subject matter: "With this information on hand the demarcation of acquisition fields could be extended to the university libraries and private collections. This would do doubt reduce the many areas of friction and competition. "14 S.N.A.P. was founded on good ideas and good intentions, but i t was a uni-lateral programme limited to the Public Archives of Canada, and had l i t t le success in promoting officially sanctioned inter-institutional cooperation. Another question crucial to the issue of acquisition policies is the suitability of certain types of institutions to acquire literary papers. Is i t possible or even desirable to limit the acquisition of literary papers to university-based repositories, for example? University libraries 39 and archives are the major collectors of literary papers in Canada. They began acquiring these records in earnest in the mid-1960's when Canadian literature began to flourish, and have continued to the point where some of the biggest universities such as Queen's or the University of Toronto have what amounts to specialized "literature" archives. It is often logical for universities to collect the papers of authors who had some connection with a particular university, such as obtaining a degree, teaching English or creative writing courses, or working as writers-in-residence. Margaret Atwood, for example, obtained her English degree from the University of Toronto and has maintained close ties with her alma mater; therefore, i t makes sense for her papers to be housed at the University of Toronto Library. The study of literary papers is also largely an academic pursuit, so their location in universities makes i t easy for scholars to gain access to them. However, this situation has implications for the other institut-ions involved in acquiring literary papers. For example, should the National Archives, National Library and provincial archives refrain from acquiring any more authors' papers? How could such a radical departure from past practice be accomplished? What about the papers they already have? Finally, and most importantly, what does one do about authors who may prefer to deposit their papers in one of these other types of institu-tions? Are university libraries and archives more suited than other repositories to administer literary papers? Section A of the questionnaire attempted to address these questions by asking respondents for their opinions and experiences (see Chapter Four). This question has been partly illustrated by an on-going confl ict between the Public Archives of Canada and the National Library over the right to acquire literary papers. Briefly, the Public Archives maintained that i t should collect literary papers because these papers are unpublished and therefore archival. The National Library, however, believes that literary manuscripts are conceived with the objective of publication and should therefore be considered library materials. This struggle began in the late 1970's and to date is s t i l l unresolved. No-one can say for certain what the outcome will be. This conflict is in one sense a quarrel over jurisdiction between two federal institutions. Yet i t is significant for our study not only because i t raises the question of which repositories should collect literary papers, but also because i t illustrates some of the difficulties associated with working out acquisitions policies cooperatively. This struggle also has important repercussions for other Canadian repositories, many of whom have been observing its development with keen interest. The conflict does not bring out all of the larger issues of acquisition, such as the efficacy of having well-developed acquisition policies and cooperative nation-wide networks, but i t does touch on the issue of regionalism and the often murky distinctions between national and provincial or local jurisdictions. As part of its argument to support its claim to literary papers, the National Archives has outlined its Total Archives concept, which was developed in 1972 and also formed the basis for S.N.A.P. Terry Cook has identified four main facets of the Total Archives concept:1-5 1) Archives should acquire collections reflecting the total complexion of society, including not only the papers of the rich and powerful but also those of the obscure and ordinary; 2) There should be an institutionalized system of archives, so that not only institutional records will be preserved but also 41 records documenting all aspects of society, including authors' lives and activities, the lives and activities of other artists, women's history, labour history and intellectual history; 3) There should be archival involvement at each stage of the total l i fe cycle of institutional records, with a view to integrating control over the management of current records, provision of records' centres for dormant records and the operation of central microfilm services; and 4) All types of archival material should be preserved, including not only textual records but also film, photographs, paintings, sound recordings, maps, architectural plans and machine-readable records. Of these four facets, the f irst and second are of greatest relevance to literary papers. While the papers of well-known authors have more monetary value than those of their more obscure counterparts, i t is important to document all aspects of a country's literature and the relative status of a particular author vis-a-vis his/her colleagues. It is also important to document the "private sphere" of society, not only the public or institut-ional sphere. In this way the records of a publishing company can comple-ment those found in an author's private fonds; both are important to give a complete picture of the literary exercise. To a lesser extent, the fourth facet described above can also apply to literary records if the author's records include other media, such as photographs, dictaphone tapes or machine-readable data. In Archives: Mirror of Canada Past,! 6 the Public Archives provides its own discussion (but not a definition) of its Total Archives concept: 42 The Public Archives of Canada is perhaps the most prominent example of 'total archives' in practice. In the past i t has been considered unusual, i f not unique, among national archives, but i t seems now to illustrate the trend of world developments in this f ield. The National Library, however, disagrees, stating, "The Public Archives of Canada is the only national archives [in the world] which interprets its mandate so broadly."1? This disagreement lies at the heart of the conflict between these two giants, with the National Library wanting to expand its mandate and claiming that the Public Archives occupies territory which is properly the National Library's. The Public Archives, according to the National Library, is standing in the latter's way in its attempt to broaden its mandate. The Public Archives also describes a second and related concept: total utilization of total archives, or "the use of archival materials by and for the greatest number of persons. This is a revolutionary concept, since conventionally the use of archives has been limited to a relatively small number of persons." 1 8 The Public Archives is well-adapted to such a policy, they claim, because of the variety and wealth of their holdings, which includes records in all media, thereby tying in with the fourth facet of total archives outlined above. S.N.A.P. was one aspect of the Public Archives' more systematic and aggressive acquisitions programme. A second aspect is the involvement of the public in cooperative projects. For example, the Public Archives engaged in a number of projects relating to the acquisition of historical photographs in cooperation with the Professional Photographers of Canada. They do not identify any similar cooperative projects involving literary organizations; yet such projects, in conjunction with the Writers' Union of 43 Canada, to give but one example, could be highly effective. The Public Archives does, however, have Catherine Parr Trai l l 's papers and some of Stephen Leacock's papers, as well as those of many other writers, and they state clearly their pursuit of Canadian literary records: The Public Archives is actively engaged in acquiring Canadian literary papers. It is setting out to inform living writers of the Archives' concern for the preserva-tion of their papers, and to locate and preserve those which document the past development of l i terature in Canada. A nation's literature is an integral part of its history. The Public Archives has always recognized this fact. 1" 9 The National Library, for their part, argue that literary manuscripts need to be located near the published versions of these works: "The researcher needs to compare and consult in one place the original manu-scripts, the various printed editions and the critical material." 2 0 To support their argument, the National Library cites the recommendations made by the Massey Commission, which determined that manuscripts of literary rather than historical interest may be acquired by the National Library: "In accordance with this recommendation, the National Library has acquired by donation a number of valuable literary papers, and has effected some unique purchases." 2 1 They do not explain exactly what they mean by "valuable," whether they are speaking in terms of monetary value, research value or prestige for themselves. It would also be interesting to know precisely what they mean by "unique purchases." In any event, the National Library concludes their argument with the following statement: That one national institution in Canada is accorded extraordinary privileges at the expense and to the embarrassment of the other is a condition which should be examined closely, and for which a more equitable solution should be negotiated.2 2 44 It is right for the National Library to call for an equitable solution, but i t all depends on what they mean by "equitable." Both they and the Public Archives can be criticized for exaggerating and distorting the facts. Are they truly seeking a fair solution, or an outcome in which one side triumphs over the other? Are they truly acting in the interests of the care and preservation of literary records, or are.they seeking greater prestige for themselves? Both present lengthy arguments to support their cases. One can find flaws on both sides, but the National Library's argument seems particularly specious. It is clear that they are following the example set by the Library of Congress in the United States. The National Library's claim that literary papers need to be placed alongside the published works may seem impressive, but i t overlooks the archival nature of these records and the fact that this material needs to be administered according to archival principles, not library principles. Most importantly, the National Library's argument betrays their belief that an author's manuscript is the only type of record that matters, and that the author's other records, notebooks, diaries, correspondence, and so on, are irrelevant to the study of the author's work. Nothing could be further from the truth. A manuscript needs to be kept and viewed in the context in which i t was created; then and only then can a researcher gain a complete picture of the creation of the published work. As for the Public Archives, their Total Archives concept is excellent in theory, but there are problems with its interpretation, as Terry Cook has pointed out.23 The Public Archives' attempt to document every segment of society has caused other repositories besides the National Library to wonder i f the Public Archives is over-reaching its mandate. 45 Indeed, the greatest cause for concern among other, institutions is the fact that the Public Archives and the National Library can wield such power to outbid other repositories by virtue of the size of their acquisitions budgets. Regionalism is an important consideration, with the Public Archives and the National Library both having the ability to lure away material from other regions of Canada to be housed in Ottawa. More archivists are becoming concerned with keeping literary papers (as well as other types of personal papers) in the region where they were created, and believe that the Public Archives and the National Library should collect only papers of national importance. Yet this is not as simple as i t may appear, because i t is difficult to define what "national" importance really means compared to regional or local importance. The situation becomes further complicated when a writer who began as a regional author goes on to achieve national recognition. In this case, where should his/her papers be deposited? In one of the two major repositories in Ottawa? (and if so, which one?), or in the region where that writer lived and worked? One solution would be to keep the originals in the region concerned and have copies deposited at the Public Archives or National Library, but copying an extensive body of records is expensive, and i t is questionable whether such a solution would be the best expenditure of the limited funds available for archival work of this kind. In any case, the Public Archives and the National Library have become the superpowers, as i t were, whose decisions and actions can affect those of lesser size and stature. Opinions differ as to the outcome of their conflict. Some people believe i t is a complete waste of time, draining archivists' energy and distracting them from their primary tasks. It is 46 easy to take sides, as many have done, but i t is st i l l difficult not to question the value of this entire episode. Is i t really doing anybody any good? At this point i t is difficult to see how it could be. Some authors could, in fact, use this controversy to their own advantage by playing off one side against the other, holding out in order to sell their papers to the highest bidder. Such occurrences would only create more competition and more acrimony. In all probability, i t will be necessary for the Public Archives and the National Library to reach a compromise in order to resolve this no-win situation. Either both sides agree to cooperate, or everyone loses out. The problems concerning overlapping jurisdictions raise the question of split collections. The practice of separating an author's papers violates the archival principle of respect des fonds, but some archivists claim i t is unavoidable due to the habit of authors selling or donating their papers while their careers are st i l l evolving. S t i l l , this practice has serious problems and should be avoided if at all possible. As noted above, universities can be logical repositories for an author's papers if the author has been associated with a particular academic institution. The situation becomes complicated, however, when the author in question has been associated with more than one university, mov-ing around the country and depositing his/her papers at various places. This problem can be particularly acute at the early stages in an author's career. Matters are complicated st i l l further i f the author lived abroad, which brings us to the question of the import and export of l i terary papers. Should we allow our authors' papers to be exported? Should Canadian archivists seek to acquire the papers of authors from other 47 countries? These matters are addressed in both Sections A and B of the questionnaire. One of our best-known and best-loved authors, Margaret Laurence, travelled far from home during her lifetime, living in Africa and England before returning to Canada and settling in Ontario. As a Manitoba native whose works were set in the area around Neepawa, she is a good example of a regional writer who went on to achieve national and international recognit-ion. York University has many of her papers; McMaster has several more. In view of Laurence's recent death, one would expect that these two universities would have a claim to her papers; other repositories, includ-ing the National Archives and the National Library, and perhaps even repositories in England, may also be interested in acquiring them. If most of them are already housed at York, however, i t would make sense for the rest of her papers to be deposited there, with the exception of those currently at McMaster. The two universities being in close proximity (in the general Toronto area), i t would be feasible for a researcher to travel from one to the other in order to examine Laurence's papers. Other writers' papers, however, have undergone a more drastic separa-tion. For example, i t would not be so easy for a researcher to study the papers of Earle Birney, whose records are scattered in at least nine different repositories across the country. In such cases, with papers crossing so many territorial boundaries (boundaries /Which are not always easy to define), cooperation among repositories becomes even more difficult but even more imperative. Indeed, there are two noteworthy examples of cooperation on a limited scale among archival institutions in separate areas of Canada. In 1971, the three British Columbia university libraries established Tri University 48 Libraries (TRIUL), an organization dedicated to coordinating acquisition policies for all types of research material.24 with regard to archival material, the University of British Columbia agreed to acquire Canadian manuscripts, Simon Fraser, American manuscripts, and the University of Victoria, British literary manuscripts. This system has had limited success. The three universities' mandates overlap not only with each other but also with the Provincial Archives of British Columbia, the City of Vancouver Archives, and other repositories in the province. The TRIUL agreement has also been affected recently by a decrease in acquisition funds and by the growing prestige in Canadian literary manuscripts. Simon Fraser University, for example, recently acquired the personal papers of former British Columbia premier W.A.C. Bennett and has also acquired some Canadian literary papers. The University of Victoria, in addition to its extensive holdings of papers of British authors, also has the papers of Canadian poet Robin Skelton. The University of British Columbia has among its holdings the papers of Malcolm Lowry, the English-born author who lived in Vancouver for much of his l i fe and whose works reveal the influences of his West-Coast surroundings. The TRIUL agreement, therefore, was a good one in principle but has proved difficult to enforce. In 1982, archivists in the Montreal area formed the Group of Archivists in the Region of Montreal, a cooperative effort designed to educate the public regarding archives and the benefits involved in depositing papers in the appropriate institution. Their bi-lingual brochure lists the fifteen participating repositories and their areas of specialty, which are coded for easy reference. An individual or organization with authors' papers could therefore consult this l is t and identify the Canadian Jewish Con-gress, the Universite di Montreal or McGill University, to name a few, as 49 repositories which collect literary papers. Prospective donors can then contact these institutions (addresses and phone numbers are provided) and negotiate for the deposit of their papers there. Other areas of specialty include antique maps, architecture, arts, business, education, Judaism, labour unions, medicine, the military, photographs, polit ical parties, regional history, science, sports and travel. The Group is therefore seeking to encompass as many aspects of modern society as possible, adopting the Total Archives approach. They are also catering to the needs and interests of their particular community; for example, their designation of Judaism as a separate category indicates the Group's recognition of Montreal's large and vital Jewish population. Among the benefits cited are e l i g i b i l i t y for a tax deduction equivalent to the value of the gift, ensuring the preservation and accessibility of one's records, and promoting awareness of individual and group activities. Most importantly, the Group's brochure states that "the papers and records you produce and accumulate in your daily activities may be more valuable than you think. Before disposing of them, CONSULT AN ARCHIVIST."25 The Group of Archivists in the Region of Montreal report that they have had great success so far. They provide an important cooperative network for archivists, as well as an excellent opportunity for people to familiarize themselves with archives. To summarize, the issues and problems associated with acquisition policies for literary papers concern the need for written, clearly-defined policies, the open-market approach vs. a more cooperative approach, terri-toriality and overlapping jurisdictions, acquisition budgets, the suitab-i l i ty of certain types of institutions to acquire literary papers, split collections, competition from other repositories and from private collect-50 ors, and the need for more inter-institutional cooperation. Many archiv-ists recognize this need and have made recommendations for achieving such cooperation. With respect to university archives, Ian Wilson has called for the establishment of "regional archival networks . . . in cooperation with university archival colleagues." 2 6 with respect to general acquisi-tion policies, Terry Eastwood urges archivists to think on a broader scale than they may have done in the past: Essentially we do have one terri tory, Canada. All archives are responsible to preserve the archival record of the country for the use and enjoyment of Canadians. . . . there can never be too many repositories. Given the size of the problem, there shall likely always be too few repositories and too few archivists chasing too many archival records.2'' Eastwood foresees the "slow but steady growth of substantial local arch-ives, preferably tied to local government agencies with their version of a community-wide mandate."28 Will such networks develop, or will there continue to be an open-market approach to acquiring literary papers? Given the growing attract-iveness of Canadian literary records, the open market will likely always be with us. The situation may even get worse before i t gets better - i_f i t gets better at a l l . Yet more archivists are becoming aware of the open market's pitfal ls, not only for themselves but for the interests of authors and, most importantly, for the preservation of the integrity of authors' records. It i s , therefore, reasonable to be cautiously optimistic. DONOR RELATIONS AND LEGAL ARRANGEMENTS Problems of an entirely different order are related to archivists' relations with the author/donor and legal arrangements regarding the 51 acquisition of an author's papers. The author-archivist relationship lies at the heart of this issue and affects such legal arrangements as copy-right, monetary appraisal and tax credits. This relationship is often fraught with suspicion and cynicism, a situation which can upset the delicate balance of acquisition negotiations and create unnecessary tension on all sides. There is very l i t t l e written documentation of authors' attitudes towards archives, but a 1979 pamphlet entitled Authors and Archives: A Short Guide, written by Robin Skelton for the Writer's Union of Canada, provides some insights into the author's perspective. This 5-page pamphlet gives advice on such legal matters as copyright and tax credits, and concludes with a lengthy section called "Horror Stories": There are plenty of these. Some librarians have accepted manuscripts as loans and then maintained they were gifts. Some publishers have sold, or given away, [an] author's manuscripts without the author's knowledge. . . Some [ l ibraries] have fai led to catalogue or house the material properly and have made i t impossible of access.29 Skelton does admit further on that "most librarians and archivists are both efficient and understand!* ng. "^O S t i l l , his main point comes across all too clearly: that authors should be careful to ensure that such horror stories do not happen to them. The story of Hugh MacLennan's publisher sending his manuscript to the University of Toronto Library without MacLennan's consent is an interesting case in point. Such incidents, unfortunately, help to reinforce authors' distrust of archivists, librarians and publish-ers and their motives. Archivists also have their share of "horror stories." The main problem, of course, is that the author and the archivist each tries to 52 protect his/her own interests, sometimes at the expense of the other. They may start out by wanting to reach an equitable settlement, but they can both be hampered by misunderstandings and end up at cross purposes. The author seeks to ensure his economic stability and his professional reputa-tion; the archivist strives to follow archival principles as well as to fu l f i l l his institution's mandate. Essentially, however, concern for the records themselves provides the author and the archivist with common ground, a fact which both sides often seem to forget. Instead of trying to come to terms with this conflict, authors and archivists too frequently engage in a tug-of-war which benefits neither. They can both alleviate the situation greatly by remembering that they do have common ground on which to base their negotiations; starting with the records themselves, they can then proceed towards a settlement which benefits them both. The situation is complicated, however, by the fact that the potential donor in this case is a creative artist with a strong ego which needs to be "stroked." This distinguishes the author from other types of donors, although there may be some similarities with the donors of family papers, who may become defensive about the value of the personal papers of a close family member. However, there are stronger similarities between authors and other artists such as painters, song-writers and, possibly, photograph-ers. Often the archivist has to reject an author's papers which do not f i t within the repository's mandate; many archivists try to deal with such situations tactfully by suggesting that the author approach another institution which might be more suitable. There are s t i l l , however, too many archivists who are reluctant to refuse anything offered to them for fear of creating bad public relations. 53 Negotiations for acquisition of l i terary papers can be d i f f i cu l t because of the complicated legal matters involved. Copyright and literary rights, for example, are extremely complex, particularly for an author's papers, because a writer lives off the avails of writing. Many archivists are aware of the pitfalls involved, being careful to explain the issues to the author/donor regarding the possible transfer of literary rights to the repository, photocopying restr ict ions, and related questions. Most archivists also inform researchers that i t is the researcher's responsib-i l i ty to determine the holder of literary rights. Unfortunately, the process of negotiation is often complicated by the vagueness of the copyright law. The law, which is currently under review, makes l i t t le or no provision for unpublished material or for new technology involved in recording musical works and lectures and is particularly vague in its definition of fair dealing. This vagueness forces archivists to interpret the law as best they can. Two white papers written within the past ten years address these issues by recommending a clearer recognition of the value of cultural property and" exemption from the law for reproduction of material for archival purposes. Monetary appraisal of literary records is necessary in determining the fair market value of an author's papers. Fair market value is defined as "the price the property would bring in the open market between a willing buyer and a willing seller acting independently of each other, and each having full knowledge of the f a c t s . " 3 1 The pamphlet Gifts in Kind, pre-pared by Revenue Canada, recommends that appraisals be independent, "made by an appraiser not associated with either the donor or the recipient inst i tut ion," 3 2 unless the value of the gift is under $1,000, in which case 54 a staff member of the recipient institution may appraise the gift, as long ' as the staff member is qualified to appraise the gift at its fair market value. Monetary appraisals are often problematic because they can lead to writers "shopping around" for the best "deal" and sometimes involve archivists in bidding wars. Many archivists, however, now recognize the dangers of such a situation ajrid will take steps to avoid i t , such as i 1 refusing to deal with authors who try to encourage bidding. Tax credits and the Cultural Property Import/Export Act is an important incentive for donors to deposit their papers in an archival repository, and has particular relevance to literary papers. The Cultural Property Export and Import Act, which came into force on 6 September 1977,^ attempts to discourage the export of literary manuscripts and other cultural property from Canada by offering tax incentives to writers and other owners of cultural property who wish to sell or donate this property to Canadian inst i tut ions. Sales or donations to designated institutions provide exemptions from capital gains and deduction of the full fair market value of the gift, up to 100% of the donor's net income. There is a small but growing number of writers in Canada (Margaret Atwood and Pierre Berton are two who come to mind) who can and do benefit from tax credits, thanks to the healthy sales of their books and their resultant financial security. However, there are questions as to the efficacy of the tax credit / system. So far i t appears to have had some success in keeping cultural property in Canada, but many argue that i t merely provides an opportunity for people to take advantage of tax loopholes, and that i t will become less effective as overseas demand for Canadian literary records increases. 55 With so much at stake, therefore, i t is no wonder that acquisition negotiations are so often tense and confused. Negotiations will never be made perfect, but they can certainly be made more beneficial to both sides. The onus is on the archivist to educate authors on the nature and function of archives, the legal implications of acquisition, and the potential value of their own records. In doing so, archivists can do much to gain the trust of authors while serving the mandate of their own inst i tut ion, thereby maintaining that balance so critical to a successful acquisition settlement. 56 NOTES - CHAPTER THREE 1. Canadian Archives: Report to the Social Sciences and Humanities  Research Council of Canada by the Consultative Group on Canadian Archives (Ottawa: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, 1980),90. 2. Ian Wilson, "A Conspirator Replies," Archivaria 6 (Summer 1978):l-85. 3. Elspeth Cameron, Hugh MacLennan: A Writer's Life (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981),306. 4. Jean F. Tener and Apollonia Steele, eds. The Hugh MacLennan Papers:  An Inventory of the Archive at the University of Calgary Libraries (Univer-sity of Calgary Press, 1986),xxvii. 5. Kathy Hal l , "Archival Acquisitions: Legal Mandates and Methods," Archivaria 18 (Summer 1984):68. 6. Ian Wilson, "Canadian University Archives," Archivaria 3 (Winter 1976-1977):26. 7. Hall, 68. 8. Ibid., 68-69. 9. Canadian Archives, 39. 10. Ibid., 38. 11. Robert S. Gordon, "The Protocol of S.N.A.P. Demarcation of Acquisition Fields," The Canadian Archivist 2:4(1973):51. 12. Ibid. 13. Ibid., 54. 14. Ibid. 15. Terry Cook, "The Tyranny of the Medium: A Comment on 'Total Archives,'" Archivaria 9 (Winter 1979-80):141-142. 16. Public Archives of Canada, Archives: Mirror of Canada Past (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1972),20. 17. National Library of Canada, The Future of the National Library of  Canada (Ottawa: National Library of Canada, 1979),30. 18. Archives: Mirror of Canada Past, 20. 57 19. Ibid., 228. 20. The Future of the National Library of Canada, 28. 21. Ibid., 29. 22. Ibid., 30. 23. Cook, "The Tyranny of the Medium," 142. 24. TRIUL Collections Task Force Report, April 1971. 25. Members of the Group of Archivists of the Region of Montreal, Protect our Heritage, n.d., n.p. 26. Ian Wilson, "Canadian University Archives," 27. 27. Terry Eastwood, "The Principled Basis for Acquisition of Archives." Unpublished paper read at a meeting of the Association of British Columbia Archivists, Nanaimo, B.C., 5 November 1983:11-12. 28. Ibid., 16. 29. Robin Skelton, Authors and Archives: A Short Guide (Toronto: Writers' Union of Canada, 1979),5. 30. Ibid. 31. Revenue Canada Taxation, Gifts in Kind (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, 1984),4. 32. Ibid. 33. Ibid., 7. 58 CHAPTER FOUR ACQUISITION POLICIES As part of this study, a survey was conducted of 29 Canadian reposi-tories to identify archivists' experience with and attitudes towards acquiring literary papers. Of these 29 repositories, there were 16 universities, 9 provincial archives, 2 smaller "thematic" archives, and the National Archives of Canada and the National Library of Canada (see Appendix A - List of Institutions Surveyed). A ten-page questionnaire was mailed to these repositories as explained in Chapter One. The question-naire is divided into two main sections: Section A deals with institut-ional policies and mandates; responses to questions in this section will be discussed in this chapter. Section B, to be discussed in Chapter Five, deals with issues affecting donor relations and legal arrangements, namely, copyright/literary rights, monetary appraisal and tax credits, and the implications of automation for acquisit ion. Both of these sections included extra space for comments. In addition, Section C was provided for respondents to make further comments on the topic of acquisition or on the questionnaire itself (See Appendix B - Questionnaire). Comments from Section C will be referred to in both chapters where appropriate, and also in Chapter Six, the conclusion of the thesis. Section A consists of ten questions. These deal with, in turn, whether or not the respondent's institution has a written acquisitions policy for literary papers, whether their policy is a major focus of the institution's 59 overall acquisitions policy, average percentage of acquisitions budget allotted for acquiring literary papers, opinions regarding the suitability of certain types of institutions for acquiring literary papers, whether the col lect ion of l i terary papers should be limited to certain types of institutions, experiences regarding competition from other repositories and from private collectors for an author's papers, preferences for acquiring an author's papers at a particular point in his/her career, and opinions regarding the acquisition of the papers of foreign-born authors. There-fore, while much of Section A is concerned with obtaining factual informa-tion regarding policy, many of the questions also seek opinional informa-tion. Some of the responses were surprising; others were not. Some interesting patterns emerged, with strong consensus on certain issues. Most of the respondents provided candid comments on matters they obviously cared about deeply. Many of these comments will be quoted where approp-riate, but all such quotations will be anonymous in order to ensure confidentiality. For the institutions surveyed, there appears to be a growing number with written acquisitions policies,' but many s t i l l have no such policies, nor do they have any plans to develop any in the near future. Of the 28 institutions which answered the questionnaire, 39.2% reported that they had a written acquisitions policy for literary papers, while 60.7% said they did not. Of those currently without a policy, 28.5% said they were already developing or planned to develop one; 71.4%, reported having no such plans. Respondents who have a policy were asked to attach a copy. As Table 4.1 indicates, 8 out of the 15 universities responding to the questionnaire have written acquisitions policies for literary papers; yet only 5 of these 60 8 enclosed copies of their policies. Of the non-university repositories surveyed, only the National Library sent a copy of their acquisition policy. Other respondents, however, attached sample contracts for pur-chases and donations, partial inventories or l ists of holdings of literary papers, and research application forms for examination of manuscripts. All of this additional material has been extremely helpful in determining archivists' practices regarding these matters. For example, many archiv-ists recognize the necessity for documenting sales and gifts to their repositories, as well as informing researchers of their obligations for identifying the owners of copyright. TABLE 4.1 Acquisitions Policies for Literary Papers No. of Those No. of Those Type of Institution with a policy with no policy University Archives/ 8 (53.3%) 7 (46.6%) Special Collections Provincial Archives 0 9 National Archives of Canada (formerly the Public Archives of Canada) 1 National Library 1 "Thematic" archives 1_ 1_ TOTAL: 10 18 29 repositories surveyed 28 usable responses 61 It is unfortunate that out of the 28 usable responses to the question-naire, only 6 written policies were provided to analyze. These policy statements are presented in a clear, concise format such as a pamphlet or a brochure. The National Library's policy states in specific terms its objectives to acquire Canadian literary manuscripts in order to complement the Library's printed material. This policy reflects their claim, dis-cussed in Chapter Three, that literary manuscripts need to be housed in the same place as the published versions. Their policy further states, "The National Library will not compete with another Canadian institution for papers of authors who have already deposited papers in that institution. However, the National Library will accept such papers if the institution concerned has turned them down."l This statement seems to be saying two things at once. The first sentence sounds somewhat defensive, and i t is diff icult to make sense out of i t given the National Library's current struggle with the National Archives of Canada. Are they not in competition with the latter repository for the literary papers already housed there? The second sentence is also ambiguous. It is difficult to understand why an institution would turn down an author's papers if that author's previous papers were already deposited there. Even if this were to occur, however, the National Library seems willing to be party to splitting a collection between two repositories. This second sentence seems to refute the f irst and may have been added as a loophole for the National Library to use if needed. The five university acquisition policies vary in length and degree of detail. The University of Victoria's policy is the most specific, outlin-ing each "level" of collecting, from assembling a core collection of 62 standard works needed for undergraduate curricula to comprehensive collect-ing of archival and manuscript material. The latter includes records documenting late 19th-and early 20th-century English literature, the papers of such British writers and poets as John Betjeman, Robert Graves and Ezra Pound, and "British Columbiana, with specific reference to Victoria and Vancouver Island."2 Their mandate, therefore, is extremely broad, reaching beyond Canadian literature in ways that might arouse the criticism of some colleagues. Should the University of Victoria in fact be collecting the papers of these and other British authors? Many people would say that they should not. Yet is i t really "wrong" for them to be collecting these papers? They would no doubt argue that their researchers in the Department of English need to consult these papers close at hand. Who will prevent them from continuing with this policy? Does Britain want these papers back? How would the University of Victoria feel i f the roles were rev-ersed, with many Canadian literary manuscripts being actively pursued by the Bodleian Library or some such? Canada has recently been trying to protect its cultural property with the development of the Import/Export Act, but would this Act be truly effective i f foreign demand increased for Canadian literary papers? There are no easy answers to any of these questions. The significance of the University of Victoria's policy is that it is a written policy; we know where they stand, whether we agree with them or not, and they are evidently prepared to defend their policy when necessary. The other four university policies are more brief but also reflect a concern to support the exercise of literary criticism. UBC stresses Canadian authors' manuscripts, particularly those of Brit ish Columbia authors,^ while Simon Fraser University Archives does not state specific-63 ally which literary papers it collects: "Decisions in such matters will be made by the Special Collections Librarian."4 The University of Calgary Library, which has recently published extensive inventories of the papers of five authors, including Alice Munro and W.O. Mitchell, has a policy which states their intention to acquire manuscript collections "that emphasize archives of Canadian creativity. This includes writers of fiction, poets, dramatists, publishers, composers, and musicians."5 They also collect the records of small Canadian publishing companies. Queen's University Archives acquires materials "related to the present research strengths in Canadian public affairs, business, l i terature, art, and Kingston and its surrounding areas, . . . " 6 The policy has a regional focus, although Queen's does acquire papers of authors from other parts of Canada. Queen's University Archives also has a published guide to all its records, including its extensive holdings of literary papers. These four universities, with the possible exception of Simon Fraser, all focus their acquisition on Canadian authors' papers, with the University of British Columbia laying particular emphasis on British Columbia writers. These six policies illustrate the ways in which repositories can explain their mandates to researchers, authors and other archivists. The National Archives of Canada reports that they are currently developing a written policy for l iterary papers, an encouraging sign; it will be interesting to see how the wording of the National Archives' policy will differ from the National Library's. However, we need more than these small numbers. An acquisitions policy need not be as detailed as the University of Victoria's, but i t should not be as general as Simon Fraser Univers-i ty 's . The repository's size, type and complexity, as well as the commun-64 ity i t serves, all dictate the content and detail of its policy. However, a too general policy is inevitably also ambiguous. It is vital to have a clear, easily understood written policy in order to let donors, users and other inst i tut ions know what an inst i tut ion acquires. Such written policies are particularly important for literary papers because so many institutions compete for the same materials. The second question asked respondents if the acquisition of literary papers was a major focus of their institution's overall acquisitions policy. This generated a significant response, with 17.85% answering "yes," and 82.1% answering "no." Some of those who answered "no" explained that although they are interested in acquiring literary manuscripts as well as other types of personal papers, funding has not been available to support this kind of acquisition (Question 3 sought more specific informa-tion about acquisition budgets). One respondent said, "It was a major focus during the 60's and 70's, but [ it is] less [of a] focus now." This respondent did not, unfortunately, explain why this change occurred; i t may have been due to changes in the institution's mandate and/or its funding resources, or to increased competition for literary papers. Other respon-ses were variations on a theme: "We have few [ l i terary] papers and generally do not pursue them"; "Basically our institution has been more reactive than active in acquisitions. Currently literary papers are not a major or special focus." There are s t i l l , therefore, some institutions which take a passive role with regard to acquisition, allowing materials to come to them rather than actively seeking materials in the community which they serve. 65 Among those who answered "yes" to this question, two respondents pointed out the role of their particular division or section as distinct from their institution's general administration: "It is a focus of the acquisition policy of this section of the [university] library, not of the library as a whole"; "Because of the scope of [our institution's] mandate, our literary programme is only one small part of our acquisitions prog-ramme; nevertheless, in terms of importance i t ranks high." This kind of administrative complexity is typical of many large institutions, which do not always have written policies for individual divisions or sections. Responses were extremely revealing with respect to acquisitions budgets. This question was not answered by 21.4% of the respondents, but many of these added comments explaining that the repository in question acquired papers through gifts or donations rather than through purchases, and therefore the question was not applicable. Indeed, most literary papers in Canada are acquired through donations rather than purchases, as findings from Section B made clear. Of those who did answer this question in Section A, however, 100% reported that between 0 and 19% of their archival acquisitions budget was allotted for purchasing literary papers. It is worth comparing these figures to those given by the report of the Consultative Group, Canadian Archives (cited in Chapter Three), which found that 80% of all archives spend under 10% of their budgets in acquisition. It is clear that since 1980, when Canadian Archives was published, archival acquisition budgets for all media have continued to be very low due to economic restraint. The fact that respondents to this question unanimously reported such a small percentage of their budgets being devoted to acquiring l iterary papers is at odds with the avowed emphasis of their policy. One respondent 66 who answered "no" to the earlier questions added an explanatory note: "Acquisition budget for records of all media is under $1500. Purchases in recent years have been for photographs." As Canadian Archives observed, there is l i t t le money available for acquiring any type of archival mater-ia l . Few institutions, usually only the largest, have acquisition budgets of more than a few hundred or thousand dollars. Canadian Archives states that in 1978 the total of all budgets of all Canadian archives, excluding the Public Archives of Canada, was only $10,861,898: "This figure is less than the individual budgets of several university libraries."? The Public Archives of Canada, by contrast, had an annual budget in 1978 of $16,562,910.8 In addition, 42% of archives surveyed by the Consultative Group on Canadian Archives in 1978 reported having no acquisitions budget at a l l . 9 These figures have implications for literary papers in partic-ular. It would be easy to argue for more money being allotted to archives for acquisition, so that archives will not be out-bid by larger institut-ions or by private collectors in an open-market competition. However, this argument not only acknowledges the existence of the open-market but encourages its continuation. More money would lead to more aggressive competition which in turn would drive up prices for literary papers. This situation should be avoided. Instead of viewing the open market as a necessary evi l , archivists need to take steps to prevent it from escalating by encouraging greater inter-institutional cooperation. The next two questions dealt with the issue of the suitability of certain types of institutions to acquire literary papers. It was asked to solicit opinion about types of institutions which should be involved in the acquisition of literary papers. From the figures in Table 4.2a we can see 67 that 68.9% of the respondents considered university archives/special collections most appropriate for collecting literary papers; rare book and manuscript libraries were also rated high, with just over half of the respondents considering them to be very appropriate. The Public Archives of Canada received a higher rating than the National Library by a 42% to 25% margin. Thematic literary archives were considered more appropriate than provincial archives by a 19.5% margin, and local archives were rated considerably lower than the others. Some respondents noted that local archives often lack adequate staff and faci l i t ies to care properly for literary papers. Based on their comments, many respondents believe that universities are the most appropriate repositories for l i terary papers because of the academic nature of l i terary criticism. As one respondent explicitly stated, "use of literary archives is a predominantly academic activity." Some, however, expressed concern about the involvement of universities in this type of archival acquisition: "My one reservation with university archives is their raison d'etre for collecting literary papers; is i t a serious archival concern or only for prestige? Will the funding/resources continue to support such programmes?" This is precisely the point raised by Ian Wilson in his art icle, "Canadian University Archives," 1 0 in which he discussed the problems associated with university archives and libraries becoming involved in the acquisition of prestigious literary and political papers, which can distract archivists from their primary task of servicing university records. Given the low level of funding available for acquisit-ions, as reported in the responses to Question 3, the concern of the respondent noted above is legitimate indeed. TABLE 4.2a Opinion as to high suitability of Types of institutions for Acquiring Literary Papers Type of institution % of respondents indicating high suitability University archives/ 68.9% special collections Rare book and manuscript 51.7% 1ibraries Thematic literary archives 48% Public Archives of Canada 42.3% Provincial archives 28.5% National Library of Canada 25% Local archives 10.7% TABLE 4.2b Opinion as to No Suitability of Types of institutions for Acquiring Literary Papers Type of institution % of respondents indicating no suitabil ity University archives/ 0% special collections Rare book and manuscript 6.8% libraries Public Archives of Canada 0% National Library of Canada 25% Provincial archives 3.5% Local archives 21.4% Thematic literary archives 8% 69 Some respondents expressed uncertainty over what was meant by the term "thematic l i terary archives." This refers to an archives devoted to collecting papers related to a particular author's l i fe and career or to a particular group of individuals and their activit ies. The Stephen Leacock Memorial Home is the only example in Canada of the former, while the Canadian Jewish Congress is an example of the latter because i t acquires records documenting aspects of Jewish culture, including Jewish literature. This kind of definition could perhaps have been added to the question in order to improve its clarity. It is interesting to note on Table 4.2b that 25% of the respondents considered the National Library to be highly inappropriate for acquiring literary papers, the same percentage as those who considered them highly appropriate. Without further statistical tests, however, i t is impossible to determine i f this response is statistically significant or merely a coincidence. Nobody considered the Public Archives inappropriate, which indicates that a small majority of respondents appear to be more sympath-etic to the Public Archives' claim to acquire literary papers than they are to the National Library's. Other respondents, however, believed that neither the Public Archives nor the National Library should collect literary papers. One person, for example, said, "I am very opposed to the PAC and NL collecting literary papers because I feel that they have more appropriate mandates and that their 'prest ige' makes them unfair competitors for less well-funded repositories." Another expressed disagreement with the Public Archives' mandate: "In general, I believe collections should be kept in institutions in the general geographic area in which they were created." One respondent 70 who favoured the National Library used the same argument advanced by the National Library itself: Literary archives must be housed in repositories where supportive and supplementary printed materials reside. That's why universities are best suited to house them. Furthermore, universities have a much bigger, more natural user group or clientel. The PAC and NL have an ongoing feud on this matter, but i f the two ever go separate ways, the literary collections are best kept with and near the books - i .e. , in the NL. Several other respondents considered this entire question to be irrelevant, arguing that accessibility is more important than the type of repository where literary papers are housed. As one respondent put i t , "the main concern is that wherever they are the papers be secure, well-serviced and accessible." Another said, "The question of where literary papers are located is not as important as accessibility, but they must often be used together with the published texts." A third commented, "the essential thing is that as far as possible, l i terary papers be kept together. Of secondary importance is that they be adequately described." Finally, one respondent provided an extremely general comment: "The public archives - federal, provincial, local - have a responsibility to document society in all its aspects - literature is one such aspect, to be dealt with in context." Essentially this respondent is expressing support for the open market, with every type of institution involved in acquiring records of all media from all facets of society. The issues raised by these respondents have implications for descript-ion and networking of information about holdings. It is true, as one of the respondents pointed out, that literary papers should be kept together i f at all possible. We have seen some of the difficulties that arise regarding overlapping jurisdictions when writers move around the country or 71 abroad. Split collections also make i t extremely complicated for research-ers to gain access to all the records needed for their studies. Yet i t is equally important that literary papers be described properly; inadequate description will s t i l l create problems for researchers, even i f a collect-ion of literary papers is kept together in one repository. Description is not, therefore, of secondary importance, as the respondent quoted above suggests. The most striking finding is that the majority of respondents are unwilling to proscribe any type of repository for acquiring l i terary papers. A few expressed the opinion that local archives are inappropriate for acquiring literary papers because they often lack sufficient space, staffing and intellectual control for these papers. Generally, however, most respondents seem to believe that any type of institution can acquire literary papers i f they have the desire and ability to do so. The next two questions were designed in the form of statements; respondents were asked to agree or disagree with these statements using the Likert 5-point attitude scale,H with 1 indicating strong disagreement and 5, strong agreement. A few expressed uncertainty when answering Question 5; one respondent placed his mark half-way between 1 and 2, which another marked his half-way between 4 and 5. These scores have been recorded as 1.5 and 4.5 respectively and added to the overall total number of frequenc-ies. Question 5, "The acquisition of literary papers should be limited to certain types of institutions," generated considerable support; 33.3% strongly agreed, 20.8% slightly agreed, 8.3% were undecided, 1.6% slightly disagreed and 12.5% strongly disagreed. (In addition, there were the two 72 in-between scores noted above). Among those who strongly agreed, many pointed out the need to have literary papers housed where researchers can easily gain access to them, as in the case of this comment: "Only research orientated inst i tut ions with substantial holdings and a commitment to augmenting the collections of manuscripts and books should pursue such collecting." Another said, "yes, to those properly qualified to look after literary papers." The question i s , however, who exactly i_s qualified to look after literary papers? This respondent does not explain whether he felt that only archivists are qualified in this way, or whether librarians were equally qualified. Other respondents brought up this issue in their responses to the next question discussed below. Those who disagreed with Question 5 reinforced their defence of the open-market approach. The most pessimistic view came from this respondent: "Anyone can acquire whatever he wants i f he has the wherewithal. What authority wi l l stop him?" Another took exception to the question's wording: '"should be' implies i t may be possible to institute a national system of acquisition among institutions. That may never be so." Among those who did not mark any of the numbers on the scale, one person comment-ed, "writers will sell/give their papers to whomever they please. The 'should' has no relevance." Despite such opinions, however, nearly 1/3 of the respondents strongly believe that the acquisition of literary papers should not be a wide open market and that certain types of institutions are more suitable than others to focus their efforts on collecting these papers. Yet their responses to this question do not quite agree with those in. Question 4. What explains this contradiction? Respondents appear to be expressing some agreement with the general principle, but are backing 73 off when i t comes to recommending specific details. It would be interest-ing to conduct more sophisticated statistical tests in order to investigate this conflict of data. Where do users' concerns f i t in this consideration of the location and accessibility of records? Some respondents are evidently concerned about users' needs in their stress on the importance of making records access-ible. This study, of course, is not a survey of those who use literary papers for their research purposes; there are a few studies being done on this, which will prove invaluable. It is not possible for us here to do an exhaustive survey of researchers' opinions, but i t is possible to gain some idea of their views. Scholars obviously find i t expensive to travel to many repositories, especially i f they have to visi t as many as nine or ten different institutions located thousands of miles apart. The Canadian Historical Association has expressed their concern on this matter and has identified the need to develop rational collections policies "so that users could be assured of the location of desired materials."12 The Canadian Historial Association also called for the distr ibut ion of copies of archival material and the preparation of national guides and indexes which would help historical researchers to locate hoi dings.^ Literary research-ers are also faced with the diff icult ies of ascertaining where relevant papers are kept, but for them the problem may be even more acute because of the open-market approach to literary papers. Even i f scholars know where papers are being housed, i t can s t i l l be impractical for them to view the material in person. Distributing copies of records can al leviate the problem, but as pointed out in Chapter Three, copying and mailing an extensive body of papers can be expensive. Automation could ease some of 74 these problems st i l l further, with on-line networks facilitating access to records across the country, but here again there are concerns about the cost of such networks. Question 6, "It does not matter where literary papers are kept as long as there is an archivist looking after them," generated an even spread of responses. Nobody strongly agreed with this statement; 22.2% slightly agreed, 29.6% were undecided, 25.9% slightly disagreed and 22.2% strongly disagreed. Generally, i t was expected that those who agreed with Question 5 might disagree with Question 6, and vice versa. In some cases this pattern held true, but there were some inconsistencies. One respondent, for example, circled 1 for Question 5 and both 1 and 2 for Question 6 (this double score was added to the overall percentages). This respondent commented that the phrase "certain types" in Question 5 was not approp-riate, and said in response to Question 6, "but of course qualified persons must be responsible for their care, preservation, accessibility and safe use." There were a number of strongly-worded comments in response to Question 6, with librarians asserting their competency to care for literary papers: "Even an 'archivist' is not essential, as long as the person in charge of the papers has a basic understanding of the principles of archival organiz-ation." Reveal ingly, this respondent placed the word "archivist" in quotation marks. Another librarian expressed a similar view but was much more succinct: "What is an archivist?" These comments reflect some of the division that evidently exists between archivists and librarians over the acquisition and care of literary records. Libraries, especially university libraries, have long been repositories for literary papers. Some libraries 75 even have hiring policies which allow only librarians to be appointed. While many people have questioned the right of libraries to restrict their hiring in this way, it is clear that librarians feel they have a right to acquire and house literary papers. One respondent decried such a division between librarians and archivists, saying that we should all work together cooperatively instead of fighting over who collects what: "I feel again, in answering this questionnaire, that we are s t i l l perpetuating the archivist/librarian split - and never the twain shall meet. . . . I hate to see i t carried on. We have a lot to learn from each other and I hope that your program at UBC will go a long way to solving this split ." It is clear also from the responses to Question 6 that most archivists are ambivalent on this issue, despite some of the strong opinions expressed above. The figures reveal such an even spread that there is hardly any clear majority opinion on this matter. The split between librarians and archivists partly explains these results. Another possible explanation is the complicated nature of the entire acquisition process for literary papers, with at least one respondent expressing confusion over what is more important in the care of these'papers: their location, type of description or accessibility to researchers. Many archivists evidently feel that they are doing the best job they can in a difficult situation, having to deal with the mandates of their institutions, the demands of donors and users, and the need to administer the records properly. Some are obviously pessimistic, doubting that the situation will ever improve. Yet there are a few who believe that it wil1 improve, recognizing the need to change the way acquisitions are conducted in order to make acquisition negotiations more cooperative and less acrimonious. 76 Having grappled with these issues, respondents were then asked to consider directly the question of competition, from each other and from private collectors. Questions 7 and 8 can therefore be examined together, as they are both two-part questions dealing with the former and the latter respectively. Those who answered "yes" to the f i rst part of each question were then asked to describe how they dealt with the situation. In add-it ion, each question asked respondents if they considered this type of competition to be a problem generally with regard to acquiring literary papers. Responses to Question 7 were mixed, with 66.6% reporting that they had encountered competition from other repositories and 33.3% reporting that they had not. Respondents were split 50-50 on the question of whether this type of competition was a problem generally for acquiring literary papers. Of those who believed that i t was a problem, one respondent cited the perceived "glamour" of literary papers for research and monetary value as a factor in competition. Most of the comments, however, identified bidding as a major problem, either potential or actual, and seemed to blame authors implicitly or explicitly for adding to competition of this sort. When asked how they dealt with the situation, one respondent said, "We backed off - [the] author was trying to encourage bidding." Others also "backed off" for "political reasons." One person explained, "We found out 'after the fact' and did not have the opportunity to negotiate." Another respond-ent said he dealt with the situation "HEAD ON! . . .We got into a bidding war over a recent collection." Most respondents were opposed to bidding wars (a phrase used many times) and said so in no uncertain terms. One person, for example, had this to say: "We do not enter into competition. 77 The author must decide which institution he/she prefers. We refuse to participate in bidding wars." Another noted, "usually [competition] happens when an author becomes greedy and hopes to institute a 'bidding up' process." "Shopping around" was also a phrase used repeatedly, as in this comment: "The potential for competition certainly exists; however, most institutions are aware of the collecting areas of other institutions and are on the watch for writers or dealers who are 'shopping around.'" Another respondent answered both "yes" and "no" to the second part of Question 7, explaining that competition is a problem "when papers are up for auction, as when authors are 'shopping around' for the best 'deal' among institutions." This respondent evidently did not consider this type of competition to be a problem otherwise. Commenting generally on the problem of competition from other reposit-ories, one respondent observed, "Healthy competition is to be expected and encouraged, so long as the competing institutions are professionally staffed and equipped and are prepared for the 'long haul' - i .e . , to care for such treasures for ever." This view is similar to that expressed by Hugh Dempsey in 1970, when he said that i t is possible to have bad coopera-tion and good competition. The former occurs, Dempsey explained, when one waits for an agency to deposit their papers in the archives but they never do, leading to the papers' eventual destruction; the latter prevents the growth of "protected empires" which "could make us complacent or lazy ." 1 4 Despite Dempsey's spirited defense of the open market, most respondents believe that competition for l i terary papers is bad and cooperation benefi c ia l . 78 Responses to Question 8 were much more extreme, with 92.8% reporting that they had never encountered competition from private collectors for an author's papers, and only 7.1% reporting that they had. Following from this, 66.6% said they did not consider this type of competition to be a problem, at least not in Canada, while 33.3% believed that i t was a problem, at least potentially. One respondent explained, "Private collect-ors (apart from the authors themselves) seldom have Canadian l iterary papers." Another said, "Elsewhere - yes. It presents particular problems for inflation of prices." One of those who answered "yes" to the first part of the question commented, "We have offered to exchange information about our collections and have tried to interest the private collector in depositing his collections with us, or in offering them to us for sale." This same respondent also answered "yes" to the second part but added, "Not as serious [a problem] as 7 above but nevertheless i t can lead to collect-ions or archives being split up. It is important for archivists to cultivate such collectors and to try to interest them in making their collections open to research." Obviously, therefore, there is some small-scale competition in Canada from private collectors. However, nobody who responded to the question-naire offers any reasons why so few private collectors have Canadian literary papers in their possession. This is probably due to the fact that Canadian l iterature is relatively new and, until recently, Canadian literary papers have not commanded the high prices that many American authors' papers attract. Canada apparently does not have a J.P. Morgan with the financial and social influence to purchase literary manuscripts. Nevertheless, i t is clear that the potential for this type of competition 79 exists in Canada, and such competition will no doubt escalate as the prestige of Canadian literary papers continues to increase. The next question attempted to determine respondents' preferences for acquiring literary papers at a particular point in an author's career. It was borne in mind that an archivist will not always be able to choose an ideal time to acquire an author's papers, given the personal preferences of authors or their executors, a fact which several respondents pointed out. S t i l l , this question sought to gain some understanding of the time in an author's career when archivists would prefer to acquire them i f they could. Respondents were asked to check off one of the following: a) when the author has recently appeared on the literary scene; b) when the author is well-established and s t i l l actively writing; c) when the author is well-established but no longer actively writing; or d) after the author has died. Table 4.3 shows the percentages of responses to this question. As we can see, most respondents selected "b", while 25% each chose "c" and "d". The figures add up to more than 100% because some respondents marked more than one choice. One person marked both "c" and "d", while three others marked "b", "c" and "d". Another respondent marked "a" as well as "b", while someone else marked his choice between "c" and "d". These multiple answers were added to the overall percentages. A high number of respondents - 29.4% - did not select any of the choices, but many of these added qualifying comments such as "there is no best time" or "whenever you can get them." One of these said, "If a writer approached [us] during his/her lifetime of our interest in his/her papers, i t would probably be "b" or "c". We would also accept under "d" i f offered." 80 Those who did select one of the choices also offered some revealing comments. One person, who selected "c", pointed out that "a" and "b" both run the risk of having the author's papers split up, especially i f the author is s t i l l young and mobile. Of the majority who chose "b", one respondent explained, "We have the personal archives of several l iv ing writers and, with them, right of f i rst refusal for their future papers." A respondent who selected "d" indicated that this is his individual prefer-ence but is not necessarily done in reality, saying bluntly, "A dead author won't return for another payment! However, most sales in practice [at our institution] are made with well-established senior writers." TABLE 4.3 Preference for Acquiring Literary Papers At Certain Stages in an Author's Career Stages in author's career % of respondents reporting a) when he/she has recently appeared on the literary scene 12.5% b) when he/she is well-established and st i l l actively writing 45.8% c) when he/she is well-established but no longer actively writing 25% d) after he/she has died 25% Clearly, most respondents are eager to cultivate writers when they are new but not too new. A young writer who has recently made a sensation with his or her new book may go on to become well-established or fade into obscurity. There is , of course, a danger in anticipating the research needs of future scholars, but generally i t is safe to assume that the 81 papers of an author who was well-established and well-regarded during his or her lifetime will continue to retain much of their informational value for many years afterwards. Acquiring an author's papers when an author is well-established seems preferable than when his or her career is just beginning, although at any time during an author's l i fe there is st i l l some risk of having the author's later papers deposited elsewhere. Archivists can take steps to alleviate this risk by negotiating with authors for the deposit of their future papers, as the respondent quoted above has done. In this way they can help well-established, active writers to preserve their papers and also ensure that these papers be kept together as much as possible. The last question in this section of the questionnaire asked respond-ents how they feel about acquiring the papers of foreign-born authors. This question was asked because some Canadian archives have among their holdings the papers of authors who were not born in Canada and who, in some cases, have l i t t le or no connection with Canada. Should such "imports" of literary records be allowed? The question attempted to gain respondents' insights on this issue. The f irst part asked whether they would accept the papers of foreign-born authors; the second, whether they think that archivists generally should accept such papers. One person declined to answer the f irst part, but of those who did, 100% said "yes." Their comments ranged from the defensive to the vague to the penetrating: "I am part of an international institution"; ". . . Literature is a study of mankind and therefore its concerns are universal - all literature is worthy of study and therefore of preserving." (Yes, but by whom?) The most penetrating observations recognized the significance of regionalism: 82 "Providing there is some connection with the region; i .e. , either in the author's l i fe or references to his/her work." Another comment: "Providing that a significant part of the author's creative work was performed in Canada." Given these findings, one might expect all the respondents to answer "yes" to the second part of Question 10. However, 7.4% replied "no", 92.5% answered "yes" and 6.8% did not answer the question at a l l . Among those who answered "no", one respondent explained, "Our commitment is to Canadian writers and I would maintain that policy. However, we do have the papers of writers not born in Canada but are Canadian citizens. We at one time acquired a 'non-Canadian' collection which is not at all appropriate to our present collection parameters." However, i t is clear that the majority of respondents would accept the papers of foreign-born authors who lived and worked in Canada for much of their creative lives (Malcolm Lowry is a good example), but would not accept "imports" of literary papers from other countries. The most significant findings from Section A of the questionnaire concern archivists' attitudes towards authors and the need for more well-developed acquisition policies. Respondents' comments reveal a certain amount of wariness with regard to authors, and no doubt their own exper-iences have taught them to be wary. As Robin Skelton's pamphlet i l l u -s t r a t e s , 1 5 authors' experiences have also taught them to be wary of archivists. Many writers in Canada are not financially secure and often feel protective towards themselves and their work; they have learned that they have to protect their own creative and economic interests. This 83 defensive attitude can make the archivist's position difficult. Authors may be high-minded while in the midst of creating a work, but they are capable of being extremely tough-minded when it comes to negotiating for acquisition of their papers. That is why many respondents perceive some authors to be "greedy" and why one respondent was prompted to observe that deceased writers cannot ask for more payments; in other words, the best kind of writer is a dead one. To say that this situation is unfortunate would be an outrageous understatement. Increasing competition for literary papers will only make matters worse, with some authors taking advantage of the open-market approach by playing off one repository against another and using his/her papers as a bargaining tool. What can archivists do to resolve this conflict? It is easy to make appeals to good wil l , but i t is difficult to feel any good will towards an author who had deposited some papers elsewhere years ago and now comes to a different institution with later papers wanting an exorbitant sum for them. Conversely, i t is difficult for an author to feel good will towards an archivist who acquires his papers and then arranges and describes them inadequately, making access awkward i f not impossible. However, the onus is mostly on the archivist to try to alleviate the problems brought about by the open market - increased competition, split collections and acrimony between archivists and authors. Archivists can encourage greater cooperat-ion among themselves. They can also refuse to deal with authors who demand unreasonable prices for their papers or who are known to have deposited their earlier papers in other repositories. In this instance, cooperation and communication becomes even more crucial; archivists need to maintain contact with each other in order to be aware of changes in the acquisition 84 scene and authors who are seeking to deposit their papers. A few respond-ents indicated their approval for such communication, with one respondent saying that most archivists are on the watch for authors who are "shopping around." Once an archivist decides he wants a particular author's papers and is prepared to pay the price asked or arrange for a donation, he/she should try to educate the author about the nature and function of archives, using a l i t t le ego-stroking when necessary. The archivist can tell the author that his papers will be properly cared for, thereby offering reassurance that his papers are important not only to the author himself but also to the repository and to researchers. Some authors have an inflated notion of their own talent and their papers' monetary value, but many others do not, and therefore require only a small amount of ego-stroking, which the archivist can accomplish without sacrificing his own dignity or circumvent-ing his institution's mandate. This brings us to the most significant finding of a l l : the lack of clear, well-developed written acquisitions policies for literary papers. The number of institutions in Canada which do not have a written policy s t i l l exceed the number of those which do: 61% as opposed to 39%. The latter number is substantial, but i t is s t i l l not substantial enough. It is essential that more institutions recognize the need to have written acquisitions policies in order to make i t clear to other institutions, authors, and researchers the types of records they collect. Many reposit-ories are doing this already, an encouraging sign, but more archives need to add to this 39%. Greater numbers of repositories with written policies will help reduce competition and encourage cooperation. 85 NOTES - CHAPTER FOUR 1. National Library of Canada, "Literary Manuscripts Acquisition Policy," 18 February 1986, 2. 2. University of Victoria Library, "Collections Policy, 1987/88," 27. 3. University of British Columbia, "The Acquisition of Manuscript Collect-ions: UBC Archival Collections Policy," n.d., 1 p. 4. Simon Fraser University Archives, "Contemporary Literature Collection," 4 February 1987, 1 p. 5. University of Calgary Library, Special Collections Division, "Manu-script Collection Development Policy," January 1987, 1 p. 6. Queen's University Archives, "Operating Mandate," 20 May 1986., n.p. 7. Canadian Archives, 39. 8. Ibid., 32. 9. Ibid., 39. 10. Ian Wilson, "Canadian University Archives," Archivaria 3 (Winter 1976-1977):24. . 11. Charles H. Busha and Stephen P. Harter, Research Methods in Librarian- ship: Techniques and Interpretation (New York! Academic Press, 1980),81. 12. Terry Eastwood, "Attempts at National Planning for Archives in Canada," The Public Historian 8:3(Summer 1986):78. 13. Ibid. 14. W. Kaye Lamb, B. Weilbrenner, D. McOuat, A.R. Turner, H.A. Dempsey, J.H. Archer, J .C.L. Andreassen, "Acquisition Policy: Cooperation or Competition?" The Canadian Archivist 2 (1970):32. 15. Robin Skelton, Authors and Archives: A Short Guide (Toronto: Writers' Union of Canada, 1979),5. 86 CHAPTER FIVE DONOR RELATIONS AND LEGAL ARRANGEMENTS Section B of the questionnaire sought to identify archivists' experien-ces in and attitudes towards particular issues which can affect donor relations and legal arrangements. These issues are extremely important in the acquisition of literary papers because writers earn their living from writing; the archivist has to weigh the author's economic concerns against the user's research concerns. Therefore, questions regarding copyright/ literary rights, monetary appraisal and tax credits are vital to everyone involved in the acquisition process. Writers try to protect their financ-ial interests; users want to ensure the records' accessibi l i ty; and archivists strive to fu l f i l l their institution's mandate. The last part of this section deals with automation as i t affects acquisition of authors' papers. As we saw in Chapter Two, automation is profoundly changing the types of records authors produce and keep. These changes have strong implications for the acquisition of authors' records because archivists will be acquiring literary records in machine-readable form and will need appropriate hardware to read these records. There are also implications for archival networking and access; automated networks could, for example, help to alleviate the problem of split collections by making i t easier for researchers to identify the location of authors' papers and gain access to them. 87 We will examine respondents' answers to each of these four issues in turn, beginning with copyright/literary rights - arguably the most comp-licated aspect of acquiring literary papers. COPYRIGHT/LITERARY RIGHTS Canadian copyright law poses particular problems for literary, dra-matic, musical and artistic works. The current Copyright Act, which has been in effect since 1924, defines these as original works in any form of expression, but, as Jean Dryden has pointed out, i t is virtually impossible for legislators to define exactly what constitutes a literary work.l It is generally agreed that personal letters and diaries are protected by copyright "because of their informational value, regardless of literary merit."2 The Copyright Act also identifies fixation as a criterion for copyright protection; that is , works el igible for protection must be expressed in some material, identifiable form. However, A.A. Keyes and C. Brunet have pointed out two problems concerning fixation in their 1977 report, Copyright in Canada: Proposals for a Revision of the Law. .These problems result from new technology involved in recording musical works and lectures. The recording of lectures is of particular interest to us in this study because authors frequently give readings or lectures while promoting a new book or teaching a course. Such lectures are currently protected if they are given from extensive notes or otherwise transmitted in print or writing. If the author delivers an extemporaneous speech, however, it may not be protected by copyright. Keyes and Brunet cite the recommendation made by the Ilsley Commission, which was appointed in 1954 to examine the Copyright Act and which published a report based on its 88 findings in 1957. The Ilsley Commission recommended that a speech given in public be treated as a literary work even if i t was not given from written notes. Keyes and Brunet take this recommendation further by urging that the definition of fixation "allow for any means capable of capturing the work fixed thereby."3 It is significant that Keyes and Brunet recognize the value of cultural property and the need to protect i t adequately. They argue rightly that a nation's intellectual and artistic development reflects the encouragement and protection provided to artists, musicians, writers and intellectuals. Their comments on the Canadian situation are worth quoting: . . . there has been an increasing degree of conscious-ness on the part of creators of the need to assert their rights and vocalize their interests more vigorously. In so doing, the general objective of creators appears to be the improvement of their economic position through the increasing expression of sol idari ty, the seeking of public financial support, and the introduction of demands involving a wide range of legal areas. Examples include demands for a public lending right (a fee each time a book is lent by a library) and a 'droit de suite'(partic-ipation by an artist in the proceeds of successive sales of his original work). . . . 4 Keyes and Brunet cite the establishment in Canada of two Writers' organiz-ations within the past twenty years - The Writer's Union of Canada and the Association of German Writers - and the "tone of increasing militancy"5 of these groups. The Association of German Writers has been particularly vocal in advocating not jonly copyright protection but also pension plans and insurance for its members: "It attaches great importance to the possibilities afforded by copyright law for improving these conditions for authors . . . In any revision of the law, . . . care should be taken not to subordinate the rights of authors to those of entrepreneurs or users." 6 89 The Keyes-Brunet report made an important contribution to the study of Canadian copyright law. A follow-up to this report is From Gutenberg to  Telidon: A White Paper on Copyright, written by Judy Erola and Francis Fox and published in 1984. Their most significant recommendations which relate to this study concern a clear definition of "fair dealing" and exemption from the law for reproduction of material for archival purposes. The Erola-Fox White Paper acknowledges the vagueness of the term "fair dealing" (as did many respondents to the questionnaire) and explains that in the new Copyright Act, fair dealing, which is now called "fair use," would be defined as "a use that does not conflict with the normal exploita-tion of the work or subject matter and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the copyright owner."7 The New Act would also include a "priorized l is t of factors that the courts will consider in reaching judgements in particular cases."8 of significance to archives is the fact that "this new fair use doctrine will apply to all copyright subject matter that has generally been made available to the public, regardless of whether such material has been published in the traditional sense .Among the exemptions from the law is an exemption of reproduction of protected material for archival purposes. The authors point out that the present Copyright Act has no such provisions and that archivists have indicated a need to reproduce archival material that, is deteriorating or is in a state of imminent destruction. They argue further that material should be reproduced on a preventive basis before physical deterioration has set in or before loss has occurred through accident or extensive use. 1 0 The new Act, therefore, would introduce an exemption permitting libraries and archives to copy "unpublished, out of print or other unavailable 90 material already in their col lect ions for reference or conservation purposes." 1 1 The proposals outlined in From Gutenberg to Telidon led to the form-ation early in 1985 of a House of Commons Sub-Committee to study al l aspects of copyright revision. To date, however, there has been no agreement on the exact wording or extent of the fair dealing c lause. 1 2 It will therefore take some time to provide a clear def ini t ion of fa i r dealing. The development of new technology further complicates matters and slows down the process of revising the law, as legislators try to take account of machine-readable records and other innovations for which the 1924 Act made no provision. Most people agree that the Copyright Act needs to be revised; steps are being taken to bring this about, but these changes will happen slowly, and in the meantime there is s t i l l much confusion among archivists and researchers about the limits and interpretations of the law. The section of the questionnaire concerning copyright dealt with the issues of transferring literary rights to the archival repository, allowing researchers to make copies of archival material and generally interpreting the copyright law. The f i rs t question asked respondents how often they requested that donors transfer l i terary rights to their repository. Respondents were asked to check one of the following: always, frequently, sometimes, seldom or never; 48% reported that they never asked donors to transfer their literary rights; 32% said they seldom did this, 12% said sometimes and 8% always (nobody checked "frequently"). One respondent who answered "never" added that copyright was "a thorny problem which we have given some thought to, but for which we have not yet developed a policy." Others were considerably more adamant: "We have never had dealings with 91 authors for whom copyright was a marketable commodity." Another respond-ent, who answered "sometimes," seemed rather ambivalent: "If i t seems appropriate to ask [for literary rights] we will do so, but to ask for an author's literary rights is to ask for his income." Those who answered "always," however, expressed a more hard-headed attitude. One such respondent gave highly practical reasons for his policy: "I insist on it . Without [ i t ] , we must always check with the family for consent to publish. If we pay the price of preserving them, we want the literary rights." Nevertheless, this attitude was clearly in the minority; most respondents seemed to consider i t inappropriate to negotiate for an author's literary rights. The next question asked respondents if they had a written policy regarding the deposit in their repositories of other people's letters which were part of an author's collection. This question was included because author's papers (as well as private papers generally) usually include incoming letters from other people. As we saw in Chapter Two, a writer may, during the course of a lifetime, correspond with a wide variety of friends, family, editors, publishers, admirers, journalists and fellow writers. Such letters can pose a problem where l i terary rights are concerned. How does a researcher identify the holder of these rights, if the author of the letter has died? Should an archivist accept such letters? Do the author's correspondents have a right to know that their letters have been deposited in an archival repository? These issues are subtle and difficult to contend with because they involve the interests of so many different people. Researchers may take and have often taken shelter under the fair use clause, and many archivists 92 have taken shelter with them. The burden is shifted to the user, who may only publish after approval or at his or her own risk if no approval is obtained. Some archivists evidently believe that the burden should be placed on the user, and they seem all too eager to shift the burden away from themselves. Respondents' answers to this question were decisive. An overwhelming number - 96.4% - said they did not have such a policy, while only one respondent - 3.5% - said they did. (This respondent, unfortunately, did not add any comments of his own). One of the respondents who said "no" added, "not really," explaining, "We ask users to sign a statement that they are responsible for clearing copyright" - a practice followed by many other institutions. Another respondent also answered "no" but added, "bur policy for handling this material is no different from any other part of an author's papers. We are extremely meticulous about copyrights for all aspects of a collection." These findings indicate that archivists have not truly dealt with this aspect of literary rights for authors' papers. Some of them seem to include i t as part of their general copyright policy rather than identify-ing i t as a separate issue, while others seem not to deal with i t at a l l , arguing that responsibility for determining the holder of copyright rests entirely with the user. This attitude appears again in responses to the remaining questions concerning copyright. The third question sought respondents' reactions to A.A. Keyes' state-ment, "Archivists are the greatest violators of copyright in the country," made during a lecture Keyes gave at the School of Library, Archival and Information Studies at the University of British Columbia in 1984. Keyes 93 is , of course, widely known as the co-author of the report, Copyright in  Canada, in which he called for more stringent definitions of copyright infringement. The current law defines direct infringement as anything which is done without the copyright owner's consent and which "only the owner of the copyright has the right to do ." 1 3 The law defines indirect infringement as that committed by anyone who sells or distributes for trade a work without the author's permission. The extremely vague definition of direct infringement means that nearly anyone, including archivists and l ibrar ians, could be guilty under the law. Keyes1 recommendations, however, deal mainly with indirect infringement. He urges that the terms of the present clause be retained but "also include indirect infringement with respect to all protected subject matter."1 4 Such indirect infringe-ment could include photocopying of materials in libraries and archives; hence Keyes' assertion that archivists violate copyright law by allowing such photocopying to be done. It was expected that respondents would react strongly to this state-ment. Indeed they did, often commenting vehemently on the current Taw's vagueness and lack of clear guidelines; 46.15% strongly disagreed with Keyes' statement, 19.2% slightly disagreed, 19.2% were undecided, 7.69% slightly agreed and 7.69% strongly agreed. Among those who slightly or strongly disagreed, respondents said, "By volume, I expect libraries with coin-op photocopiers are [the greatest violators]!"; "Students and the general public do more illegal copying than archivists"; "Professional archivists watch this matter very carefully." The following comment was the strongest of a l l : "The law is an ass. Keyes also encouraged archiv-ists to break this law in order to test the interpretation of 'fair dealing.'" 94 Even those who were undecided had some negative remarks about the copyright law: "Because the copyright situation with regard to unpublished manuscript material has been in a state of total confusion for so long, archivists have had to use their own judgement." The small number of respondents who slightly or strongly agreed supported their answers with similar arguments: "As the copyright law now stands, indeed"; "It is a necessary function of our role as keepers and purveyors of information. We cannot assist our users without breaking the existing rules." It is sig-nificant that nearly everyone cited the current law's vagueness, no matter where they stood on the issue. . It seems the law's vagueness can be used to support arguments on both sides. Question 4 asked respondents to agree or disagree with the statement, "Archivists should follow copyright law to the letter and make no except-ions for anybody." Responses were mixed; 30.4% strongly disagreed, 21.7% slightly disagreed, 13.04% were undecided, 8.69% slightly agreed and 26.08% strongly agreed. Comments from respondents who strongly disagreed echoed the sentiments expressed in responses to Question 3: "the law badly needs revising. . . .Why are public institutions paying to preserve this material i f i t is to be made inaccessible?" Others shared this view: "To strongly agree would mean closing our doors based on current interpretation of copyright law." Yet another respondent was more succinct: "We might just as well close our doors." These responses reveal a considerable amount of misunderstanding and confusion among archivists. It is difficult to understand these three respondents' line of thinking. Accessibility is not at issue here. If archivists did follow the existing copyright law to the letter, records 95 would not be rendered inaccessible. The only action prevented would be publication without proper account of copyright ownership. Yet there are evidently some archivists who are not only confused about the law and its meaning, but are also defensive about their own practices with regard to allowing researchers to make copies of material for their own purposes. They seem more concerned with researchers' needs than with authors' rights, an attitude which places them directly at odds with Keyes, who argued that authors' rights should not be sacrificed to those of users. 1 5 There is also a body of opinion in the archival/library community that believes the burden of responsibility should be placed on researchers and other people who want to publish, and not on archivists. For example, one respondent said, "Copyright in many media (including video) is in flux and nearly impossible to police. The chief onus is on the [person wanting to publish] and publisher, not the archivist or librarian." This respondent seemes to be using the law's vagueness as an excuse to shift the respons-ibi l i ty onto someone else. Copyright issues do not appear to prevent acquisition of literary papers, but they can create problems for researchers and for archivists once these papers have been acquired. They do not, at present, create difficulties for writers, but they undoubtedly would if the situation were different, with the majority of archival repositories demanding the transfer of literary rights. In such cases, would authors shy away from depositing their papers for fear of losing control over their income? One could hardly blame them if they did, given the suspicion that many authors harbour towards archivists. 96 It is clear from the responses that archivists are reluctant to confront these issues head on, preferring to let others take the initiat-ive. It is true that the law needs to be changed, but archivists' atti-tudes need to change as well. Archivists need to resolve copyright issues in contractual agreements with donors. Keyes and Brunet urged this ten years ago, and i t should be urged again now. MONETARY APPRAISAL Monetary appraisal is an important consideration for archives in all media, but is particularly important with regard to literary papers because of their perceived glamour. Within the past thirty years, Canadian society has come to value its literary artists more and more. Scholars are now more interested in studying the lives and works of authors in Canada, and archivists are now more interested in acquiring their papers. As a result, these papers are attractive to archival repositories for their prestige as well as their research value. The latter should be, of course, the archiv-ist 's prime concern. Former archivist David Walden has pointed out that research value should be a consideration in determining a collection's monetary value: "For the archivist, the research value of a collection should be the paramount concern during appraisal (and thereby attaching to i t a monetary value) for purchase and for tax credit ." 1 6 Walden also argues that one of the most important factors for archivists to consider in conducting monetary appraisals is jurisdiction: "do the documents fall within the acquisition mandate of the repository?"1? Monetary appraisal, therefore, is vital to any discussion of the acquisition of l i terary papers. 97 In considering the monetary appraisal issue, a number of questions come to mind. Does the repository buy papers or will the author make a gift? Once purchase has been ruled out, we can address the tax credit value of an author's papers. Will the author deposit his papers f irst and then have them appraised? This practice is- advocated by the National Archival Appraisal Board (NAAB), which was incorporated as a private non-profit corporation in May 1983.^ NAAB will not conduct appraisals until after the gift of an author's papers has been accepted by a repository. Their policy is intended to prevent authors and other donors from "shopping around" and to compel them to make a commitment to deposit their papers in one particular repository. However, this can be inconvenient for the author, whose concern over his economic security may drive him to seek the best "deal" he can among different repositories. If the author does not deposit his papers f i rst , he will not be able to have them appraised by NAAB and any evaluation conducted by someone else may not be accepted by Revenue Canada. This situation, therefore, can put everyone in a bind: the author, who seeks to protect his economic interests; the archivist, who has to serve the needs of donors, researchers and the sponsoring institut-ion; the researcher, who is concerned with gaining access to the records; third-party appraisers who are called in to conduct an appraisal; and the tax people, who are concerned with serving their own intrests. The questions in this section of the questionnaire attempted to shed some light on these highly complex issues. The f irst question concerns the efficacy of having third-party appraisals done for literary papers worth more than a given amount. This question was asked because there is some debate over the reliability and effectiveness of third-party appraisals: 98 "As a matter of principle, do you think all monetary appraisals over a certain amount (e.g., $1,000.00) should be done by third parties?" The answers were significant, with 96.42% saying "yes" and only one respondent - 3.57% - saying "no." Unfortunately this respondent did not supply any comments expanding on his reply. Many of those who answered yes said that having a third party involved ensures impartiality and enables the archiv-ist to avoid being accused of conflict of interest, either by the author/ donor or by the administrator. One respondent said that this was not so much a matter of principle as of "practical importance." Two others agreed with the principle but thought that $1,000.00 was too restrictive; one of them suggested a higher amount, such as $2,500.00. One person agreed with the principle and said that "it may prevent donors from shopping about for the best monetary value," thereby recalling Section A, Question 7, in which several respondents noted the problems of donors shopping around (see Chapter Four). One final comment on this question is worthy of note and also anticipates the next question: "I think this keeps us fair and honest, although it has some serious financial implications. NAAB apprais-als cost a fortune!!" The next question dealt with the effectiveness of a particular third-party appraiser, namely, the National Archival Appraisal Board. The question asked, "How often do you use appraisers from the National Archival Appraisal Board (NAAB) when conducting a monetary appraisal of literary manuscripts?" Respondents were asked to indicate one of the following: always, frequently, sometimes, seldom or never. The answers reveal mixed opinions about NAAB; 30.7% circled "always," 19.2% circled "frequently," 15.3% "sometimes," 11.5% "seldom" (this includes the respondent from a 99 university archives whose comment on NAAB appraisals is quoted above), and 23.07% "never." One respondent said "always, for all appraisals done," but also circled "seldom" because "we seldom receive literary manuscripts." Another, who answered "seldom," said, "NAAB is only for gifts and can only be called in after the gift has been accepted. Mostly the writer wishes to know the value prior to the gift's donation. The fees for NAAB are invar-iably higher than those of a single expert, since three people are usually involved." This respondent's comment illustrates the point made earlier about the author's desire to determine the value of the gift before he deposits his papers anywhere. Evidently this respondent considers NAAB appraisals too restrictive, and believes i t is desirable for the author to negotiate with different repositories before making a commitment to deposit his papers in one location. The next question was to be answered only by those who responded "some-times," "seldom" or "never" to the previous question, asking whom they consulted instead of NAAB for monetary appraisals. There was a choice of booksellers, agents, or other. Of those who sometimes, seldom or never use NAAB, 69.2% said they consulted book-sellers and only 7.6% said they consulted agents. In addition, 23.07% said "other"; these others include academics and archival colleagues. One respondent who selected booksellers commented, "Qualified booksellers know the market better than archivists." Two others were critical of the cost of NAAB appraisals as well as their accuracy: "We have a real concern about the concept of NAAB appraisals and the cost"; "NAAB is not, in my opinion, qualified to perform the appraisal of literary papers." There is , therefore, a considerable amount of sus-picion among archivists towards NAAB and a belief that booksellers are more knowledgeable about the literary market. 100 These responses reveal some archivists' attitudes not only towards NAAB but also the general procedure for monetary appraisals. Most respondents believe that third-party appraisals keep archivists "fair and honest," as one of them put i t , in avoiding conflict-of-interest situations. Some of them also point out the necessity of knowing the manuscript market or consulting someone who does, in order to be aware of current market trends and changes. In this way they acknowledge the fact that literary manu-scripts are a marketable commodity, whether one likes i t or not. Whatever their merits as works of art or value to researchers, literary manuscripts have considerable monetary worth on the open market. David Walden, among others, partly blames archivists themselves for this situation: archivists must refrain from involving their institutions in the purchase of expensive 'prestigious' collections of questionable research value . . . Archivists, while recog-nizing the monetary worth of documents, are concerned with their intr insic and research value. Yet, the failure of archivists in the past to acknowledge this reality in their pursuit of prestigious collections has contributed to an increasingly large schism between fair market value and research value. 1 9 Walden blames inflation for further complicating matters, but says that archivists also help to drive up prices, often inadvertently, by competing for prestigious collections. Therefore Walden, like many others, urges archivists to be cooperative rather than competitive regarding monetary appraisal as well as other aspects of archival administration: "More inter-institutional cooperation with regard to the purchase of archival material. . . will involve consultation, prior to an auction, about who will bid on specific collections, and an increased awareness and respect of acquisition jursidctions."20 101 The situation surrounding monetary appraisal does not necessarily reduce opportunities for acquisition, but i t creates many complications, bringing everyone involved into conflict. Inter-institutional cooperation i s , of course, desirable from an archivist's point of view, but what effect could i t have on authors? In an open market, with authors' economic inter-ests at stake, could not such consultation as Walden suggests become a kind of price-fixing by collusion? It is important for archivists to be aware of each other's acquisition jurisdictions, but they also need to be aware of authors' economic concerns. Any blunting of the open market could seriously affect relations with authors and therefore the process of negotiation, the end of which is preservation of valuable materials for research purposes. Archivists need to consult not only each other but also authors, in order to gain a better understanding of the financial pressures which beset many writers in Canada. Archivists can accomplish this and s t i l l encourage cooperation among each other. Walden's recommendations are good as far as they go; we can take them further by remembering that authors' interests must not be left out. TAX CREDITS The Cultural Property Import and Export Act came into effect in 1977 and was intended to prevent the export of cultural property from Canada. This Act includes the Canadian Cultural Property Control List , in which cultural property is divided into seven distinct categories. Group VII applies to archival material: books, records, documents, photographs, films and sound recordings. These various media within Group VII are 102 further divided into "Canadiana" and "non-Canadian" material, with Canad-iana being divided into three sub-classifications: textual, graphic and audio. The Act defines Canadiana as "objects . . . made in Canada or those made outside Canada but related to a person who resided in Canada, or made outside Canada but related to the history or national l i fe of Canada."21 The Act defines non-Canadian material as "objects made outside Canada which i 1 are unrelated to Canadian history or the national l i fe of Canada."22 The Act attempts to discourage the export of cultural property by offering tax 'credits for donors who deposit their papers in a designated Canadian public institution (certified as "A" repositories); such donors can claim a 100% income tax deduction based on the value of the gift, as well as exemption from capital gains tax. The institution receiving the gift must apply with the donor or on the donor's behalf to the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board, which is composed of six to twelve members appointed by the Governor in Council and which certifies cultural property for income tax purposes.23 Although this Act has been acknowledged as an important step, being the f irst Canadian legislation to recognize the importance of cultural prop-e r t y , 2 4 i t has also been criticized for being too restrictive. Only publicly owned institutions, such as government archives and universities, are designated as recipients of cultural property, while donors depositing their papers in church and business archives and other privately funded repositories, designated as "B"/repositories, are not entitled to the 100% income tax deduction. In effect, these private institutions "are put on an unfair footing in terms of acquiring archival materials."25 y n i - s m a v n o ^ be as serious a problem for literary papers as i t is for other types of 103 archival materials (such as church records), since universities and public l ib rar ies and archives are the major collectors of literary papers in Canada. Writers or their executors who donate literary papers to a public or university archives would therefore be eligible for a tax deduction. However, universities and public archives are by no means the only collect-ors of l i terary papers; other, privately-funded repositories, such as thematic literary archives, also acquire them. There are relatively few writers in Canada who earn a large enough income for them to benefit from receiving a tax credit, but those who do are naturally concerned with negotiating the best possible settlement. Smaller private institutions could indeed lose out to a larger public institution due to an author's personal preferences and financial circumstances as well as the provisions of the Cultural Property Act. David Walden has also crit icized the Act for allowing too many loop-holes, even going so far as to identify a new "cottage industry," with people creating documents every year for the specific purpose of donating them to a certified institution, thereby "beating the taxman."26 Walden does not provide any evidence for this, and although there may be some people engaged in this "industry," i t is di f f icul t to imagine any writer doing so. Generally i t can be said that writers create their records with the ultimate goal of producing a fiction or non-fiction work and having i t published. They may be hard-headed with regard to negotiating for the deposit of their papers, but they are not hard-headed when i t comes to the creation of those papers. Even the distant goal of publication fades while engaged in the creative process; all that matters is writing the work i tse l f , at least while producing the f i rst draft. The idea of any writer 104 creating a document purely for the purpose of obtaining a tax credit is absurd. Granted, Walden is not discussing literary papers specifically, and the situation he describes may be true to some extent for other types of personal papers. Even so, i t is di f f icul t to believe. Walden's other points about tax credits are that the system has led to more co l lec t ions , some of dubious value, being deposited in archives, adding to the backlog and creating even more work for archivists. He is cr i t ical of third-party appraisals - aptly named "arms-length" appraisals-because they require the archivist to arrange and describe a collection before i t is appraised. (Significantly, none of the respondents to the questionnaire shared; this view; rather, they believe that third-party appraisals ensure impartiality). While he recognizes the advantages of evaluating a processed collection - more efficient and accurate appraisals and therefore reduced costs for repositories using a third party's services - Walden says, "what is often overlooked is the additional time and attention required to prepare such descriptions . . . and that the extra time spent on such collections means that all others will be relegated to the backlog for longer periods of t ime." 2 7 Walden raises a curious point which has less to do with monetary appraisal and tax credits than with the broader question of acquisition. Surely, the point is that valuable collections -in the research as well as the monetary sense - should all be processed soon after being acquired. If repositories cannot do this, they should not acquire them. It is true, of course, that most repositories have backlogs, but most archivists are now aware of the need to reduce them and not allow them to grow. One way to do this is to develop acquisition policies which take into account the amount 105 of unprocessed collections already in the repository. Walden himself makes this point by urging archivists to develop selection criteria for all acquisitions, and to consider whether a collection offered to them is worth the extra work involved in having i t appraised. As he says, archivists will often accept manuscripts offered to them "to avoid a confrontation with a donor and the possibility of bad publicity which might result from their refusal. . . . The problem is aggravated by the existence of the tax credit system."28 Archivists can, however, take the initiative to ensure that this system is not abused. The largest issue, and one which Walden does not directly address, is the actual value assigned to such gifts. Literary papers could rarely bring such values on the open market. Therefore, the Canadian public is in a sense bearing the cost of the judgement of archivists and other assessors of these papers' research value; this value is then translated into monetary value by means of the tax credit. It was with these issues in mind that respondents were asked to give their opinions of the tax credit system in the f irst question of this part of Section B: "The tax credit system effectively deters export of archives from Canada." A surprisingly high number - 65.38% - were neutral, choosing 3 on the Likert 5-point attitudinal scale. Nobody strongly disagreed; 7.69% slightly disagreed, 19.23% slightly agreed and 7.69% strongly agreed. Clearly, therefore, most people have highly mixed feelings about the efficacy of the tax credit system. Several respondents commented not only on the system itself but also on the entire Cultural Property Act: "It's not working effectively. Nor should i t have the power to stop what an individual may or may not want to do with his papers. I detest any effort 106 at coercion." Another respondent took a different view: "it serves to [deter export of archives from Canada] at present because there is l i t t le active demand overseas for Canadian material. . As this demand increases, as I fully expect i t wi l l , the tax credit system will become less valuable." One person noted the hard-headedness of many donors: "those that are prepared to give to archives will search out [the] best buy." A similar note of pessimism (or at least pragmatism) can be heard in yet another response: "I think so, but some owners might prefer to have their papers go to the most prestigious location, which [may] be in the U.S. etc." Following from this general consideration of the tax credit system, the next two questions dealt with the number of donations the institution receives as opposed to the number of purchases. The responses were decis-ive; 57.69% of the respondents reported that between 80-100% of their literary collections were acquired through donations, while only 15,38% reported that between 80-100% of these papers were acquired through pur-chases, (see Table 5.1). Clearly, therefore, the market phenomenon has not yet hit Canadian archives with full force. Even the large institutions, including universities and provincial archives, s t i l l acquire most of their literary papers through donations. This situation is undoubtedly due to the presence of the tax credit system; the ability to obtain a tax credit dulls the desire to sell papers, and despite the fact that Canadian literary papers have gained greater prestige, they st i l l do not command the very high prices which many American writers' papers enjoy. 107 TABLE 5.1 Percentage of Donations vs. Percentage of Purchases of Literary Papers in Canadian Repositories % of literary collections Purchases Donations 80-100% *15.38% *57.69% 0-19% *61.5% *15.3% (*% of respondents reporting) The figures reported here generally agree with the percentages given in Question 3 of Section A, in which all those who answered the question re-ported an average percentage of their total acquisitions budget allotted for literary papers as between 0 and 19%. Due to such low budgets for purchases, the institutions surveyed (mostly public institutions designated as "A" repositories under the Cultural Property Act), can therefore offer donors a tax credit, to the donors' apparent benefit. Nevertheless, there are problems with the tax credit system, which appears to be less effective as time goes on and which may ultimately turn out to be a sham. Indeed, this system will likely be less effective as overseas demand for Canadian literary manuscripts increases, a point made by one of the respondents quoted above. An increasing number of Canadian writers are building international reputations. Margaret Laurence, Margaret Atwood, Alice Munro and Mavis Gallant are just some of the writers who have become well-known internationally in varying degrees. Both Alice Munro and Mavis Gallant have had short stories published in The New Yorker. Mavis Gallant lives in Paris and has written many stories about Canadian expatriates in Europe. Perhaps the Archives Nationale or Bibliotheque Nationale in 108 France may one day approach her for her papers. Margaret Laurence's papers may also be in demand overseas, as she lived in England for much of her l i fe while maintaining a residence in Ontario. Such situations are bound to increase in number with respect to other Canadian writers. It has taken Canadians several decades to build an environment in which writers can function and even flourish in Canada. It will take a l i t t le more time for many of these writers to establish truly international reputations, but when that time comes, archivists will want to re-examine the Cultural Property Import/Export Act and recommend other, more appropriate measures to keep our literary heritage in Canada. It may indeed be wise to start examining such measures now. AUTOMATION As we saw in Chapter Two, the advent of computer and word processing technology is already having a profound impact on the types of records authors produce. There are serious implications for the ways in which archivists appraise these records and the ways in which scholars study the creative process, with the loss of variant successive drafts leaving a gap in our understanding of a work's evolution. There are also implications for on-line networking, an issue which the f irst two questions in this section attempted to address. This section also sought information on the kinds of experiences archivists have already had with acquiring computer records and whether they consider i t important for archivists to be knowledgeable about computer technology. Archives have yet to feel the full impact of this technology, but they will sooner or later, as many of the respondents made clear. 109 The first two questions dealt with the desirability and feasibility of having a national on-line literary data-base network. The concomitant of an open market is pooling of information about holdings. In theory such pooling is highly desirable, but there are concerns about its feasibility. The f i rst question asked respondents to agree or disagree with this statement: i"The establishment of a national on-line literary data-base network providing collection-level description will alleviate the problem of sp l i t collections by fac i l i ta t ing access to l i terary archives." Responses were mixed; 21.4% strongly agreed, 32.1% slightly agreed, 32.1% were undecided, 7.1% slightly disagreed and 3.5% strongly disagreed. Another 3.5% marked their choice half-way between 1 (strongly disagree) and 2 (slightly disagree); this respondent said, "Even when researchers know where a collection is - and the ULM is usually sufficient - i t does not simplify access." Others who disagreed did so for similar reasons. Even some of those who agreed added qualifying comments: "While alleviating the problem, obviously i t will be better i f collections are not split in the f irst place." Another questioned the cost and benefit of maintaining a national on-line data-base network: "A non-automated guide at this level will also facilitate the problem." Presumably this respondent was referr-ing to a project like the Union List of Manuscripts. The second question sought respondents' opinions on how soon they thought a national on-line literary data-base network could be established in Canada: 1-5 years; 6-10 years; 11-15 years; 16-20 years; or 21-25 years. Table 5.2 shows the percentage of responses and indicates that the majority of people believe this type of data-base could be established within the next 6 to 15 years, although a sizable number - nearly 20% -110 were more conservative, believing that this will not occur for at least 20 years. This question is admittedly speculative (as one respondent pointed out), requiring respondents to engage in "archival crystal-gazing" in Jean Tener's phrase. 2 9 However, such anticipation is justified because i t can help archivists to prepare for changes brought about by automation. Yet many respondents seem highly pessimistic about the length of time i t will take for these changes to occur. One person who selected 21 to 25 years added "if then," while another said, "I'm afraid archives are not high enough on everyone's priority l i s t to be linked nationally in the foresee-able future." These respondents may consider an on-line network desirable but do not believe that i t is feasible. This pessimism reflects the lack of vision and initiative among some archivists, as well as a certain resistance to the idea of automation. Even some of those who recognize automation as beneficial seem very negative about its ability to work well in reality, pointing out the expense in time and money of maintaining a national on-line network. TABLE 5.2 % of Respondents' Opinions On the establishment of a national on-line literary data-base network in Canada No. of Years from Now % of Respondents 1 - 5 years 9.5% 6 - 1 0 years 33.3% 11 - 15 years 23.8% 16 - 20 years 14.2% 21 - 25 years 19.04% I l l However, the majority of respondents believe that a national on-line data-base network will be established sooner, and indeed the beginnings of such a data-base are already appearing. The Queen's University CANLIT data-base project, begun in 1982, now provides access to nearly 300,000 items in the University's literary collection, and was»developed with a view towards integration into a national network in the future.30 other Canadian repositories such as the University of Calgary have shown interest in the Queen's project and are hoping to obtain a Union List of Manu- scripts description for literary papers as they become part of the data base.31 Respondents were generally agreed on Question 3, which asked them to agree or disagree with the statement, "Automation will profoundly change the way writers write and the kinds of records they produce." Everyone selected either 3, 4 or 5 on the Likert scale; nobody disagreed at a l l . Respondents were fairly evenly dispersed, with 35.7% in strong agreement, 35.7% in slight agreement and 25% undecided. One person marked his choice between 3 and 4, adding somewhat ominously, "The age of the rough draft is over." One respondent who strongly agreed said, "This is profoundly true and I don't think archivists have begun to tackle this one." Others who strongly agreed expressed similar opinions. One person who slightly agreed said, "If you're talking word processing, how they write may change but not what they write. Earliest drafts of literary manuscripts may be lost because of word processors which will eliminate early works. But i t remains to be seen how writers will feel about i t - some may insist on keeping original drafts." Of course i t is true that word processing will not change what writers write. Writers will continue to say whatever they 112 want to say no matter which medium they choose for expressing their ideas - pen and paper, typewriter or personal computer. It is also true that some writers may keep their original drafts in hard-copy form, but there is a growing number of writers who rely on word processing and are gradually moving away from the practice of printing copies of early drafts. S t i l l , as this respondent says, i t remains to be seen what the widespread impact will be. Among those 25% who expressed uncertainty on the matter, one respondent had this to say: "only the successive drafts will be missing - unless the writer is playing to the historical gallery. Only the greatest literature requires successive texts for detailed comparisons." It would be interest-ing to know how this respondent would define "greatest literature." If he means the literature which is perceived to be the greatest by contemporary society, then his comment is valid, and i t is true that some literature is greater than others and will generate more interest from researchers. However, archivists do not necessarily acquire literary manuscripts on the basis of literary merit. An archivist, after a l l , is not a l i terary scholar, although he might consult an expert in this field. Nor is a writer necessarily a literary scholar, although of course many writers consider their own writing to be "great literature" and often approach an archives for acquisition of their papers with this attitude. Some writers may indeed "play to the historical gallery" - compelling phrase! - espec-ially after they become famous, and may keep successive drafts with posterity in mind. In doing so a writer may be unknowingly violating Jenkinson's notions of the impartiality and authenticity of the record,32 altering his or her drafts in order to make them more appealing to future 113 researchers, or destroying letters or diaries which might contain sensitive information about their personal lives. There is nothing wrong with the term "greatest literature," depending on who is calling i t the greatest. Following from this discussion of the types of records authors produce, the next question asked, "The possible loss of the author's variant drafts on-screen will affect the ways in which literary scholars study the creative process." The answers to this question were much more decisive: 46.42% slightly agreed, 39.28% strongly agreed, 10.7% were undecided and only 3.57% slightly disagreed (nobody strongly disagreed). One person marked his choice half-way between 4 and 5 on the Likert scale, saying, "The developmental phase of the creative process will not be available." Among those who slightly agreed or strongly agreed, respondents made such comments as these: "they [scholars] may focus more on the context and less on the process, not a bad change in itself." One respondent who strongly agreed said the loss of variant drafts would affect the study of the creative process "very adversely." The only respondent who disagreed, contstituting the very small 3.57%, said, "this should never happen" - a strange comment which is difficult to interpret. Perhaps this respondent believes that writers will keep their variant or successive drafts even if they use word processors, and that literary scholars will therefore study the creative process the way they always have, by examining and comparing these drafts. However, this is only the merest guess, and i t is clear that this person's opinion was decidedly in the minority. The next question was a two-part question asking respondents about their experiences with acquiring machine-readable l i terary records. Question 5a asked respondents if they had ever received any literary works 114 . in machine-readable format. Nearly everyone - 93.1% - said no, indicating, as we pointed out earlier, that archives have not yet felt the full impact of computer technology. Only 6.89% said yes, they had received such works in machine-readable format. Those who answered yes were then asked how many literary works they had received on computer disk. One respondent did not answer this part of the question; the other reported that they had received only one collection. The second part of Question 5 asked, "Do you expect to acquire literary works in machine-readable format in future?" The majority of respondents, 72%, said yes, while. 28% said no, indicating the growing awareness and anticipation of automation in the archival community. One respondent said his institution expected to receive literary works in machine-readable format "just as we expect to receive other kinds of machine-readable records." Another said, "we will receive those that are produced within our collecting guidelines." One person offered his plans for dealing with these records when they get them: "We would hope to dump onto paper or microfilm." Finally, another respondent said, "Several authors whose papers we collect have acquired word processors. So far, they seem inclined to print out each draft and revise on paper, but this is bound to change as they become familiar with the new technology." The last question in this section was a general question touching on the role of archivists with regard to literary papers. It seemed approp-riate to conclude the questionnaire on this note: "It is important for archivists to keep informed of current computer and word-processing technology so that they can make more intelligent appraisal and acquisition decisions regarding literary papers." Most respondents believed this was 115 true, with 51.85% in slight agreement, 29.62% in strong agreement, 11.1% undecided, 3.7% in slight disagreement and another 3.7% in strong disagree-ment. One respondent who was undecided commented, "This will become increasingly true, but does not seem a vital issue at the moment." Among those who strongly agreed, one respondent added, "not only for the writing, but also for the processes of book production." One person seemed to misinterpret the question: "It is probably more important to acquire an understanding of the author's relative status vis-ai-vis his peers. Whether he's writing on a clay tablet or a floppy disk is far less important than what he's saying." Of course i t is important to consider the writer's status during his/her career as well as the context of his/her works. However, i t is also important to be aware of new technology and the ways in which i t can affect archives. Nevertheless, an archivist cannot be all things to all people, as one respondent pointed out. This respondent's comments are worth quoting in fu l l : [It will be] more important as time goes on. But we cannot try to become computer experts as well as all our other 'hats'. We will have to call on outside expertise at times - this does not offend my sensibilites. It is equivalent to consulting a conservator for professional advice. It is part of the price we pay to live in an increasingly complex and compartmentalized world. Writers themselves are also being encouraged to understand the new technology and what i t can do for their work in order to make the best use of i t . Many writers are already doing this, as we saw in Chapter Two. As more writers become familiar with word processing, archivists will begin to feel more pronounced effects on the types of records authors produce and save, which will in turn affect the ways users study these records. 116 NOTES - CHAPTER FIVE 1. Jean Dryden, "Copyright in Manuscript Sources," Archivaria 1 (Winter 1975-1976):41. 2. Ibid. 3. A.A. Keyes and C. Brunet, Copyright in Canada: Proposals for a Revision of the Law (Ottawa: Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada, 1977),42. 4. Ibid., 15. 5. Ibid. 6. Ibid. 7. The Hon. Judy Erola and the Hon. Francis Fox, From Gutenberg to  Telidon: A White Paper on Copyright (Ottawa: Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada, 1984),39. 8. Ibid. 9. Ibid., 40. 10. Ibid., 43. 11. Ibid. 12. Grace Hyams, Report to the Annual General Meeting of the Association of Canadian Archivists, Hamilton, Ontario, 3 June 1987. 13. Keyes and Brunet, Copyright in Canada, 176. 14. Ibid., 177. 15. Keyes and Brunet, Copyright in Canada, 15. 16. David Walden, "Stretching the Dollar: Monetary Appraisal of Manu-scripts," Archivaria 11 (Winter 1980-81):104. 17. Ibid., 102. 18. National Archival Appraisal Board, Marcel Caya, Chairman, Letter to members, n.d., 1 p. 19. Walden, "Stretching the Dollar: Monetary Appraisal of Manuscripts," 112. 20. Ibid. 117 21. Duncan Ferguson Cameron, An Introduction to the Cultural Property  Export and Import Act (Ottawa: Department of Communications, 1980),35. 22. Ibid. 23. Revenue Canada Taxation, Gifts in Kind (Ottawa: Minister of Supply & Services, 1984),7-8. 24. Marion Beyea, "Cultural Property Import and Export Act," Archives  Bulletin 2:5 (December 1977):13. 25. Ibid., 12. 26. David Walden, "The Tax Credit System: Blessing or Burden?" Archivaria 18 (Summer 1984):88. 27. Ibid. 28. Ibid., 89. 29. Jean Tener, "The Future of Literary Archives." Paper presented at the Association of Canadian Archivists 11th Annual Conference, Winnipeg, Manitoba, 5 June 1986, n.p. 30. Queen's University, Can!it: An SSHRCC-Funded Project to Produce a  Literary Data Base. Third Year Report. September 1, 1984-August 31, 1985. Kingston, Ontario, December 1985. 31. Anne MacDermaid, "Savouring the Heart of the Artichoke: The Queen's University Archives 'Canlit ' Project," American Archivist 49:l(Winter 1986):69. 32. Hilary Jenkinson, A Manual of Archive Administration, 2nd Edition. (London: Percy Lund, Humphries & Co., 1965),12. 118 CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION The high response to the questionnaire has provided considerable in-sight into the ways in which archivists deal with problems they encounter in acquiring literary papers. The most significant findings of the survey concern acquisition jurisdictions, cooperation vs. competition, and the existence of the open market. Of particular importance is the way in which the mandates of the major public archives relate to those of smaller regional archives. To what extent do these varying mandates overlap? With regard to acquiring literary papers, there is extensive overlap due to the general lack of written acquisition policies, the open-market concept, and donor preferences. These problems tend to be more acute for literary papers than for other types of material because of the prestige value of literary papers, but they are nevertheless serious problems which concern archivists in all areas of acquisition. In 1980, the Consultative Group on Canadian Archives reported that "Canadian archives stand at the crossroads of choosing between continued institutional isolation and self-reliance or the deliberate evolution of a coordinated archival system with increased institutional interdependence."1 Seven years later, Canadian archives are s t i l l at the crossroads. The Consultative Group did not expect to see any major changes occur overnight, but nevertheless i t is somewhat depressing to see that Canadian archival repositories have advanced very l i t t le in establishing cooperative network-ing systems. The most important question that archivists need to ask 119 themselves now is this: "Where do we go from here?" Archivists must decide whether they will continue to be isolated in their separate bastions of research or coordinate their efforts through increased communication and cooperation. It is encouraging to see that there are some attempts at inter-institutional cooperation, such as the TRIUL agreement among the three Br i t ish Columbia universit ies and the establishment of the Group of Archivists in the Region of Montreal. The Queen's University literary database project is an example of an automated network which is beginning to branch out to include other repositories. Such endeavours can do a great deal towards alleviating tensions among archivists, but, as the Consultative Group warned, we must not be "sanguine enough to believe tensions will thereby be eliminated."2 Donor preferences will make such elimination impossible. The open-market approach to acquisition, particul-arly concerning literary papers, also prevents the total alleviation of suspicion archivists harbour towards authors and each other. Some people, such as Hugh Dempsey,3 have argued in favour of healthy competition, but i t is clear from responses to the questionnaire that most archivists regard the open market as unhealthy. The open-market approach is deleterious to archival principles because i t so often involves spl i t t -ing up the author's papers and destroying their integrity. It adds unecessary tension to author-archivist negotiations by making each side feel more defensive and suspicious of the other; and i t increases hostility and distrust within the archival and library professions. An open-market system treats archival records as i f they were art i f ic ia l collections, to be broken up and sold at auctions in individual l o t s . 4 Such a system of "free-market entrepreneurship"5 has virtually no benefit to archivists. 120 However, this system can be beneficial to authors. Archivists need to discourage the spread of the open market as much as possible, but i t is difficult to persuade an author of the open market's disadvantages if that author needs money and is offered a high price or a generous tax deduction for his papers. If he is desperate, what else can an author do but treat his papers as a commodity? All too often, this type of situation is beyond the archivist's control. It is highly probable, therefore, that the open-market approach will persist and that many different types of institutions will continue to acquire literary papers. Many respondents to the questionnaire considered university archives and special collections to be most appropriate for acquiring literary papers, but virtually no-one believed i t was possible or desirable to limit this type of acquisition through laws or regulations. It will never be possible to attain full cooperation among all the archival repositories in Canada which house literary papers, with everybody fully respecting one another's jurisdictions and archivists conducting negotiat-ions that are free of complications. Such a scenario could exist only in a perfect world. However, i t i_s possible for archivists to do much more than they have done so far. The existence of an open-market attitude is all the more reason why we need clearly written acquisitions policies and greater inter-institutional cooperation. In addition, archivists need to gain a better understanding of the types of records writers produce, how their records relate to their activities, and the economic concerns which shape wri ters 1 1i ves. The greatest misconception that respondents reveal is their belief that all authors are greedy and egocentric. There are indeed some authors 121 who are "legends in their own minds," as the saying goes, and archivists are fully justified in being wary of them. However, many authors are neither greedy nor egocentric. Their concern for money is often not a result of greed but rather a legitimate desire to protect their financial security, which may be tenuous at best. If archivists endeavour to understand the author's circumstances, they can conduct acquisition negotiations much more smoothly. Fortunately, many respondents do recognize the need for greater cooperation, more systematic policies and better relations with donors. They acknowledge the most significant underlying aspect of this entire issue: the extremely sensitive nature of acquisition negotiations with writers. It is a precarious balancing act between authors and researchers, with archivists in the middle. A number of respondents seem to carry off this balancing act rather well by having clearly-defined acquisitions policies and contracts for the sale and donation of authors' papers. These contracts spell out such issues as literary rights, access restrictions, tax credits (for donations), and the subsequent deposit of the author's future papers. In developing such contracts, these archivists seek to ensure authors' economic rights while at the same time recognizing resear-chers' needs. At an even deeper level, archivists are also responding to Canadian society's recognition of our literary artists. Their works have value and should be preserved so that we may study their creative development and the ways in which authors interact with each other. A nation's literary and artistic heritage reflects the extent of its maturity. It has taken Canada 100 years to be able to sustain a distinctive literature which depicts the 122 Canadian experience; now many Canadian writers are achieving international recognition, with many more ready to join them on the world stage. This study has tried to consider the author's point of view wherever possible, but a large part of the author's perspective is nevertheless missing due to the constraints outlined in Chapter One. It is hoped that future studies will take up where this one leaves off, in order to give a more complete picture of the appraisal and acquisition of literary papers. Writers tend to have complicated attitudes towards their work. For them, writing is not only a way of earning a living but a means of expressing thoughts and feelings which might have no other outlet. For them, writing is not something they do as a hobby after they retire, but a vital part of who they are. Margaret Laurence used to tell "a l i t t le joke about a brain surgeon meeting a novelist. The surgeon says, 'Oh, you're a novelist, eh? When I retire, I plan to take up novel writing.' The novelist replies, 'How interesting. When I retire, I plan to take up brain surgery.' That story asserted Laurence's proud knowledge that writing well is as complex as any enterprise on earth and satirized all those fools who smugly imagine that only a lack of time keeps them from being writers." 6 Archivists can be an immense help to writers by taking writers' work seriously. This does not mean being totally solemn, however. Enthusiasm can work wonders; an author is more likely to trust an archivist who enjoys what he/she is doing and cares about doing i t well. One of the respondents to the questionnaire expressed this attitude best by saying, "with regard to the process of acquiring literary papers, I find that i t is very exciting and usually lots of fun." In spite of all the complications, it is possible for the acquisition of literary papers to be both exciting and fun, a rewarding experience for all concerned. 123 Finally, while archivists should try to educate authors on the role of archives, they would do well to remember Jean Tener's advice: Whatever professional problems archivists identify and however we solve them, we have an obligation to ensure that our activities do not subvert the writer's f irst task, which is to create literature, not archives. If we fail in this, no matter how good our intentions, we will have served the cause of Canadian literature badly.? Archivists have their job to do and authors have theirs. Any attempt to make writers feel self-conscious about what they write would only antag-onize and alienate them even more. Through greater cooperation with authors and with each other, archivists can help to preserve Canada's cultural heritage. Authors and archivists have a symbiotic relationship-one that can ultimately benefit everyone in our society. 124 NOTES - CHAPTER SIX 1. Canadian Archives, 63. 2. Ibid., 89. 3. "Acquisition Policy: Cooperation or Competition?" The Canadian  Archivist 2 (1970):32. 4. Canadian Archives, 90. 5. Ibid. 6. Robert Fulford, "Orphan from Neepawa," Saturday Night 102:5 (May 1987):5. 7. Jean Tener, "Problems of Literary Archives: A Commentary," Archivaria 18 (Summer 1984):231. 125 BIBLIOGRAPHY Atwood, Margaret. Survival: A Thematic Guide to Canadian Literature. Toronto: House of Anansi Press Limited, 1972. Banting, Pamela. "The Archive as a Literary Genre: The Dorothy Livesay Papers." Paper presented at the Association of Canadian Archivists 11th Annual Conference, Winnipeg, Manitoba, 5 June 1986. Bennett, Joy. Eight Irving Layton Notebooks 1968-1972 in the Concordia University Library. Montreal: McGill University Archives, January I97F: Beyea, Marion. "Cultural Property Export and Import Act." Archives  Bulletin, 2:5 (December 1977):12-13. Block, Lawrence. Writing the Novel from Plot to Print. Cincinatti: Writer's Digest Books, 1979. Boles, Paul Darcy. Storycrafting. Cincinatti: Writer's Digest Books, 1984. Burnham, Bonnie, comp. The Protection of Cultural Property: Handbook of  National Legislations" Paris: International Council of Museums, 1974. Cameron, Donald. Conversations with Canadian Novelists, Part One. Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1973. . Conversations with Canadian Novelists, Part Two. Toronto: Macmi1lan of Canada, 1973. Cameron, Duncan Ferguson. An Introduction to the Cultural Property Export  and Import Act. Ottawa: Department of Communications, 1980. Cameron, Elspeth. Irving Layton: A Portrait. Toronto: Stoddart Publish-ing Co. Ltd., 1985. . Hugh MacLennan: A Writer's Life. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981. Canadian Archives: Report to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research  Council of Canada by the Consultative Group on Canadian Archives. Ottawa: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, 1980. Carpenter, Humphrey, ed. The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1981. Caya, Marcel, David Leonard and Gilles Heon. Directory of Canadian  Archives. 2nd Ed. Ottawa: Bureau of Canadian Archivists, 1986. 126 Cowly, Malcolm, ed. Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews, First  Series. New York: Penguin Books, 1957. Cronenwatt, Philip N. "Appraisal of Literary Manuscripts," in Archival  Choices: Managing the Historical Record in an Age of Abundance, ed. Nancy E. Peace. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath & Co., 1984:105-116. Crowther, Prudence, ed. Don't Tread on Me: The Selected Letters of S.J.  Perelman. New York: Viking Penguin Inc., 1987. Dryden, Jean. "Copyright in Manuscript Sources." Archivaria 1:1 (Winter 1975-1976):39-47. Eastwood, Terry. "Attempts at National Planning for Archives in Canada." The Public Historian 8:3 (Summer 1986):74-91. "The Principled Basis for Acquisition of Archives." Unpublished paper presented at a meeting of the Association of British Columbia Archivists, Nanaimo, B.C., 4 November 1983, 16 p. Edel, Leon. Writing Lives: Principia Biographica. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1987: Erola, Judy, and Francis Fox, From Gutenberg to Telidon: A White Paper on  Copyright. Proposals for the Revision of the Canadian Copyright Act. Ottawa: Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada, 1984. Fluegelman, Andrew and Jeremy Joan Hewes. Writing in the Computer Age:  Word Processing Skills and Style for Every Writer. New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1983. Fulford, Robert. "Orphan from Neepawa." Saturday Night 102:5 (May 1987): 5-6. Garay, K.E. "Access and Copyright in Literary Collections." Archivaria 18 (Summer 1984):220-227. Gordon, Robert S. "The Protocol of S.N.A.P. Demarcation of Acquisition Fields." The Canadian Archivist 2:4 (1973):48-54. Gordon, Robert S . , Director. Union List of Manuscripts in Canadian Repositories. Revised Edition^ Ottawa: Public Archives of Canada, 1975. 2 v. Group of Archivists of the Region of Montreal. Protect our Heritage, n.d., n.p. Hal l , Kathy. "Archival Acquisitions: Legal Mandates and Methods." Archivaria 18 (Summer 1984):58-69. Ham, F. Gerald. "The Archival Edge," in A Modern Archives Reader: Basic  Readings in Archival Theory and Practice, ed. Maygene F. Daniels and Timothy Walch. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service, U.S. General Services Administration, 1984,326-335. 127 H i l l , Robert W. "Literary, Artistic and Musical Manuscripts," Library  Trends 5:3 (January 1957):322-329. Hodgins, Jack. The Resurrection of Joseph Bourne: Or A Word or Two on  Those Port Annie Miracles! Scarborough, Ontario: Signet Books, 1979. Hyams, Grace. "A Defense of the A.C.A. Copyright Committee." Archivaria 12 (Summer 1981):157-160. . "Limitations to Use: The Problem of Access to Private Manuscripts," Archivaria 23 (Winter 1986-87):175-178. . Report to the Annual General Meeting of the Association of Canadian Archivists, Hamilton, Ontario, 3 June 1987. Jenkinson, Hilary. A Manual of Archive Administration. 2nd Ed. London: Percy Lund, Humphries and Co. Ltd., 1965. . "Reflections of an Archivist," in A Modern Archives Reader: Basic Readings on Archival Theory and Practice, ed. Maygene F. Daniels and Timothy Walch. Washington, D.C: National Archives and Records Service, U.S. General Services Administration, 1984,15-21. Kane, Lucile M. A Guide to the Care and•Administrati on of Manuscripts. 2nd Edition. Nashville: American Association for State and Local History, 1966. Kemp, Edward C Manuscript Solicitation for Libraries, Special Collect-ions, Museums and Archives. Littleton, Colorado: Libraries Unlimited, 19W. Keon, Jim. "The Canadian Archivist and Copyright Legislation." Archivaria 18 (Summer 1984):91-98. Keyes, A.A., and C Brunet. Copyright in Canada: Proposals for a Revision  of the Law. Ottawa: Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada, 1977. Lamb, W.Kaye, and B. Weilbrenner, D. McOuat, A.R. Turner, H.A. Dempsey, J.H. Archer, J .C.L. Andreassen. "Acquisition Policy: Competition or Cooperation?" The Canadian Archivist 2 (1970):21-42. Larkin, Philip. "A Neglected Responsibility: Contemporary Literary Manuscripts." Encounter (July 1979):33-41. Madden, David, and Richard Powers. Writers' Revisions: An Annotated  Bibliography of Articles and Books About Writers' Revisions and their  Comments on the Creative Process! Metuchen, New Jersey: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1981. Martz, David J . , Jr. "Manuscripts as Literary Property: Everybody's Problem." Manuscripts 29:1 (Winter 1977):23-27. 128 MacDermaid, Anne, and George F. Henderson, eds. A Guide to the Holdings of  Queen's University Archives. 2nd Ed. Kingston, Ontario: Queen's University, 1986. MacDermaid, Anne. "Savouring the Heart of the Artichoke: The Queen's University Archives 'Canlit' Project." American Archivist 49:1 (Winter 1986):65-73. McCree, Mary Lynn. "Good Sense and Good Judgement: Defining Collections and Collecting." A Modern Archives Reader, ed. Maygene F. Daniels and Timothy Walch. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service, U.S. General Services Administration, 1984,103-113. (V McFarlane, David. "Writer in Residence." Saturday Night 101:12 (December 1986):51-54. National Archival Appraisal Board, Marcel Caya, Chairman. Letter to members, n.d., 1 p. National Library of Canada. The Future of the National Library of Canada. Ottawa: National Library of Canada, 1979. . "Literary Manuscripts Acquisition Policy," 18 February 1986, 2. Nelson, Victoria. Writer's Block and How to Use It. Cincinatti: Writer's Digest Books, 19<W. Olsen, T i l l i e . Silences. New York: Delacorte Press/Seymour Lawrence, 1978. Plimpton, George, ed. Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews,  Second Series. New YoTkl Penguin Books, 1977. . Writers at Work: The Paris Review Interviews, Fourth Series. New York! Penguin Books, 1977. Public Archives of Canada. Archives: Mirror of Canada Past. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1972. Queen's University. Canl it: An SSHRCC-Funded Project to Produce a  Literary Data Base. Third Year Report. September 1, 1984-August 31,  1985. Kingston, Ontario, December 1985. Queen's University Archives. "Operating Mandate," 20 May 1986, n.p. Rambusch, Sigurd. "Should Archives of Literature and Art be Established as Separate Institutions?" Archivum 24 (1974):272. Revenue Canada Taxation. Gifts in Kind. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, 1984. Robbins, Albert, ed. American Literary Manuscripts. 2nd Ed. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1977. 129 Rubio, Mary, and Elizabeth Waterston, eds. The Selected Journals of L.M.  Montgomery, Vol. 1; 1889-1910. Toronto! Oxford University Press, I9~E5T Santoro, Corrado. "Limitations to the Access or Use of Literary Collect-ions." Unpublished paper presented at the Association of Canadian Archivists 11th Annual Conference, Winnipeg, Manitoba, 5 June 1986. Seton, Rosemary E. The Preservation and Administration of Private  Archives: A RAMP Study. Paris: UNESCO, 1984. Silver, Brenda R. Virginia Woolf's Reading Notebooks. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1983. Simon Fraser University Archives. "Contemporary Literature Collection." 4 February 1987, 1 p. Skelton, Robin. "The Acquisition of Literary Archives." Archivaria 18 (Summer 1984):214-219. . Authors and Archives: A Short Guide. Toronto: Writers' Union of Canada, 1979. Sweeney, Shelley. "Layton Papers Copyright Controversy." ACA Bulletin 10:3 (January 1986):n.p. Tener, Jean. "Accessibility and Archives." Archivaria 6 (Summer 1978): 16-31. . "The Future of Literary Archives." Unpublished paper presented at the Association of Canadian Archivists 11th Annual Conference, Winnipeg, Manitoba, 5 June 1986. . "Problems of Literary Archives: A Commentary." Archivaria 18 (Summer 1984):228-231. Tener, Jean, and Apollonia Steele, eds. The Alice Munro Papers, First  Accession: An Inventory of the Archive at the University of Calgary  Libraries" University of Calgary Press, 1986. . The Hugh MacLennan Papers: An Inventory of the Archive at the University of Calgary Libraries. University of Calgary Press, 1986. Thorpe, James. The Use of Manuscripts in Literary Research: Problems of  Access and Literary Property Rights. New York: Modern Language Association of America, 1974. Toye, William, gen. ed. The Oxford Companion to Canadian Literature. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1983. TRI University Libraries of British Columbia. Minutes of 7th Annual Conference, Parksville, B.C., 15-16 November 1973. 130 TRI University Libraries of British Columbia. Minutes of 8th Annual Conference, Parksville, B.C., 25-26 April 1974. TRI University Libraries Collections Task Force Report, April 1971. Turner, Alberta T. , ed. Fifty Contemporary Poets: The Creative Process. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1977. Twigg, Alan. For Openers: Conversations with 24 Canadian Writers. Madiera Park, B.C.: Harbour Publishing, 1981. University of British Columbia. "The Acquisition of Manuscript Collect-ions: UBC Archival Collections Policy." n.d., 1 p. University of Calgary Library, Special Collections Division. "Manuscript Collection Development Policy." January 1987, 1 p. University of Victoria Library. "Collections Policy, 1987/88." Walden, David. "Stretching the Dollar: Monetary Appraisal of Manu-scripts. Archivaria 11 (Winter 1980-1981):101-113. Walden, David. "The Tax Credit System: Blessing or Burden?" Archivaria 18 (Summer 1984):84-90. Whiteman, Bruce, comp. "The Archive of the Macmillan Company of Canada Ltd., Part I, 1905-1965." Library Research News, McMaster University, 8:1 (Spring 1984), 97 p. Whiteman, Bruce, comp. "The Raymond Knister Papers." Library Research  News, McMaster University, 5:3 (December 1981), 56 p. Wilson,. Ian, Chair. Report of the Advisory Committee on Archives. Ottawa: Information Division, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, 1985. Wilson, Ian E. "Canadian University Archives." Archivaria 3 (Winter 1976-1977):17-27. "A Conspirator Replies." Archivaria 6 (Summer 1978): 184-188. Woolf, Leonard, ed. A Writer's Diary: Being Extracts from the Diary of  Virginia Woolf. London: Triad Grafton Books, 1985. APPENDIX A INSTITUTIONS SURVEYED National Archives of Canada National Library of Canada Provincial Archives of British Columbia Provincial Archives of Alberta Saskatchewan Archives Board Provincial Archives of Manitoba Provincial Archives of Ontario Provincial Archives of New Brunswick Public Archives of Nova Scotia Provincial Archives of Prince Edward Island Provincial Archives of Newfoundland and Labrador University of Victoria, McPherson Library Collections University of British Columbia Special Collections Simon Fraser University University of Alberta, Bruce Peel Special Collections Library University of Calgary Special Collections University of Manitoba, Dept. of Archives and Special Collections McMaster University, Division of Archives and Research Collections Queen's University Archives University of Guelph Library-Archival Collections University of Waterloo Archives University of Toronto, Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library APPENDIX A cont'd. Victoria University Archives (University of Toronto) McGill University Archives Concordia University Archives University of New Brunswick, Harriet Irving Library, Archives and Spec Collections Department Memorial University, Centre for Newfoundland Studies Canadian Jewish Congress, Montreal Stephen Leacock Memorial Home, Or i l l ia , Ontario APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE THE ACQUISITION OF LITERARY PAPERS IN CANADA 134 QUESTIONNAIRE For purposes of t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e , l i t e r a r y papers are defined as the o r i g i n a l , unpublished works of a f i c t i o n or n o n - f i c t i o n w r i t e r and any m a t e r i a l s t h a t document the e v o l u t i o n of that w r i t e r ' s c r e a t i v e l i f e . Such m a t e r i a l includes d r a f t s , note-books, j o u r n a l s , g a l l e y p r o o f s , annotated copies of published works, research notes, o r i g i n a l source m a t e r i a l , correspondence, l e g a l and f i n a n c i a l documents, inte r v i e w s with, the author and book reviews, and may be i n many d i f f e r e n t formats, such as t y p e s c r i p t s , computer tape or cass e t t e tape. Please answer a l l q uestions. Space i s provided at the end of t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r your own comments about the t o p i c of a c q u i r i n g l i t e r a r y papers or about the qu e s t i o n n a i r e i t s e l f . SECTION A - A c q u i s i t i o n P o l i c i e s 1. Do you have a w r i t t e n c o l l e c t i o n s p o l i c y regarding l i t e r a r y papers? Yes Q No If yes, please attach a copy and answer Question 2. If no, do you plan to develop such a p o l i c y i n the near f u t u r e ? Yes 1 | No | [ Comments: 2. Is the a c q u i s i t i o n of l i t e r a r y papers a major focus of your i n s t i t u t i o n ' s o v e r a l l a c q u i s i t i o n p o l i c y ? Yes • No • Comments: 3. On average, what percentage of your i n s t i t u t i o n ' s a c q u i s i t i o n s budget i s a l l o t t e d f o r a c q u i r i n g l i t e r a r y papers? a. 0 - 19% b. 20 - 39% c. 40 - 59% d. 60 - 79% e. 80 - 100% 135 4. How appropriate do you consider the f o l l o w i n g types of i n s t i t u t i o n s f o r c o l l e c t i n g l i t e r a r y papers? ( c i r c l e one f o r each category) not appropriate low high a. U n i v e r s i t y a r c h i v e s / S p e c i a l c o l l e c t i o n s 0 1 2 3 4 5 b. Rare book and manuscript l i b r a r i e s 0 1 2 3 4 5 c. P u b l i c Archives of Canada 0 1 2 3 4 5 d. National L i b r a r y 0 1 2 3 4 5 e. P r o v i n c i a l Archives 0 1 2 3 4 5 f. Local archives 0 1 2 3 4 5 g. Thematic l i t e r a r y archives 0 1 2 3 4 5 Comments: 5. The a c q u i s i t i o n of l i t e r a r y papers i n Canada should be l i m i t e d to c e r t a i n types of i n s t i t u t i o n s . s t r o n g l y , , , , , s t r o n g l y disagree j | ^ J £ agree Comments: 6. I t does not matter where l i t e r a r y papers are kept as long as there i s an a r c h i v i s t looking a f t e r them. s t r o n g l y , , , , . s t r o n g l y disagree j | ]j J ^ agree Comments: 136 7. Have you encountered competition from other r e p o s i t o r i e s f o r an author's papers? Yes • No • If yes, how d i d you deal with the s i t u a t i o n ? Do you th i n k t h i s type of competition i s a problem g e n e r a l l y with regard to a c q u i r i n g l i t e r a r y papers? Yes • No • Comments: 8. Have you encountered competition f o r authors' papers from p r i v a t e c o l l e c t o r s ? Yes • No • If yes, how d i d you deal with the s i t u a t i o n ? Do you consider t h i s type of competition a se r i o u s problem f o r a r c h i v i s t s and c u r a t o r s seeking t o acquire l i t e r a r y papers? Yes • No • Comments: 137 9. Generally, at what point in a wr i t e r ' s career do you prefer to acquire h is /her papers? (please check one) a. when he/she has recently appeared on the l i t e r a ry scene. b. when he/she is well-establ ished and s t i l l ac t ive ly w r i t i n g . c . when he/she is well-establ ished but no longer a c t i v e l y - w r i t i n g . d. after he/she has died. Comments: 10. As a general ru le , would you accept the papers of an author who was born in another country? Yes • No • As a general ru le , do you think a rch iv i s t s should accept such papers? Yes • No • Comments: 138 SECTION B - S p e c i a l Issues/Problems A f f e c t i n g A c q u i s i t i o n  I - C o p y r i g h t / L i t e r a r y Rights 1. How o f t e n do you ask donors to t r a n s f e r l i t e r a r y r i g h t s to your r e p o s i t o r y ? (please check one) a. always b. f r e q u e n t l y c. sometimes d. seldom e. never Comments: 2. Do you have a w r i t t e n p o l i c y regarding the deposit i n your r e p o s i t o r y of other people's l e t t e r s as part of an author's c o l l e c t i o n ? Yes • No • If yes, please attach a copy. Comments: ' A r c h i v i s t s are the gre a t e s t v i o l a t o r s of copyri g h t i n the country" (A.A. Keyes} s t r o n g l y , , , __, , s t r o n g l y disagree j | | J ^ agree Comments: 4. A r c h i v i s t s should f o l l o w copyright laws to the l e t t e r and make no exceptions f o r anybody. s t r o n g l y , , , , , s t r o n g l y disagree I I I t I agree Comments: 139 SECTION B Cont'd. II - Monetary A p p r a i s a l 1. As a matter of p r i n c i p l e , do you t h i n k a l l monetary a p p r a i s a l s over a c e r t a i n amount (eg. $1,000) should be done by t h i r d p a r t i e s ? Yes • No • Comments: 2. How of t e n do you use appraisers from the National A r c h i v a l A p p r a i s a l Board (NAAB) when conducting a monetary a p p r a i s a l of l i t e r a r y manuscripts? (please check one) a. always b. f r e q u e n t l y c. sometimes d. seldom e. never 3. I f you answered "sometimes", "seldom" or "never" to Question 2, whom do you c o n s u l t f o r monetary a p p r a i s a l s ? a. b o o k s e l l e r s b. agents c. other (please s p e c i f y ) Comments: 140 SECTION B Cont'd.  I l l - Tax C r e d i t s 1. The tax c r e d i t system e f f e c t i v e l y deters export of archives from Canada. s t r o n g l y . , , , , s t r o n g l y disagree j + t t ^ agree Comments: 2. What percentage of your l i t e r a r y c o l l e c t i o n s are acquired through donations? (please check one) a. 0 - 19% b. 20 - 39% c. 40 - 59% d. 60 - 79% e. 80 - 100% Comments: 3. What percentage of your l i t e r a r y c o l l e c t i o n s are acquired through purchases? (please check one) a. 0 - 19% b. 20 - 39% c. 40 - 59% d. 60 - 79% e. 80 - 100% Comments 141 SECTION B Cont'd.  IV - Automation 1. The establishment of a n a t i o n a l o n - l i n e l i t e r a r y data-base network p r o v i d i n g c o l l e c t i o n - l e v e l d e s c r i p t i o n w i l l a l l e v i a t e the problem of s p l i t c o l l e c t i o n s by f a c i l i t a t i n g access to l i t e r a r y a r c h i v e s . s t r o n g l y disagree Comments: 2. The establishment of a n a t i o n a l o n - l i n e l i t e r a r y data-base network w i l l occur w i t h i n : (check one) a. 1 - 5 years b. 6 - 1 0 years c. 1 1 - 1 5 years d. 1 6 - 2 0 years e. 21 - 25 years Comments: j s t r o n g l y ~jl agree 3. Automation w i l l profoundly change the way w r i t e r s w r i t e and the kinds of records they produce. s t r o n g l y , , , , , s t r o n g l y disagree . I t I I agree Comments: 142 SECTION B Cont'd., IV - Automation Cont'd. 4. The p o s s i b l e loss of the author's v a r i a n t d r a f t s on-screen w i l l a f f e c t the ways i n which l i t e r a r y s c h o l a r s study the c r e a t i v e process. s t r o n g l y , , , , .st r o n g l y disagree 1 £ | J jUgree Comments: 5. Have you received any l i t e r a r y works i n machine-readable format? Yes • No • If yes, how many (approximately)? Do you expect to acquire l i t e r a r y works i n machine-readable format i n f u t u r e ? Yes • No • Comments: 6. I t i s important f o r a r c h i v i s t s to keep informed.of c u r r e n t computer and word-processing technology so t h a t they can make more i n t e l l i g e n t a p p r a i s a l and a c q u i s i t i o n d e c i s i o n s regarding l i t e r a r y papers. s t r o n g l y , , . , , s t r o n g l y disagree 1 | ^ J £ agree Comments: 143 SECTION C - General Comments Please f e e l f r e e to make any comments you wish about the t o p i c of a c q u i r i n g l i t e r a r y papers or about the q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t s e l f . Please r e t u r n the completed q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n the enclosed stamped, self-addressed envelope t o : Anne Maclean U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia School of L i b r a r y , A r c h i v a l and Information Studies 


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items