56 College & Research Libraries January 2004

Reviews of Independent Press Books in Counterpoise and Other Publications

Juris Dilevko and Keren Dali

Although Counterpoise claims that it reviews books that are reviewed by other publications either infrequently or not at all, almost three-quarters of the books (74.7%) reviewed by Counterpoise are reviewed by a wide variety of other publications, including popular magazines and newspa­ pers. Four core library review tools (Booklist, Choice, Library Journal, and Publishers Weekly) review 48.2 percent of all book titles reviewed by Counterpoise, and their reviews are favorable 74.4 percent of the time. Of the books not reviewed anywhere else except Counterpoise, more than half fall into six Library of Congress classification categories, including E (History: America), HQ (The family. Marriage. Women), HV (Social pathology. Social and public welfare. Criminology), and HD (In­ dustries. Land use. Labor). In addition, there is a subset of titles that are frequently and positively reviewed by popular and academic publica­ tions, but not by reviewing journals commonly used by librarians.

ithin the field of librarianship, sees its mission as providing a counter­ Counterpoise claims to serve a balance to mainstream and corporate unique purpose. Founded in media outlets. As Willett comments in the 1997 by Charles Willett, it Editor’s Notes of the inaugural issue of prides itself on being “the only review Counterpoise, one of the journal’s found­ journal that makes alternative points of ing premises is, “If we castigate the New view widely accessible to librarians, York Times for its news bias, why trust its scholars and activists.”1 An outgrowth of book reviews? And what about main­ the Social Responsibilities Round Table stream library journals—aren’t they wed­ (SRRT) of the ALA, then briefly a part of ded to profit, fame and privilege…. Re­ CRISES Press (owned by Willett), and view journals, aping commerce and currently a venture of the Civic Media government, have chosen money as their Center, a nonprofit alternative library in first variable.”4 As a result, mainstream Gainesville, Florida, Counterpoise pub­ journals and newspapers have a tendency lishes, among other items, “original es­ to review materials that are produced by says; comparative review articles; and large, corporate-controlled publishers many careful reviews of books, periodi­ who have significant marketing and ad­ cals and non-print materials overlooked vertising budgets. Such mainstream ven­ by other review journals.”2,3 As such, it ues may not necessarily present “alterna-

Juris Dilevko and Keren Dali are members of the Faculty of Information Studies at the University of Toronto; e-mail: [email protected] and [email protected].

56 Reviews of Independent Press Books in Counterpoise and Other Publications 57 tive points of view encouraging social re­ their grassroots organizations.”10 Given sponsibility, liberty and dissent, as af­ this background, Counterpoise “describes, firmed by the Universal Declaration of criticizes, defends and promotes these [al­ Human Rights, The Bill of Rights of the ternative] publications and products U.S. Constitution, the Library Bill of against this bias,”11 that is, the bias of be­ Rights, the Talloires Declaration (aca­ ing overlooked by mainstream reviewing demic environmental stewardship), the publications. And, as Willett suggests at Valdez Principles (corporate environmen­ the conclusion of his editorial, fighting tal responsibility), and related docu­ against the bias of “money-oriented, ments.”5 In fact, because “six media con­ mainstream review journals” is a never- glomerates and the public relations ending “struggle” that calls for a steady industry—operating in close association infusion of monetary resources.12 with corporations, governments and uni­ versities—control the production and dis­ Literature Review semination of most mainstream informa­ The mere existence of a publication such tion and entertainment, concerned as Counterpoise testifies to the lively de­ librarians, educators and activists around bate within librarianship about the effi­ the world look to Counterpoise for access cacy of reviewing tools, especially with to materials and ideas that liberate the regard to what Willett identifies as the mind and defend democracy, peace, so­ alternative press. The explosive growth cial justice, and the environment.”6 This of small presses (or alternative presses) is especially true because “[w]hat distin­ in the 1960s and 1970s caused the library guishes Counterpoise from review journals community to ask itself hard questions that just mirror the global, profit-oriented, about the degree to which publications of capitalist culture is its concern for posi­ these small presses (or alternative presses) tive social change; what distinguishes it were being collected by libraries. The from other alternative journals is the views of scholars such as Ross Atkinson, breadth, depth and reliability of its cov­ who noted that a novel reviewed on the erage.”7 front page of the New York Times Book Re­ Invoking the names of Howard Zinn, view would be purchased by libraries “re­ author of A People’s History of the United gardless of who wrote the novel, where States, and Edward Herman, author of an it was published, what it is about, or even essay entitled “Toward a Democratic what the review says about it”13 and that Media” and coauthor with Noam academic titles reviewed in core journals Chomsky of Manufacturing Consent: The will invariably be acquired, led others to Political Economy of the Mass Media, Willett ponder the responsibility of libraries in suggests that for-profit media follow an collecting small press titles that may not agenda that perpetuates historical bias by be reviewed at all, let alone in core jour­ telling stories from the point of view of nals. victors, not victims. On the other hand, In 1984, Judith Serebnick and John the ideas and publications of the alterna­ Cullars observed that 47.2 percent of tive press are “often ignored, misrepre­ small press titles published in 1980 re­ sented or suppressed by corporate and ceived at least one review, with ten jour­ government media,”8 despite the fact that, nals publishing 54.3 percent of those re­ taken collectively, the alternative press is views.14 In 1992, Serebnick reported that, “an enormous body of books, pamphlets, of 450 small press titles published in 1986, magazines, zines, and audiovisual and only 38.9 percent received at least one re­ electronic materials presenting socially view and only twelve titles received six responsible knowledge, points of view or more reviews each.15 As in her earlier and choices.”9 In short, the alternative study, a small number of journals (14) press is “a democratic media organized accounted for a majority of all reviews and controlled by ordinary citizens and (53.4%).16 Journals most frequently re­ 58 College & Research Libraries January 2004 viewing small press titles were Booklist, stream or corporate publishers. Michael Choice, Library Journal, and Publishers Albert agrees with this formulation, not­ Weekly, each with more than twenty re­ ing that “an alternative media institution views of such titles.17 In 2000, Juris (to the extent possible given its circum­ Dilevko and Alison Hayman demon­ stances) doesn’t try to maximize profits, strated that both Library Journal and the doesn’t primarily sell audience to adver­ New York Times Book Review consistently tisers for revenues (and so seeks broad reviewed independently published fic­ and non-elite audience), is structured to tion titles “at a rate of between 30% and subvert society’s defining hierarchical 40% of all fiction titles” reviewed by each social relationships, and is structurally publication in 1994–1997 (Library Journal, profoundly different from and as inde­ 35.3%; New York Times Book Review, pendent of other major social institutions, 37.2%).18 These two publications therefore particularly corporations, as it can be.”23 reviewed corporately published books at Of course, “society’s defining hierarchi­ a rate of 64.7 percent and 62.8 percent, re­ cal social relationships” can be subverted spectively, of all published books—a per­ from both the left wing and the right wing centage that “quite closely parallels the and thus, from a political, social, or cul­ market share of the seven corporate pub­ tural perspective, the independent or al­ lishers (66.2% in 1997), according to fig­ ternative press can be either leftist (some­ ures supplied by Book Publishing Report.”19 times called progressive) or rightist. Given the fact that the presence or absence Notwithstanding discussions about of reviews of small press titles is positively the intricacies of terminology, Counter­ related to the number of libraries owning poise has effectively positioned itself as such titles,20 much energy has been de­ one of the few champions of oppressed voted to making publications of all types and neglected voices paying concerted more cognizant of small presses and thus attention to publications produced, in more amenable to reviewing the books general, by the “progressive or leftist” produced by them. Nevertheless, believ­ alternative (or independent) press.24 Col­ ing that these efforts were insufficient, lection development librarians in many Willett founded Counterpoise in 1997. universities and colleges in the United States and Canada, convinced that Coun­ Purpose terpoise reviews materials that are rarely Before outlining the purpose of this ar­ reviewed elsewhere, subscribe to Coun­ ticle, a word needs to be said about the terpoise so that they can keep up with use of the terms “small press” or “alter­ these kinds of alternative publications.25 native press.” First, the very concept of However, is it really the case that other small press is problematic because it has publications do not review the titles re­ undergone a major transformation from viewed by Counterpoise and that titles the BC era (“before personal computers” published by leftist or progressive alter­ or “prior to 1980”) to the beginning of the native presses are overlooked, ignored, twenty-first century.21 Indeed, the evolu­ misrepresented, or suppressed by such tion has been such that Tom Person sug­ “money-oriented” media as Library Jour­ gests replacing “small press” with the nal, Publishers Weekly, the New York Times, more pragmatic term “independent pub­ and others? The purpose of the present lishing” or “independent press,” which article is to examine these issues in detail he defines as “a company that does not through the following six research ques­ belong to another company or corpora­ tions: tion.”22 From this point of view, then, the 1. How many of the titles reviewed in terms “small press,” “independent Counterpoise were reviewed at least once press,” and “alternative press” are syn­ in another publication? onymous because these presses produce 2. Which types of publications (i.e., titles that present an alternative to main­ library review journals, academic jour­ Reviews of Independent Press Books in Counterpoise and Other Publications 59 nals, newspapers, magazines, etc.) re­ rate sections that review reference titles, viewed Counterpoise-reviewed titles, and magazines, pamphlets, zines, comics, and how often did they do so? audiovisual materials, but the present 3. What was the general tone (i.e., fa­ study did not include these titles.26 Be­ vorable, mixed, unfavorable, etc.) of the tween 1997 and 2000, the Book Reviews reviews of Counterpoise-reviewed titles section of Counterpoise consisted of 434 that appeared in publications other than unique titles (453 total titles minus 19 du­ Counterpoise? plicates). Identifying information (title, 4. Can any patterns be detected with author/editor, publisher, place of publi­ regard to the subject matter of titles that cation, year of publication, etc.) about are reviewed in Counterpoise, but not re­ each of those 434 titles was entered into viewed in other publications? an Excel spreadsheet. A unique identify­ 5. Can any patterns be detected with ing code was assigned to each title (e.g., regard to the Counterpoise-reviewed titles A46, B78, C159, D231). To track the sub­ that also are frequently reviewed in popu­ ject matter of titles, the researchers also lar and academic publications but are not recorded subject headings and the broad reviewed in review publications com­ Library of Congress (LC) classification monly used by library professionals? number assigned to the titles listed in 6. Can any patterns be detected with tables 7 through 10 below, as found in the regard to the book titles that are reviewed Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) in Counterpoise and also received frequent WorldCat database. reviews in other publications? Then, using the ProQuest database, the If the claims made by Counterpoise are researchers searched for the presence of valid, namely, that other publications book reviews for each of the 434 titles in typically do not review the types of titles the thousands of publications indexed by that it reviews, a case can be made for the ProQuest. From the “Search Methods” utility, even the vital necessity, of public menu, the researchers chose “Guided and academic librarians using Counter­ Search”; article type was set as “book re­ poise on a regular basis. Conversely, if view.” Both current and back file data­ other reviewing tools commonly used by bases were searched. Retrieved hits were librarians are reviewing the same mate­ scanned for relevancy (i.e., the research­ rial that Counterpoise claims as its exclu­ ers ensured that the retrieved review did, sive purview, the claims made by Coun­ in fact, review the title in question) and terpoise about its singular mission should marked, if relevant. “Marked list & du­ be revisited and the willingness of other rable links” from “Results & Marked List” media to review books published by (pro­ was displayed. Using the “Export Cita­ gressive) independent (or alternative, or tions” feature of ProQuest, complete bib­ small) presses should be acknowledged. liographical information about each rel­ evant review was exported to the biblio­ Procedures graphic software package EndNote and All titles reviewed in the Book Reviews subsequently transferred to an Excel section of Counterpoise for the four-year spreadsheet. period 1997–2000 formed the basis of this In addition to the necessary identify­ study. That is, the researchers worked ing information, the following fields were from the list of books that Counterpoise created for each review: source title; pub­ editors had chosen to include in their lication type; and review type. The pub­ Book Reviews section; the assumption lication type of each review was catego­ here is that, by their very presence in rized as follows: Counterpoise, those titles present the kind A. core library reviewing journals of alternative viewpoints that mark them (Booklist, Choice, Library Journal, and Pub­ as the types of titles published by alter­ lishers Weekly); native presses. Counterpoise also has sepa­ B. other reviewing publications com­ 60 College & Research Libraries January 2004 monly used by librarians (e.g., New York the classification of reviews provided by Times Book Review, Women’s Review of ProQuest: favorable, unfavorable, mixed, Books, Times Literary Supplement, World comparative, and rating not present.27 The Literature Today, etc.); categories of “comparative” and “not C. newspapers and large-circulation present” were combined to form a cat­ popular magazines (e.g., Chicago Tribune, egory of “not rated.” All spreadsheets and Los Angeles Times, The Nation, Village Voice, databases were linked and queried by Washington Post, etc.); means of the unique identification code D. consumer magazines and trade assigned each Counterpoise-reviewed title. publications as identified by the 2002 All procedures were carried out in Janu­ online version of Ulrich’s Periodicals Di­ ary–February 2003. rectory; This study method thus differs slightly E. academic/scholarly publications as from the work of Serebnick mentioned identified by the 2002 online version of above. She and her colleagues chose ran­ Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory. dom book titles from the Small Press In reporting data below, category A Record of Books in Print and then deter­ was occasionally split into two subcatego­ mined the extent to which those titles ries. Publishers Weekly (category A-1) was were reviewed in book review indexes, place in one subcategory, and Booklist, whereas the researchers of this study be­ Choice, and Library Journal (category A-2) gan with book titles that already had been were placed in the other subcategory. In reviewed by Counterpoise in order to gen­ addition, categories A and B were some­ erate a list of independent press titles for times combined to form a supercategory which the researchers subsequently de­ that could be thought of as professional termined the presence or absence of re­ reviewing tools and categories C and D views in a variety of other publications. were sometimes combined into a supercategory that could be thought of as Results popular publications. Finally, categories Rusber and Frequency of Reviews in A and B sometimes were juxtaposed with Nther eublications categories C, D, and E to make the dis­ Of the 434 unique book titles reviewed in tinction between, on the one hand, pro­ Counterpoise between 1997 and 2000, 324 fessional reviewing tools and, on the (74.7%) generated at least one other book other, publications (both popular and aca­ review in a publication indexed by demic) that were not primarily review ProQuest (first research question). More oriented. Review type was derived from specifically, 249 Counterpoise-reviewed

TABLE 1 Book Titles Reviewed and Not Reviewed by Professional Reviewing Tools (Category A and B Publications) That Were Reviewed by Academic and Popular Publications (Category C, D, and E Publications)

Number of Reviews in Category C, D, and E Publications One (%) Two (%) Three or more (%) Total Not reviewed in category A and B publications 39 (40.6)* 19 (38.8) 17 (18.3) 75 (31.5) Reviewed in category A and B publications 57 (59.3)* 30 (61.2) 76 (81.7) 163 (68.5) Totals 96 (100) 49 (100) 93 (100) 238 (100)

* Percentages in this column do not add to 100 because of rounding. Reviews of Independent Press Books in Counterpoise and Other Publications 61

reviewing tools (category A publications TABLE 2 alone) did not review 115 publications

Number of Reviews in Other that were reviewed by category B, C, D, Publications of Book Titles and E publications. Generally speaking, Reviewed in Counterpoise however, the more reviews that a Coun­ terpoise-reviewed title received in cat­

Number of Number of egory C, D, and E publications, the

Book Reviews Titles (%) greater the chance that it also was re­ One 87 (26.9) viewed in category A and B publications Two 68 (21.0) (table 1). For instance, of the 93 Counter­ Three to five reviews 106 (32.7) poise-reviewed titles that were reviewed Six to ten reviews 48 (14.8) three or more times in category C, D, and More than 10 reviews 15 (4.6) E publications, 76 (81.7%) were reviewed Total 324 (100) in a category A and B publication, whereas of the 96 Counterpoise-reviewed titles (57.4%) generated at least one review titles that were reviewed once in a cat­ in either the four core library reviewing egory C, D, and E publication, only 57 publications (category A) or other review­ (59.3%) were reviewed in a category A ing publications commonly used by li­ and B publication. In total, the 324 titles brarians (category B). Of these 249 titles generated 1,225 reviews across all types reviewed by category A and category B of publications in ProQuest. publications, 163 (65.5%) also were re­ Table 2 shows the frequency of reviews viewed by category C, D, or E publica­ per book title. Of the 324 titles reviewed by tions. More specifically still, only 209 (out other publications, a plurality (32.7%) was of 434) Counterpoise-reviewed titles reviewed between three and five times, (48.2%) generated at least one review in with a further 14.8 percent of titles being category A publications (Booklist, Choice, reviewed between six and ten times. Over­ Library Journal, and Publishers Weekly). all, 52.2 percent of the titles (169) were re­ Conversely, 238 (out of 434) Counterpoise- viewed three or more times in publications reviewed titles (54.8%) generated at least other than Counterpoise, and 73.1 percent one review in category C, D, or E publi­ (237) were reviewed two or more times in cations. Of these 238 titles, 72 also were publications other than Counterpoise. reviewed in Publishers Weekly; 132 also What types of publications reviewed were reviewed in either Booklist, Choice, Counterpoise-reviewed book titles (second or Library Journal; and 68 also were re­ research question)? As indicated in table viewed in category B publications. More­ 3, the four core library reviewing journals over, of these 238 titles generating at least produced 30 percent (8.1% + 21.9%) of the one review in a category C, D, or E publi­ total number of reviews (in other publi­ cation, 96 generated a single review, 49 cations) of Counterpoise-reviewed titles generated two reviews, and 93 generated (367). Newspapers and large-circulation three or more reviews. Table 1 shows the popular magazines produced 15.5 percent extent to which category A and B publi­ (190) of total reviews, and academic/ cations (professional reviewing tools) re­ scholarly journals produced 28 percent viewed book titles that were reviewed by (343) of total reviews. Table 4 provides category C, D, and E publications. Pro­ additional details about the publications fessional reviewing tools used by librar­ (within each publication-type category) ians did not review 75 book titles (31.5%) that reviewed Counterpoise-reviewed pub­ that were reviewed by popular and aca­ lications. For instance, within category B, demic publications (categories C, D, and Lambda Book Report (39) and Women’s Re­ E). Of these 75 titles, 19 had received two view of Books (26) reviewed Counterpoise- reviews and another 17 had received three reviewed titles most frequently, followed or more reviews. The four core library by the New York Times Book Review (23) and 62 College & Research Libraries January 2004

World Literature Today (14). Within cat­ category of newspapers and large-circu­ egory C, The Nation reviewed Counter­ lation popular magazines, and consumer poise-reviewed titles most frequently (19), and trade publications (categories C and followed by the Los Angeles Times and the D). San Francisco Chronicle (15 each). Within category D, The Advocate, The Progressive, Types of Reviews and Off Our Backs most frequently in­ Of the 1,225 total reviews generated by cluded reviews of Counterpoise-reviewed the 324 Counterpoise-reviewed titles that titles. were reviewed in another publication, 748 Table 5 approaches research question (61.1%) were favorable, 187 (15.3%) were 2 from a slightly different angle. The re­ mixed, 42 (3.4%) were unfavorable, and searchers wanted to know how often 248 (20.2%) were “not rated” (third re­ Counterpoise-reviewed titles were re­ search question). As shown in table 6, the viewed by a specific type of publication, rate of favorable reviews was highest in notwithstanding the number of total re­ category A-2 publications (78.4%) and views of that title within each separate second highest in category A-1 publica­ publication-type category. For example, tions (63.6%). When categories A-1 and if title XYZ was reviewed by three aca­ A-2 are combined, the rate of favorable demic/scholarly journals, once by Choice, reviews in the four core library journals and once by Library Journal, for the pur­ of Booklist, Choice, Library Journal, and poses of table 5, this would be counted as Publishers Weekly is 74.4 percent. The rate follows: “Title XYZ” was reviewed once of favorable reviews was lowest in com­ by a category E journal and once by the bined category C and D publications category of core library journals that in­ (53.3%). When the rate of favorable re­ cludes Booklist, Choice, and Library Jour­ views of all category A and B publications nal (category A-2). As shown in table 5, is compared with the rate of favorable then, the 324 titles that were reviewed in reviews of all category C, D, and E publi­ publications other than Counterpoise gar­ cations, it is clear that, taken collectively, nered 721 “category reviews.” Of these the rate at which all professional review­ 721 “category reviews,” 280 (38.8%) were ing tools used by librarians (categories A in the category of core library reviewing and B) give favorable reviews (69.4%) is journals (categories A-1 and A-2) and an­ greater than the rate at which popular and other 181 (25.1%) were in the combined

TABLE 3 Total Number Of Reviews Of Counterpoise-reviewed Book Titles in Other Publications

Category Description of Publications Number of Total Book Belonging to This Category Reviews in All Publications within Each Category (%) A-I Core library reviewing journal: Publishers Weekly 99 (8.1) A-2 Core library reviewing journals: Booklist, Choice, and Library Journal 268 (21.9) B Other reviewing journals commonly used by librarians 149 (12.2) C Newspapers and large-circulation popular magazines 190 (15.5) D Consumer and trade publications 176 (14.4) E Academic/scholarly journals 343 (28) Total reviews in all publication types 1,225 (100)*

* Percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding. Reviews of Independent Press Books in Counterpoise and Other Publications 63

TABLE 4 Publications Containing Five or More Reviews for Examined Titles

Number Type of Publication Title of Reviews Core library reviewing journals Library Journal 110 (Category A) Publishers Weekly 99 Booklist 90 Choice 68

Other reviewing journals Lambda Book Report 39 commonly used by librarians Womenss Review of Books 26 (Category B) New York Times Book Review 23 World Literature Today 14 School Library Journal 9 Times Literary Supplement 8 College & Research Libraries 5

Newspapers and large-circulation The Nation 19 popular magazines (Category C) Los Angeles Times 15 San Francisco Chronicle 15 Village Voice 14 National Catholic Reporter 13 Boston Globe 11 Chicago Tribune 11 Washington Post 10 Ms 9 Oregonian 9 Utne Reader 7

Consumer and trade The Advocate 11 publications (Category D) The Progressive 10 Off Our Backs 9 Ecologist 8 Hispanic 7 Whole Earth 6 Communities 5 Multinational Monitor 5 New Statesman 5

Academic/scholarly journals Journal of American History 12 (Category E) Monthly Review 9 New Scientist 8 American Historical Review 7 Environmental Politics 7 Journal of Womenss History 6 Labor History 6 Alternatives Journal 5 NWSA Journal 5 64 College & Research Libraries January 2004

TABLE 5 Number of Reviews of Counterpoise-reviewed Book Titles in Each Category of Publication

Category Description of Publications Number of Reviews of Belonging to this Category Different Books in Each Category of Publication* (%) A-I Core library reviewing journal: Publishers Weekly 97* (13.5) A-2 Core library reviewing journals: Booklist, Choice, and Library Journal 183* (25.4) B Other reviewing journals commonly used by librarians 115* (16) C and D Newspapers and large-circulation popular magazines; consumer and trade publications 181* (25.1) E Academic/scholarly journals 145* (20.1) Total 721* (100)**

* Multiple reviews of the same book within a publication type category count as one review for the purposes of this table. ** Percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding. academic publications (categories C, D, titles that were reviewed favorably at least and E) give favorable reviews (55%). once, 123 were not reviewed by Publish­ In total, 185 Counterpoise-reviewed ers Weekly (category A-1), 73 were not re­ titles were reviewed favorably at least viewed by Booklist, Choice, and Library once in a category C, D, or E publication Journal (category A-2), and 125 were not (popular and academic publications that reviewed by any category B publications. are not primarily reviewing tools). Of the Of the 185 titles that were reviewed at 185 titles that were reviewed favorably at least once favorably in a category C, D, least once, 50 were not reviewed by cat­ or E publication, 119 were reviewed fa­ egory A or category B publications taken vorably at least once in a category A or B as a whole. More specifically, of the 185 publication, 40 had at least one mixed re-

TABLE 6 Ty(es of Reviews According to Publication Ty(e

Type of Review Publication Type Favorable Mixed Unfavorable Not Rated Category A-1 (99) 63 (63.6) 27 (27.3) 8 (8.1) 1 (1) Category A-2 (268) 210 (78.4) 35 (13.1) 6 (2.2) 17 (6.3) Category B (149) 85 (57)* 20 (13.4)* 4 (2.7)* 40 (26.8)* Total of categories A and B (516) 358 (69.4) 82 (15.9) 18 (3.5) 58 (11.2) Category C and D (366) 195 (53.3) 42 (11.5) 11 (3) 118 (32.2) Category E (343) 195 (56.9)* 63 (18.4)* 13 (3.8)* 72 (21)* Total of categories of C, D, and E (709) 390 (55) 105 (14.8) 24 (3.4) 190 (26.8) Grand total (1,225) 748 (61.1) 187 (15.3) 42 (3.4) 248 (20.2)

*Percentages in these rows do not add to 100 because of rounding. Reviews of Independent Press Books in Counterpoise and Other Publications 65

TABLE 7 Library Of Congress (LC) Classifications of Books Reviewed by Counterpoise But Not Reviewed by any Other Publication

LC Main Class/ Subclass Letters LC Main Class/Subclass Titles Number of Items B Philosophy 1 BL Religions. Mythology. Rationalism 4 DK Russia. Soviet Union. Former Soviet Republics - Poland 1 DT Africa 3 E History: America 9 F History: America 3 GE Environmental sciences 1 GF Human ecology. Anthropogeography 1 GV Recreation. Leisure 1 HC Economic history and conditions 1 HD Industries. Land use. Labor 6 HE Transportation and communications 1 HF Commerce 1 HM Sociology (General) 2 HN Social history and conditions. Social problems. Social reform 2 HQ The family. Marriage. Women 14 HV Social pathology. Social and public welfare. Criminology 8 HX Socialism. Communism. Anarchism 1 IC Political theory 3 K Law 1 LILAILC EducationIHistory of educationISpecial aspects of education 4 ML Literature on music 3 NINC Visual ArtsIFine Arts. Drawing. Design. Illustration 2 P Language and literature 2 PH Uralic languages. Basque language 1 PI Oriental languages and literatures 1 PN Literature (General) 9 PR English Literature 4 PS American Literature 9 QIQC Science (General)IPhysics 2 RIRA Medicine (General). Public aspects of medicine 2 SB Plant culture 1 TD Environmental technology. Sanitary engineering 1 TX Home economics 2 Z Bibliography. Library science. Information resources (General) 3 6 College&ResearchLibraries 66 e n h n hon n l th t � w o r v v d loa ow � � � �

g � E p E

4 � g E p p

e i � E i g E p

about Self-pleasuring; W as: class includesuchtitles titles. BooksintheHQ all unr comprise 50per These fifty-fivetitles Land use.Labor)(6). (8); andHD welfar ogy (9); HV(Socialpathol­ PS (Americanliteratur E (History: (Literatur riage. W HQ (Thefamily books dominatethislist: tion 4).Sixcategoriesof cation (r their LCbroadclassifi­ these titlesaccor titles? T these 1 to bedetectedamong Are ther r by books (25.3%)r wher also wer viewed in book titles(324)r ously As mentionedpr Unreviewed T Patterns in D, orEpublication. r two ormor tion, fourhadreceived category A favorable r r tion. Ofthetentitlesthat egory A vorable reviewinacat­ 10 hadatleastoneunfa­ B publication,andonly view inacategory A eviews inacategoryC, eceived atleastoneun­ eviewed elsewher omen &MenW Counterpoise First PersonSexual: . Socialandpublic e. , 74.7per e. Criminology) Accor 10 unr eviewed book e r omen) (14);PN orBpublica­ able 7gr e anypatterns esear e. General)(9); January 2004 eviewed else­ orBpublica­ America) (9); Counterpoise

e favorable eview ina (Industries. dingly itles ch ques­ eviewed wer eviewed cent of ding to cent of . Mar­ oups e not , 1 evi­ rite or 10 e­ e. e) Reviews of Independent Press Books in Counterpoise and Other Publications 67

Anal Pleasure & Health: A Guide for Men Press [3]; New Society Publishers [3]; and Women; Like There’s No Tomorrow: Aperture [1]; ILR Press [1]; and Orbis Meditations for Women Leaving Patriarchy; Books [1]) that, for the most part, are American Sex Machines: The Hidden History based in small towns away from the of Sex at the U.S. Patent Office; and Much nexus of publishing power (i.e., New York More Than Sexuality: Listening to 70 Gay and Boston). Another three publishers People Talk about Their Lives. Books in the could be characterized as small- to me­ PN class include: Barbie Unbound: A dium-sized publishers (New Press, Cleis Parody of the Barbie Obsession; The Solo Sex Press, and South End Press). Two are uni­ Joke Book: Jokes, Cartoons, and Limericks versity presses and the final two are about the World’s Most Popular Sex Act; and presses connected with political think Hot & Bothered: Short Short Fiction on Les­ tanks (Brookings Institute) or government bian Desire. Books in the E class include entities (International Labour Organiza­ five titles about various aspects of North tion). With regard to the subject matter of American Indian life, as well as Roots of these sixteen books, many, if not all, chal­ Justice: Stories of Organizing in Communi­ lenge the fundamental bases of American ties of Color and Talking about a Revolution. social and military power (e.g., School of Books in the PS class include two titles Assassins, Atomic Audit, An Enemy of the with subject headings of “erotic litera­ State), capitalist economic foundations ture” or “erotic stories,” as well as fiction (e.g., Top Heavy, Juarez, We Are All Lead­ and poetry collections from marginalized ers), corporate arrogance (e.g., Against the groups such as Appalachian mountain Grain, Our Ecological Footprint), and pa­ families, punk rockers, North American triarchal social hierarchies and systems Indians, and recent immigrants. Six of the (e.g., Body Alchemy, Natural Eloquence) eight books in the HV class deal specifi­ from what could be described as radical cally with the injustices of prisons and/ perspectives. or the politics of the criminal justice sys­ Finally, were there any patterns with tem both in the United States and over­ regard to the types of books reviewed by seas. Finally, in the HD class, three of the Counterpoise and frequently reviewed by six titles deal with exploited laborers and other publications (research question 6)? another title discusses rent strikes and To address this question, the researchers land struggles. (As an example of the generated a viable list of Counterpoise-re­ types of subclass titles assigned to viewed titles that were reviewed ten or unreviewed titles in certain LC classes, more times in all other publications and see table 8.) at least once in category A publications. If 110 Counterpoise-reviewed titles were This allowed the researchers to see not reviewed at all by any other publica­ whether there were any differences be­ tions, were some titles reviewed by popu­ tween the kinds of titles not reviewed by lar and academic publications (categories library reviewing tools and the kinds of C, D, and E), but not by reviewing publi­ titles that generated numerous reviews cations typically used by library profes­ across all publication types. As shown in sionals (categories A and B) (research table 10, there were fifteen such books. In question 5)? To get as specific a set as pos­ comparison with the list of publishers in sible of such titles, the researchers gener­ table 9, the publishers in table 10 are larger ated a list of titles that were reviewed at and better known. For example, there are least three times by category C, D, and E four university press titles, four books publications with at least one favorable from the Free Press in New York, Seal review, but not reviewed by category A Press in Seattle, and Beacon Press in Bos­ and B publications. As shown in table 9, ton, and one book from internationally there were sixteen such titles. Nine of the known Blackwell Publishing. Many of titles are published by small and relatively these publishers are based in the New obscure publishers (Common Courage York–Boston–Washington corridor. With 8 College&ResearchLibraries 68

TABLE 9 Book Titles Not Reviewed by Professional Reviewing Tools (Category A or B) but Reviewed at Least Three Times in Po�ular or Academic Publications (with at least one favorable review)

LC Main Ti�es �e�ie�ed Class/Subclass in �ther Letters Book Title LC Subject Headings Publisher Publications BR Eternal hostility: The struggle Conservatism-Religious aspects-Christianity. Conservatism- Common Courage 3 between theocracy and democracy United States-History-20th century. Theocracy. Christian Press (Monroe, Coalition. United States-Church history-20th century. Maine) United States-Politics and government-1993­2001. E Uprooting racism: How white people Racism-United States. Race awareness-United States. New Society Publishers 3 can work for racial justice Whites-Race identity-United States. United States-Race (Gabriola Island, relations. British Columbia� Philadelphia) F Landscapes of the interior: Re­ Landscape-Canada, Western. Landscape-West (U.S.). New Society Publishers 3 explorations of nature and the Philosophy of nature. Nature (Aesthetics). Canada, Western- (Gabriola Island, human spirit Description and travel. West (U.S.)-Description and travel. British Columbia� Philadelphia) HC Our ecological footprint: Reducing Sustainable development. Nature-Effect of human beings on. New Society Publishers � human impact on the earth Human ecology. Economic development-Environmental (Gabriola Island, aspects. British Columbia� Philadelphia) HD We are all leaders: The alternative Labor unions-United States-History-20th century. Labor University of Illinois �

unionism of the early 1930s movement-United States-History-20th century. Press January 2004 HD Gender inequality in the labour Sex discrimination in employment-Data processing- International Labour 3 market: Occupational concentra­ Methodology. Organization (Geneva, tion and segregation, a manual of Switzerland) methodology Reviews ofIndependentPressBooksin TABLE 9 (CONT.) Book Titles Not Reviewed by Professional Reviewing Tools (Category A or B) but Reviewed at Least Three Times in Po�ular or Academic Publications (with at least one favorable review)

LC Main Ti�es �e�ie�ed Class/Subclass in �ther Letters Book Title LC Subject Headings Publisher Publications HJ Top heavy: The increasing inequality Wealth tax-United States. Income distribution-United States. New Press (New York} � of wealth in America and what can be done about it HN Juarez: The laboratory of our future Ciudad Juarez (Mexico}-Social conditions. Ciudad Juarez Aperture (New York} � (Mexico}-Economic conditions. HQ Body alchemy: Transsexual portraits Transsexualism-United States. Transsexuals-United States- Cleis Press (Pittsburgh} � Portraits. Transsexuals-United States-Interviews. Counterpoise P Powers and prospects: Reflections Language and languages-Philosophy. World politics-1989. South End Press � on human nature and the social Philosophical anthropology. (Boston} order PN An enemy of the state: The life of Journalists-United States-Biography. War-Press coverage- Common Courage Press �

Erwin Knoll United States. (Monroe, Maine} andOtherPublications PN Working stiffs, union maids, reds, Working class in motion pictures. ILR Press (Ithaca, NY} � and riffraff: An organized guide to films about labor Q Natural eloquence: Women Women in science. Science news. University of � reinscribe science Wisconsin Press S Against the grain: Biotechnology Agricultural biotechnology. Food-Biotechnology. Food. Common Courage � and the corporate takeover of your Nutrition. Press (Monroe, food Maine} 69 0 College&ResearchLibraries 70

.

Nation the Monitor, butmanyothersareprintedin r (See table2.)T per lications. (Seetable3.)Ofthesetitles,52.2 wer (324 outof434)reviewed byCounterpoise deed, 74.7per cultural, political,andsocialissues.In­ native viewpointsonawidevarietyof 1835) ences ofSlaveryandEmancipation; 1966–1999 W of Differ tive (e.g., eral toneofthesebooksislesspr ficult issuesbut,onthewhole,gen­ sur r Americans T tices (e.g., was acceptabletotalkaboutpastinjus­ American ElectricUtilitySystem) gins ofDer cally oriented(e.g.,PowerLoss:TheOri­ W r mainstr editors, otherpublications,including Contrary totheclaimsof Discussion W safer number (181)of egories CandD)r Counterpoise native titlesthathavebeenr r in table5,eachpublication-typecategory table 1.)Ther of 434 (categories C,D,andE)cover and B)wouldfindthatthesepublications fessional r E publications)withoutglancingatpr popular publications(categoryC,D,and An individualwhor titles ascategory eviews appearinjournalssuchas egar eviewing booktitlesthatpr eviews alar ashington Post. e LostintheGr omen: GenderandCultur e, titlesthatdealwiththornyanddif­ cent r e r Chicago T , mor d tosubjectmatter , butnottodiscusscurr , eviewed 1,225timesinotherpub­ Counterpoise The Pr eam journalsandnewspapers,are ence; eceived threeormor Justice, NatureandtheGeography egulation andRestructuringinthe e conventional,ormor ) eviewing tools(categories A Remembering Slavery:African ; thetopicsdealtwithseem alk aboutTheirPersonalExperi­

. Popularpublications(cat­ ge numberofdif The OldNeighbor e alsowassignificantover­ ogressive cent ofthealternativetitles ribune o besur (Seetable4.) eat SuburbanMigration, A-2 publications(183). Counterpoise eview nearlythesame -r , eviewed titles.(See eads academicand Boston Globe , and e, manyofthese , ther e Change,1700– January 2004 Multinational Counterpoise As indicated ent ones. eviewed by fer esent alter­ e ar hood: What ed 238out -r e r ent alter­ e histori­ eviewed

Cher , asifit eviews. e, tobe ovoca­ , and okee The o­ Reviews ofIndependentPressBooksin TABLE 10 Table 10. Counterpoise-reviewed Titles That Were Reviewed Ten or More Times in Other Publi�ations

Ti�es �e�ie�ed LC Main in �our Core Class/Subclass Librar� �e�ie�ing Letters Book Title LC Subject Headings Publisher �ournals

DT Woman between two worlds: Portrait Women, Gamo-Biography. Gamo (African people}-Politics University of Illinois 2 of an Ethiopian rural leader and government. Press E The opening of the American mind Education, Higher-United States. United States-Intellectual life. Beacon Press (Boston} 4 E Cherokee women: Gender and Cherokee women-History. Cherokee women-Social condi- University of Nebraska 1 culture change, 1700-1835 tions. Cherokee Indians-Social life and customs. Sex role- Press United States. Sexual division of labor-United States. 3 E Remembering slavery: African Slavery-United States-History. African Americans- New Press (New �ork} Counterpoise Americans talk about their Biography. African Americans-History. personal experiences of slavery and emancipation E Promoting polyarchy: Globalization, Democracy-History-20th century. Democracy-United Cambridge University 1

U.S. intervention, and hegemony States-History-20th century. World politics-1985-1995. Press andOtherPublications United States-Foreign relations-1981-1989. United States- Foreign relations-1989- GE Betrayal of science and reason: How Anti-environmentalism. Environmental degradation. Island Press (Washing- 3 anti-environmental rhetoric ton, DC} threatens our future HD Power loss: The origins of Electric utilities-Deregulation-United States. Electric MIT Press 1 deregulation and restructuring in utilities-Government policy-United States-History. Electric the American electric utility utilities-Law and legislation-United States-History.

system Competition-United States-History-20th century. Pressure 71 groups-United States. 2 College&ResearchLibraries 72 TABLE 10 (CONT.) Table 10. Counterpoise-reviewed Titles That Were Reviewed Ten or More Times in Other Publi�ations Ti�es �e�ie�ed LC Main in �our Core Class/Subclass Librar� �e�ie�ing Letters Book Title LC Subject Headings Publisher �ournals HM Justice, nature and the geography of Social ustice. Social change. Social values. Global environmental Blackwell Publishing 1 difference change. Cultural relativism. Space and time. HQ Listen up: Voices from the next Feminism-United States. Feminists-United States-Biography. Seal Press (Seattle) � feminist generation HQ The sex side of life: Mary Ware Birth control-United States. Sex educators-United States- New Press (New �ork) 2 Dennett's pioneering battle for Biography. Women social reformers-United States- birth control and sex education Biography. Sex instruction-United States. Women- biography. Sex Education-United States. Family Planning- United States. Social Change-United States. HT Exterminate all the brutes Racism. Racism in literature. New Press (New �ork) � HT The old neighborhood: What we lost Cities and towns-United States. Neighborhood-United States. Free Press (New �ork) � in the great suburban migration, City and town life-United States. 1966-1999 HV Drawing life: Surviving the Social pathology. Social and public welfare. Criminology Free Press (New �ork) � Unabomber Crimes and offenses. Victims of terrorism-United States- Biography. Bombings-United States. PS Gore Vidal: Sexually speaking: Sex. Sex in literature. Homosexuality in literature. Homosexuality and Cleis (San Francisco) 1

Collected sex writings literature. English literature-20th century-History and criticism. January 2004 American literature-20th century-History and criticism. RC Victims of memory: Sex abuse Repression. Crime Victims-psychology. Incest. Child Abuse, Upper Access � accusations and shattered lives Sexual. Psychotherapy. False memory syndrome. Recovered (Hinesburg, Vermont) memory. Adult child sexual abuse victims. Memory. Repression (Psychology). Reviews of Independent Press Books in Counterpoise and Other Publications 73 lap, that is, the more often a Counterpoise- tion development librarians who rely title was reviewed in a category C, D, or solely on Counterpoise reviews may not E publication, the greater the chance that receive as objective an evaluation of a par­ it would be reviewed by professional re­ ticular book title as they may receive from viewing tools (categories A and B). another type of publication. On the other hand, from the perspec­ In addition, collection development tive of a collection development librarian specialists who are specifically interested who works outward from a core set of li­ in books that fall under such broad LC brary reviewing tools to an ever-broader classifications as HQ (The family. Mar­ universe of journals, the picture is differ­ riage. Women), HV (Social pathology. ent. The four core library review tools Social and public welfare. Criminology), (Booklist, Choice, Library Journal, and Pub­ and E (History: America), as well as fic­ lishers Weekly [category A]) cover only 48.2 tion titles by members of marginalized percent of all 434 Counterpoise-reviewed groups or those that deal extensively and titles (209). If this theoretical library pro­ boldly with sexual topics (such as those fessional then expanded her or his range in PN and PS classes), should make Coun­ of reading to include what the researchers terpoise book reviews required reading, have called category B publications, she especially if they have been accustomed or he would find reviews covering forty to exclusively using professional review­ additional Counterpoise-reviewed titles. ing tools (category A and B publications). Finally, if a library professional expanded (See tables 7 and 8.) Why? As shown in her or his reading range to encompass tables 9 and 10, there are often stark dif­ popular and academic publications (cat­ ferences in both the nature and the pub­ egories C, D, and E), she or he would dis­ lishers of the titles that are not reviewed cover reviews discussing seventy-five ad­ by category A and B publications and the ditional Counterpoise-reviewed titles, titles that are frequently reviewed by cat­ bringing the grand total up to 324 book egory A and B publications. titles. In other words, the collection devel­ The difference can perhaps best be seen opment librarian would have to read a by comparing “Exterminate All the Brutes”: very large number of publications (table One Man’s Odyssey into the Heart of Dark­ 4) to receive 74.7 percent (324 books out of ness and the Origins of European Genocide 434 books reviewed in Counterpoise) of the (published by New Press in New York) same information about alternative book (table 10) with Uprooting Racism: How titles that is contained in Counterpoise. With White People Can Work for Racial Justice regard to book reviews, the role of Coun­ (published by New Society Publishers in terpoise is therefore not so much one of Gabriola Island, British Columbia) (table uniqueness but, rather, one of concentrat­ 9). The former title concentrates on his­ ing information in one place so that a li­ torical aspects of colonialism and racism brarian can save time, money, and effort. in Africa; the latter dissects and offers However, although Counterpoise re­ advice to counteract numerous instances views almost always tend to be positive of racism in contemporary life. In other in their evaluation of an alternative title, words, Uprooting Racism does not present this is not the case with other publication racism simply as a historical construct types. For instance, publications in catego­ but, rather, as an ongoing phenomenon ries C, D, and E collectively evaluate Coun­ that assumes untold manifestations in terpoise-reviewed books favorably only 55 even the most seemingly innocuous set­ percent of the time. (See table 6.) This is tings. Similarly, in table 9, the question of approximately the same as category B pub­ sex and sexual orientation is touched on lications (57% favorable reviews), but far through either historical work, as in The below category A-2 publications, which Sex Side of Life: Mary Ware Dennett’s Pio­ evaluate Counterpoise-reviewed book titles neering Battle for Birth Control and Sex Edu­ favorably at a rate of 78.4 percent. Collec­ cation, or the writings of a renowned and 74 College & Research Libraries January 2004 prolific intellectual, such as Gore Vidal. videos, and albums,” “carefully screen Conversely, in table 10, the question of content to avoid selling material likely to sexual orientation assumes a more radi­ offend their conservative customers,” and cal form, as seen in Body Alchemy: Trans­ be ruthless about returning goods “if they sexual Portraits, which is described as an fail to meet a minimum threshold of “intensely personal photo documentary weekly sales.”34 Not only has Wal-Mart of female-to-male transsexuals (FTMs) … banned books by Kurt Cobain, it has been [that] document[s] the transformation of instrumental in helping to “produce a a number of FTMs in [the] transsexual string of best sellers by conservative au­ community.”28 thors like Bernard Goldberg, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage and Bill O’Reilly” and Conclusion contributed to the decision of AOL Time- To read some of the editorial statements Warner to start a religious imprint “be­ published in Counterpoise after its break cause a book buyer for Wal-Mart [said] with the ALA is to become aware of the that more than half its sales were Chris­ often visceral animosity that exists be­ tian books.”35 Because mass merchandis­ tween Counterpoise editors and what they ers such as Wal-Mart accounted for 12.6 refer to as the “overarching command percent of all books sold in the United structure” of the ALA, a command struc­ States in 2002 (up from 9.1% in 1992) and ture described as “hierarchical, corporate, for “more than 40 percent for a best-sell­ bureaucratic, self-important and domi­ ing book,” their growing influence “has neering,” one that has a proclivity for bent American popular culture towards “elevat[ing] the few and subordinat[ing] the tastes of their relatively traditional the many” and has not supported the ef­ customers.”36 If the tactics of stores such forts of Counterpoise to the degree that as Wal-Mart lead to an increasing level of Counterpoise believes it should be sup­ homogenization in the number and types ported.29,30 In many ways, Counterpoise has of books available for public consump­ become a vehicle for a personal crusade tion, the role of the library, whether aca­ against institutional librarianship, what demic or public, as a provider of alterna­ Willett ironically refers to as a constant tive voices becomes all the more crucial, series of meetings of “big bottoms.”31 especially because Wal-Mart supported There is nothing wrong with this: Anger books typically become best-sellers, and frustration often fuel much-needed which increases the likelihood that these change. And change seems to be called titles will make their way to library for because, despite increasing attention shelves. to alternative presses, publications of And if the example of the Minneapolis these presses are not being collected to Community and Technology College any great extent by OCLC libraries. For (MCTC), which now spends 10 percent of instance, 61 of the 114 books (53.5%) re­ its materials budget on alternative press viewed in Counterpoise in 2001 were held resources, is taken into consideration, by fewer than 200 OCLC libraries, and 84 Counterpoise has had a significant positive of those 114 books (73.7%) were held by effect on the ability of colleges and uni­ fewer than 300 OCLC libraries.32 Of versities to collect alternative press publi­ course, such figures may represent suc­ cations.37 At the same time, as the present cess to some alternative publishers,33 but study has demonstrated, numerous other in relation to mass-market best-sellers and publications, including mainstream maga­ well-promoted mainstream titles, these zines and newspapers, review alternative numbers are nevertheless miniscule. press book titles, and a significant major­ Such statistics are all the more trou­ ity of those reviews are favorable. For the bling in light of the propensity of chain most part, those reviews appear before stores such as Wal-Mart to “typically carry reviews appear in Counterpoise. The four an assortment of fewer than 2,000 books, core library reviewing publications review Reviews of Independent Press Books in Counterpoise and Other Publications 75

48.2 percent of Counterpoise-reviewed titles, extra money, and other decisions made by with 74.4 percent of the reviews being fa­ the staff,” to systematically devote 10 per­ vorable. When a collection development cent of their materials budget to alterna­ librarian supplements the four core library tive press materials.39,40 reviewing publications with other publi­ To judge by the 1,225 reviews of Coun­ cations, even more reviews of alternative terpoise-reviewed titles in other publica­ press titles become available. In summa­ tions, at the beginning of the twenty-first tion, information about such titles is century interest in the publications of al­ readily available to those librarians who ternative and small presses has reached a read widely and extensively in a variety critical mass in publications of all types, of library reviewing tools, popular maga­ not just Counterpoise. Accordingly, the fail­ zines, and academic journals. When all is ure of libraries to own books published by said and done, it is not libraries who pur­ alternative and small presses may be a re­ chase books, but individual librarians who flection of the disinterest that individual purchase books on behalf of their institu­ librarians have for questions surrounding tions. If libraries do not own a large num­ the issue of corporate control of cultural ber of alternative press titles, and if there industries, a failed understanding of the are nevertheless numerous reviews about true implications of balance and neutral­ such titles in a wide variety of publications ity (vaunted principles underlying collec­ that are ostensibly read by collection de­ tion development work) in an era where velopment librarians, the reason for a lack organizations such as Wal-Mart shape cul­ of alternative press titles in libraries lies tural tastes through their book merchan­ more with uninterested and unaware in­ dising policies, and a disinclination to read dividual librarians who do not read widely widely in order to find out about as many (or who rely on approval plans) than with books as possible on a given topic so as to the libraries for which these individuals be able to make informed and socially re­ work and the organizational structures sponsible decisions about book purchases. that bring these libraries together. But the case of MCTC shows that local, To be sure, adequate financial resources small-scale efforts can have a large impact. are necessary to buy alternative titles. But Of course, it would have been easy for adequate financial resources also are nec­ MCTC staff members (or others like them) essary to buy any type of titles. Ultimately, to blame the dearth of alternative press it is the decision of individual collection titles in their library’s collection on the in­ development librarians that makes the dif­ flexibility of (or gaps inherent in) approval ference. The example of MCTC is instruc­ plans, cutbacks forced by restrictions in the tive in this respect. When the Minnesota current budget, the ever-present need to state legislature granted academic librar­ develop core collections in teaching areas, ies additional funds with the proviso that or perceived administrative disapproval of 20 percent of those funds be used “to build purchases of titles that do not have the im­ collections in unique subject areas,”38 staff primatur of recognized and esteemed pub­ of MCTC could have spent their allotment lishers or authors. But they did not elect on any type of materials. They did not do to do so, instead taking it upon themselves so, choosing, instead, “as a result of the as individuals to act.

Notes 1. Civic Media Center. Available online from http://www.civicmediacenter.org/counter­ poise/. (Accessed 16 May 2002.) 2. Charles Willett, “Editor’s Notes,” Counterpoise 4 (July 2000): 4. 3. Civic Media Center. Available from http://www.civicmediacenter.org/counterpoise/. (Ac­ cessed 16 May 2002.) 4. Willett, “Editor’s Notes.” 5. “Counterpoise Business Plan: FY 2001, Part I: Mission Statement,” Counterpoise 4 (Jan./Apr. 76 College & Research Libraries January 2004

2000): 4. 6. Ibid. 7. Ibid. 8. Willett, “Editor’s Notes.” 9. Ibid. 10. Ibid. Willett quotes Herman. 11. Ibid. 12. Ibid. 13. Ross Atkinson, “The Citation as Intertext: Toward a Theory of the Selection Process,” Li­ brary Resources & Technical Services 28 (Apr. 1984): 113. 14. Judith Serebnick and John Cullars, “An Analysis of Reviews and Library Holdings of Small Publishers’ Books,” Library Resources & Technical Services 28 (Jan. 1984): 4–14. 15. Judith Serebnick, “Selection and Holding of Small Publishers’ Books in OCLC Libraries: A Study of the Influence of Reviews, Publishers, and Vendors,” Library Quarterly 62 (July 1992): 259–94. 16. Ibid., 275, 276. 17. Ibid., 277. 18. Juris Dilevko and Alison Hayman, “Collection Development Patterns of Fiction Titles in Public Libraries: The Place of Independent and Small Presses,” Library & Information Science Re­ search 22 (2000): 35–59. 19. Ibid., 43. 20. See Serebnick, “Selection and Holding,” 264. 21. Tom Person, “The Surviving Small Press: What Is Small Press?” Available online from http://www.laughingbear.com/articles/137_what_is_small_press.html. (Accessed 12 Septem­ ber 2003.) 22. Ibid. 23. Michael Albert, “What Makes Alternative Media Alternative?” Available online from http:/ /whorlpool.905host.net/files/edarchive10.htm. (Accessed 12 September 2003.) 24. Subsequent uses of the term “alternative” in this article should be interpreted in light of the editorial statements appearing in Counterpoise, which have been discussed in the opening paragraphs of this article. 25. As one of the reviewers of this article pointed out, we may be naïve in our assumption that collection development librarians rely on reviews (in any publication, including Choice) to any great extent for collection development purposes. We acknowledge, as this reviewer noted, that many librarians rely “almost exclusively” on approval plans and that approval plans “select books prior to the publication of reviews making them [the reviews] irrelevant regardless of where they are published.” We would like to think, however, that reviews do serve an important purpose in decisions about what to purchase or what not to purchase and that librarians are not, as this reviewer observed, “lazy.” 26. As pointed out by one of the reviewers of this article, it may not be appropriate to exclude zines and other nonbook formats in any analysis of the content of Counterpoise because zines and other nonbook formats are an integral part of the universe of alternative publications and of Counterpoise. 27. Although we recognize that there is a debate about whether ProQuest ratings are mis­ leading, ProQuest is, to our knowledge, one of the only tools that provides a readily quantifiable rating of reviews. 28. Cleis Press. Available online from http://www.cleispress.com/Pages/bodyalchemy.html. (Accessed 19 May 2003.) 29. Willett, “National Structures Do Not Represent American Librarians,” Counterpoise 5 (July/ Oct. 2001): 4. 30. ———, “Editor’s Notes.” 31. ———, “National Structures Do Not Represent American Librarians,” 4. 32. Earl Lee, “OCLC Holdings of Books Reviewed in Counterpoise,” Counterpoise 6 (Jan./Apr. 2002): 18–20. 33. We thank both reviewers for bringing this point to our attention. And, as the reviewers also pointed out, print runs for alternative press publications are typically small and may result in low levels of holdings of these titles in OCLC libraries. In addition, numerous libraries have sizable original cataloging backlogs, and so they may not have been able to upload originally cataloged records of alternative publications to OCLC in a timely manner, which results in OCLC undercounts. Both these observations should be kept in mind when looking at these, or any other, OCLC statistics. 34. David D. Kirkpatrick, “Shaping Cultural Tastes at Big Retail Chains,” New York Times (May 18, 2003): B1, B7. Reviews of Independent Press Books in Counterpoise and Other Publications 77

35. Ibid., B7. 36. Ibid., B1. 37. Tom Eland, “Letters & Messages,” Counterpoise 4 (July 2000): 2. 38. Ibid. 39. Ibid. 40. The question of why MCTC staff members only began to purchase alternative press pub­ lications after a funding increase is a very valid one, and we thank one of the reviewers of this article for bringing it to our attention.