Kevin on the Flair Symposium

Reflecting on the 2008 Flair Symposium has brought back memories and highlights. Over two and a half exciting days, I was able to hear the opinions of authors, archivists, and scholars about what an archive is, what it should be, and what it will be in the future. Tracking the changes in opinion among the speakers gave insight into the thoughts of members of the archivist community. There seemed to be a unanimous concern about the effects of technology on the field of archival research, but with optimism among a good portion of the community that technology can be used as a tool for researchers and could improve the way archives are used and studied.

Some of my favorite moments of Flair include hearing the four literary giants—Amy Tan, Tim O’Brien, Denis Johnson, and Lee Blessing—give their perspectives on archives and why they have decided to or decided not to save their work; watching the big players in the archive market—Thomas Staley, Glenn Horowitz, Breon Mitchell, and Rick Gekoski—describing what trading archives is really like; and hearing what the panelists had to say on Saturday morning about the positive and negative influence of technology.

I was one of the three undergraduates present throughout the Flair Symposium, and because of that, I feel that my take on the conference was unique. For me, Flair was a glance at the “inner circle” of the archive and library community. As an intern at the Harry Ransom Center, I had already become aware of several of the issues that were discussed at the conference. The conference allowed me to put a lot of what I do into perspective through the greater context of a community. It is interesting to see the changes in the archiving world, and how new and young people may contribute to established practices of archivists.

Jesse on “Looking Forward to Preserve the Past”

 

photo by Anthony Maddaloni. Panel, from left to right: Thomas Staley, Frank Turner, Stephen Enniss, Richard Ovenden, and moderator Alice Schreyer

After a leisurely break in which the speakers (and interns!) were treated to a delicious lunch of sandwiches, pasta, salad, and fruit, the Flair Symposium’s final panel began. The topic of discussion was “Looking Forward to Preserve the Past,” and the speakers strove to hit an optimistic tone on which to end the conference, even as the discussion began with each panelist presenting their views on the problems and challenges the archival field faces in the years to come.

Moderator Alice Schreyer of the University of Chicago Library began by introducing her fellow panelists and stating that for archivists today, “the mystique is in how we demonstrate the value of the archive to both the institution and to the culture at large.” As Schreyer pointed out, archivists must be able to demonstrate the acute relevance and necessity of their work not only to university administrators and donors, but to students (especially in universities and high schools), community members, and future generations.

Richard Ovendon of the Bodleian Library at the University of Oxford spoke next, first noting that though English institutions may at times resent the transfer of British materials to American institutions such as the Harry Ransom Center (whose holdings comprise large collections from famous British authors such as Evelyn Waugh, Graham Greene, and James Joyce, among numerous others), such acts represent “an opportunity for us to shake off our complacency.” Ovendon went on to present five headings of what he views as the most pressing challenges to archives today, including moving away from the uniform and investing in the unique, helping archivists expand their knowledge and cultivate a wide variety of skills, widening access to include local cultural and community-based relics, preserving the past while still working actively on the future, and balancing the needs of reading room users with international scholars who may want online access to materials. Ovendon ended by stating that “international collaboration should be a matter of collective strength.”

Next was Stephen Enniss, who currently is Director of the Archives and Rare Books Library at Emory University but will be moving to the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C., in January. As someone who will shortly be moving from one archival position to another, Enniss pointed out the importance of “understanding the strategic directions and priorities of new institutions while still remaining grounded in our own institutional background.” He noted that one must ask “what is our institutional story” while still being open to the idea of change, and pointed out that institutions can always stand to “revise and refresh” notions of who they are and how they function.

Frank Turner, Director of the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library at Yale University, then spoke, saying that in light of the current financial climate, archivists and institutions must learn to make real, substantial choices about what to focus their time, attention, and funds on acquiring and preserving. Turner also noted “We come to these conferences and hear about interesting projects at the British Library or somewhere else, and we need to come up with two or three cooperative projects that will enable us to build on each other’s advances.” Finally, Turner spoke on the necessity of paying attention to non-elite authors and focusing more on minority writers whose immense archives often have not been digitized, and so must be preserved soon to prevent cultural loss.

Last but by no means least, Thomas F. Staley, Director of the Harry Ransom Center, joined in, speaking about the role of directors of archival institutions in the changing the world of archives. Referring back to Schreyer’s notion that libraries and research institutions must be able to demonstrate their relevance today, Staley posited that it is the job of directors to “keep that fixture very clear in the eyes of the university administrators.” He also noted the ability of directors to shape and influence learning within the humanities in significant ways, citing as an example the recently acquired David Mamet collection, which was accompanied by the deal that Mamet would come teach students at The University of Texas at Austin as well.

Once the opening remarks were finished, the five panelists went on to discuss such questions as the essential ingredients in fundraising success, the general consensus being that genuine excellence coupled with optimism, vibrancy, and vision are key. Staley remarked that directors must ask themselves, “How do you cultivate people who want to be part of the culture,” then stating “I have no qualms about asking people for money because I have such belief in the culture.” Turner noted that although he is not allowed to fundraise because Yale University fully funds their library, part of his job as an advocate is to make sure that people understand that archives collectors are “not just passive entities—this is something that institutions really need to do, and they are dynamic.”

To a question from the audience about how the cultural archives of small towns can be discovered, Turner stated, “It depends on a lot of luck and serendipity, but we also haven’t been very good at going out to these churches and schools and other institutions and saying, “We can help take care of these for you.”” Schreyer noted that at the University of Chicago, one of her roles is to train students to find and catalog important cultural materials from the Chicago community. If more institutions included this exercise as part of training, students of library sciences and information studies, surely more local cultural archives could be located and preserved.

Near the end came a provocative audience question posed by Rick Gekoski of Gekoski Booksellers, who asked if archivists would really want to discover definitive archives which would illuminate the works of writers whose lives seem romantic precisely due to how little we know of them. “Would we really wish to find or to purchase the archive of the “penetralium of mystery?” Gekoski queried. “Would you wish to discover the Shakespeare archive, because I wouldn’t. I want Hamlet to be snatched from the “penetralium of mystery.”

Yet as Ovendon replied, there are already huge gaps in what we can know and understand of a given author or work, and there will continue to be gaps no matter how many external details we can locate. Another audience member then added to the debate, stating that while many seem to believe that working in the archives causes us to “lose the mystery of things and lose the notion that a work springs fully-formed from a genius mind,” in fact in his experience work in archives only increases the mystique as one gleans more and more information from materials. Enniss concurred, saying “For me the most interesting literary manuscripts are those in which the writer is struggling with their muse, and it’s interesting to see that drama played out on the page.”

Kevin on “The Changing Shape of Archives”

Photo by Anthony Maddaloni. Panel, from left to right: Matthew Kirschenbaum, Jeremy John, Susan Thomas, Peter Hirtle, Naomi Nelson, and moderator Kris Kiesling.

 

Director of Archives and Special Collections at the University of Minnesota Kris Kiesling began Saturday morning’s panel, “The Changing Shape of the Archive,” by addressing the issue of digitizing analog archives. Kiesling said that the process of digitization is easy, but it is what comes after that presents a challenge. What are archival facilities to do after they have digitized an archive? Should they sell subscriptions online, or should it only be available on their local networks? Kiesling introduced the panelists: Naomi Nelson, Peter Hirtle, Susan Thomas, Jeremy John, and Matthew Kirschenbaum.

Each of the panelists gave a brief presentation outlining their work in the field of archives. The first presentation was from Hirtle. As Intellectual Property Officer for the Cornell University Library, Hirtle is engrossed in the copyright world right now, Hirtle’s presentation focused on the challenges of duplicating published material. He discussed how the definition of “publish” is changing now that blogs and Internet posts can be considered published material. Hirtle called for a reformation of the copyright law regarding the need for the owner’s consent to make items available on the Internet. He asserted that in the future, no researcher will want to travel to a facility when the material he is seeking could have been accessed over the Internet. One of his biggest concerns is that some copyright holders could try to exploit the laws to make as much money as possible from making material available online.

Next to present was Jeremy John. John focused on his work with the Digital Manuscripts Project at the British Library. He talked about the library’s first experiences with electronic collections, and made a prediction that in the future archives will be hybrid collections, containing both print and electronic material. For a scholar to follow the complete evolution of a text, he or she will need all of the material available in one place, which puts pressure on archives to digitize print holdings. He described the process of discovering a digital archive, and the problems associated with maintaining authenticity, privacy, and original formatting. To examine discs, his team uses forensic work-stations that detail every action taken. They create copies of everything on the discs they are given so that things can be altered and manipulated without corrupting the original files.

Matthew Kirschenbaum’s contribution to the discussion was perhaps the most niche. Kirschenbaum is the Associate Director of the Maryland Institute for Technology in the Humanities, an applied thinktank for the digital humanities. The laser graphics on his desktop foretold his talk about a slightly obscure poem, “Agrippa,” by science fiction author William Gibson. He explained how the poem was originally distributed on a diskette that accompanied a magazine in the early 1990s. The disk was encrypted to become unreadable after the poem was displayed once (similar to the magazine, which was treated with dark-room chemicals so that the pages would deteriorate after being exposed to light). The poem was hacked, and is now available in hundreds of forms on the Internet. Kirschenbaum argued that the poem needed to be hacked now so that it could be preserved. Even if copies of the original disk existed, they would be so archaic in 20 years that they would be unreadable. He talked about how valuable the Internet can be in preserving material and facilitating discussion. He told how the original hackers of the poem contacted him after hearing on a website that he was writing about the phenomenon in his new book.

Naomi Nelson, Assistant Director and Coordinator for Digital Access in Emory University’s Manuscript, Archives, and Rare Book Library, gave a clear, concise, and provocative presentation, raising the issue of what digital materials will mean for research facilities: should they provide large computers for researchers to access their material, or make it the responsibility of the scholar. She also posed questions about who would fund the necessary updates to this technology every few years as the advancement of technology mandates, and how a facility stays valuable. She talked about the need for facilities to have additional staff to manage the digital aspect of archives, and the question of where the archivist stops and the programmer takes over. Nelson also discussed of the benefits of digitizing archives: there is no risk of bending pages or damaging originals when an item is digital, a broader range of people can access the material, not just scholars, and statistics reflect the parts of archives are being studied and what parts neglected.

Susan Thomas, the Digital Archivist at the Bodleian Library at the University of Oxford, presented last, again raising the importance of the notion of a hybrid archive. She discussed several issues that had already been raised, but gave new insight in terms of the ethical problems of a digital archive. How much of the material available should be considered part of the archive? Should an author’s browsing history be made public? There is a need for an industry standard on how much of a computer should be mined for data, and what parts should be preserved under the title “archival material.”

The questions to the panelists were varied and interesting. Jeremy John spoke about the nature of a “forensic work-station.” Rich Oram, an Associate Director at the Harry Ransom Center asked a question about the worth of digital archives, and about what is determined as worth saving and what is not. The general response from panelists was that everything was worth saving because of the reasonable cost of storage. The discussion concluded leaving some reassurance about the fact that there will always be a need for archivists to handle and care for physical materials, and that the digital age could possibly be a benefit to archives and researchers.

Jesse on “Transforming the Archive”

photo by Anthondy Maddaloni. Panel, pictured from left to right: moderator Michael Ryan, Chris Fletcher, Stella Halkyard, Steve Mielke, and William Stingone.

As an intern in the cataloguing department, I’m fascinated by discussions of the archival process. Cataloguers must decide how to house, organize, and present materials so that researchers can best make use of them, and increasingly, this means relying on varying technologies to do so. As the panelists of “Transforming the Archive” noted, technology can serve to better link creators, archivists, and researchers, but it can also drive a gap between them, negating the need for face-to-face human interaction. Perhaps most often, it does both simultaneously.

Moderator Michael Ryan of the Rare Book and Manuscript Library at Columbia University kicked off the discussion with a droll remark about the “series of unappetizing metaphors—boogers, macerated monkfish, and the like” that other speakers had used to describe archives earlier in the day. He went on to state more seriously, “At the heart of our topic is of course the issue of access. Many of the most challenging and provocative issues of today revolve not around what we can acquire, but what we can do with what we’ve already got.” Ryan posited that the two forces driving such questions and issues are those of technology and sustainability, noting that archivists are relentlessly pressed to do more with less (and sometimes even less with less) with technology and posing the question: “What might the role of technology be in sorting through this Lean Cuisine approach to archiving?”

William Stingone, Curator of Manuscripts at the New York Public Library (and former Harry Ransom Center intern), took the lead, noting that in the span of his 10- or 15- year career, he’s seen the archival field go from putting zero finding aids online to thousands. He went on to say, “The biggest struggle we’ve been dealing with is trying to really engage with the researchers to figure out what their research goals are.” While researchers used to be forced to travel to an institution such as the the New York Public Library in order to access desired materials, Stingone related that he now receives an enormous number of photocopy requests from researchers who are unable or unwilling to physically present themselves at the Library—in the past year the New York Public Library made 50,000 photocopies at the request of researchers.

It is in precisely such ways that technological omnipresence can often widen the breach in formerly very personal connections between archivists and researchers. As Harry Ransom Center archivist Steve Mielke noted, one thing that could be done to bridge this gap is to give out surveys to researchers along with the finding aids they use to access and understand collections. Mielke said, “We’re trying to pull researchers into the process of cataloging and making materials available. I’m always wondering if people can understand the finding aid and how they’re using it.” By asking researchers about how they use finding aids, archivists could refine how they create them and better address questions of how to organize materials in preparation for research.

To this Ryan said, “I wonder if we shouldn’t rename this conference “De-Mystifying the Archives”—because that’s what you’re suggesting, isn’t it? That we use technology to illuminate and best enable access to our materials. But what are the horns of this dilemma? Technology has given us a means of reaching out, and we say the easier access the better, the more people that know about it the better…Yet we’re also uncomfortable with it.”

Stella Halkyard of the John Rylands Library at Manchester University then stepped in, saying “No, we’re not uncomfortable with it—it’s fantastic. But you’re dealing more with issues of ethics, so some of the conversations you have to have with people about what they can and cannot see are tricky.” Chris Fletcher of the Bodleian Library at the University of Oxford then suggested, “It would be interesting to hold a parallel conference after one like this where we could see the response of archive users and hear directly from the horse’s mouth.”

In response to a question about evolving roles in the archival and curatorial fields, Halkyard said,“Even something as seemingly simple as the acquisition of archives is going to be radically changed and we’re going to have to get involved much earlier in the process. I’ve started to do studio visits with emerging poets, and the purpose of that is for me to start observing how they are organizing their materials and what their archiving practices are.”

On a related note, Fletcher observed “It’s interesting that, as we saw on the writer’s panel, there’s a real nervousness about technology and how it can be used to create new authorities.” In an internet age which teems with misinformation and Wikipedia pranks, Fletcher suggested that archivists who put finding aids online—which contain biographical sketches of authors in which the information is verifiable and confirmed—could step in to reassure authors that traditional forms of authority still exist.

As the panel opened up to receive questions from the audience, the panelists were asked questions such as “Can we find a sexier word for “finding aid”? (Mielke’s answer: Yes, with feedback from professors and researchers on how to make archival terminology less jargon-filled). Since researchers may use archives in very different ways from those imagined or intended by the archivist who processes and organizes them, Ryan said, “Steve’s comments point to the issue of having to decode what we have once encoded, how to deal with bodies of knowledge which were created in a certain context and now have to function in another context.” Halkyard then added, “I think we have to have active, Bakhtinian dialogue about these issues.”

Finally, a member of the audience asked if the panelists would like to take a stab at listing the top two necessities in organizing archives that the panelists would have in a dream world. Fletcher promptly quipped, “More people, more space.” When asked by the audience member to elaborate, Halkyard succinctly added “More people, more space, more money,” which prompted knowing laughs among the audience. It remains to be seen whether such wishes can and will be granted in the future. In the meantime, the increasingly crucial role of technology as highlighted by these five archivists will continue to add to the field and pose thought-provoking dilemmas and schisms along the way.

Leigh on “The Archive on the Market”

photo by Anthony Maddaloni. Pictured from left to right, Glenn Horowitz, Thomas Staley, Breon Mitchell, and Rick Gekoski.

The second panel of the day was “The Archive on The Market,” moderated by Ransom Center Director Thomas Staley, and featuring, in his words, “3 of the most knowledgeable people in the field of modern literature”–Rick Gekoski of Gekoski Booksellers, Glenn Horowitz of Glenn Horowitz Booksellers, Inc., and Breon Mitchell, Director of the Lilly Library at Indiana University.

The trio tackled the role the archive plays in today’s market–what elements contribute to how it has changed and how one thinks it will change in the future. A daunting topic, and clearly a challenge to address in a 90-minute discussion. From the cultural differences that face the treatment of an archive (archives in London versus archives in the United States) to the transactions of making a deal with a writer (all agreed that the “ability to engage in a harmonious transaction is very difficult”), the topics were widespread and took advantage of audience expertise for additional input.

One of Staley’s principle questions that triggered other discussion points was, ‘How has the market changed in the past decade?’ The panel was split between the those who represented the selling and managing side of an archive (Gekoski and Horowitz) and those representing institutions that have purchased archives (Staley and Mitchell). For the most part, the group seemed to be on the same–most agreed with Horowitz in that today, scholars seem to have gained a ‘more imaginative grip on what actually constitutes the way an archive would have utility in the form of scholarship,’ all agreeing that some sort of change has definitely occurred. From discussing the role of popular interest in items (i.e. the role of the Ian Fleming manuscripts at the Lilly Library to the collection of Hunter S. Thompson materials purchased by actor Johnny Depp) to the broadened spectrum of interests scholars have in archives, the panel deduced that there was an overall “expanded nature of what institutions expect of archives.”

A highlight of the discussion came with the concept of looking at archives as a ‘treasure hunt.’ Gekoski responded, “Sitting down, reading [unread] essay after essay…it makes it worthwhile. It’s what keeps you going. The excitement that the next letter, the next page, may reveal what you’ve been looking for…that’s what makes it a treasure hunt.” Horowitz added to describe the sense of mystery in putting a value on archives in that “you don’t know what’s going to count as being important in the future.”

When asked by the group what they thought of the ethical elements concerning archives, all concluded that certain instances call for certain ethical boundaries, or as Staley put it, “There are inevitable ethical questions that we all confront, and we all must make decisions.” Adding to this point, Horowitz contributed, “We want to put these manuscripts into the hands of someone who is capable of handling it.”

Another question was, “How do you arrive at the market value of a collection?” In response, after debate about how high is too high and even, ethically, how low is too low a price, the point was made, “There’s no reason why someone who has spent their life generating value [in manuscripts, drafts, etc.] should give it [their archive] away. At the end of the day, it’s worth the price that the seller and writer agree on.” On the other hand, as pointed out by Mitchell, “every institution becomes greater by what it’s given rather than what it purchases.”

Dr. Staley often joined the discussion to offer his own experiences in dealing with archives at the Ransom Center. The entire discussion had a open and conversational flow to it–many audience members offered their own advice and opinions on issues like the ethical value of an archive or the digitizing of archives. Overall, the panel seemed to illustrate the unity of all participants–audience and speakers–in seeking the same ideals of maintaining the uniqueness that reside in an archive. Wrapping up, Staley jokingly said, “everyone seems too agreeable on this panel, I thought it would be more volatile.”

Kevin on “Building the Archive”

Still chewing the last bite of their strawberry coffee cake, Flair registrants entered the Prothro Theater at the Harry Ransom Center as Thomas F. Staley took the stage. He spoke briefly about the “archive fever” that has been spreading over the recent years. Next Ben Primer took the stage, first thanking Staley for “driving up the price of all things literary.” He gave a flattering introduction for Dana Gioia, head of the National Endowment for the Arts and the symposium keynote speaker, and ended by reading a poem of Gioia’s.

Gioia began his speech by expressing gratitude that his audience was made up of his people—archivists, librarians, and other literary types—for he usually gives talks for billionaires and senators. Gioia’s address showed a clearness of thought and argument so meticulous that it was clear he had discussed this subject before. He began by establishing that the literary types in the audience have “superstition, or religion” about books. Our society is facing a “vast dumbing down,” he stated, adding that those who stand up for the printed word are likely to be criticized.

Mr. Gioia focused his speech on the decline of literacy in young people, citing statistics on the state of education in our country. He claimed that studies have shown that the lifespan of people who do not read decreases by an average of seven years.

One of the most interesting points in the talk was when bookseller Rick Gekoski (who appeared on the 2 p.m. panel “The Archive on the Market”) asked a challenging question about the Gioia’s implications that reading creates morally superior and better people. Gioia responded that reading and literacy is only a component of this, and that it surely can’t be a coincidence.

After a short break, the “dream team” of authors was back on stage (mostly) with Jim Magnuson as moderator again. As the talk was about to start, Thomas Staley was heard yelling to Tim O’Brien, “Hey Tim, you’re on!” O’Brien hurried to the stage and the discussion began.

Magnuson’s first question was provocative: “When was the first time that you realized that you were immortal?” The authors gave a variety of responses. Amy Tan said that she realized she was not immortal at age six, when she discovered that she didn’t control everything and that not everyone shared her perspective of the world. She said that the idea of having her personal documents preserved has made her very self-conscious. Tim O’Brien offered a story about the death of a close friend from his childhood that inspired a short story. He explained that for him, it is his characters and memories that are made immortal. Lee Blessing added that for a playwright, the idea of immortality is so far off because your works are designed to last only a very brief period of time.

The discussion was moved to the idea of what it means to see an author’s revisions. O’Brien said that he likes seeing the labor of the process even more than the revisions themselves, whereas Tan compared coming to the Ransom Center and seeing revised manuscripts to the fascination that people have when they go to malls. Blessing called revisions “intrinsically interesting,” and told how he was captivated by three drafts of an Anne Sexton poem.

Magnuson’s next question was one of the most revealing about the authors–of the symposium to date. He asked the authors about the issue of how much they want people to know about them and their writing process. Tan expressed concerns about the motives of people who want to know deeply personal things, and said that she is unsure if she will ever make her archive or papers available to the public. O’Brien explained that he went through his work with a fine-toothed comb when selling his archive. He admitted to throwing out artifacts that he was embarrassed of. Denis Johnson offered a very moving response, telling of his drifter life-style in his youth. He explained that he made a practice of destroying all his drafts, and felt the experience to be almost cathartic, like the shedding of an old skin. He said that his only motive for keeping any of his papers, which he does not know that he’ll ever make public, is financial. Johnson’s words conveyed a deep sense of honesty concerning the value that the experience of burning a draft has for him.

The audience questions this morning were insightful, goading responses that revealed information such as the frequency with which the authors Google themselves (Denis Johnson was the only one to admit to having done this). The interesting topic and smaller venue gave an intimate view of the authors. It ended with a physically hungry, but intellectually satisfied audience.

photos from “Building the Archive”

all photos by Anthony Maddaloni.

Keynote speaker Dana Gioia

Friday panel, from left to right: Tim O'Brien, Amy Tan, moderator James Magnuson, Denis Johnson, and Lee Blessing

Denis Johnson

Amy Tan

Tim O'Brien

Kevin on “Writers on the Future of Reading”

At the stroke of 7:30, the audience in the AT&T Executive Education and Conference Center sat in growing anticipation of the beginning of the 2008 Flair Symposium. As the literary giants made their way onto the stage, silence fell. It was as if the whole audience had come to a mutual agreement that, at the authors’ first words, a switch would be flipped and the atmosphere would turn electric. Thomas F. Staley, director of the Harry Ransom Center, gave a brief introduction of Jim Magnuson, the panel’s moderator and Director of the Michener Center for Writers. In continuing to build the excitement of the crowd, Magnuson spoke of the authors as “the Tom Staley equivalent of the dream team.” From left to right, the “most impressive gathering of literary talent” sat Amy Tan, Tim O’Brien, Denis Johnson, and Lee Blessing. Magnuson admitted that if he were to talk of all the authors’ achievements, the audience would be there half the night. At that, he launched into the first question.

Magnuson talked about studies that show that reading is on the decline. He asked the authors if they felt threatened by this trend in literacy. O’Brien was the first to respond, and said that he was not worried about it as an author, but as a cultural matter. Tan assented, adding that she is more worried that people are not reading literary classics. Magnuson addressed the question to Johnson, asking him what he meant by saying that he wrote for an audience in the 25^th century. Johnson, explaining that his first book was printed on paper that would last for six hundred years, joked that it was compensation for the fact that no one would be reading his work today. Blessing took a similarly comic attitude, saying that theater publishing is based on the idea that “nobody wants to buy it.”

The next question delved into the reader’s personal histories. Magnuson asked the authors how their history of reading affected them. Answering, Tan cited many works that she read in her development, including the Bible, the Grimm Fairytales, Jane Eyre, and The Catcher in the Rye among others. But she set a trend of answering only what her reading history was, and not how it affected her. O’Brien mentioned Thumbelina, Jack London, Ezra Pound, and Ernest Hemingway as part of his history, then switched into a discussion against blogging and internet reviewing of literature. Johnson cited Burgess, the Tarzan series, and the Hardy Boys as works that he read when younger, but confessed that he watches a lot of TV. After pronouncing himself a Seinfeld fan, he mentioned that the author he reads most now is Chekov. Blessing responded that he mostly read poetry when he started reading because he felt that it was the most accessible.

Magnuson’s next two questions were about how technology would affect reading, and how the authors felt about alternative methods of reading, such book groups, in a society of mass literacy. Tan responded to the first question aptly by saying, “for writers, either [ebooks and electronic books are] a new source for your revenue stream or [they’re] taking away from your revenue stream,” while Johnson responded that people will always continue reading. In the age of television and CNN, authors may not be culturally important, but they matter to individuals.

photos from “Writers on the Future of Reading”

all photos by Antony Maddaloni.

Danielle Sigler, Ransom Center Curator of Academic Affairs, speaks with Blessing, Johnson, and Tan

Amy Tan signs a book for a fan

Denis Johnson speaks to audience members

the speakers on stage

Leigh on “Writers on the Future of Reading”

Patrons filed into the AT&T Conference Center, the swanky new building just south of The University of Texas campus. Since tonight’s panel was open to both Flair registrants and the general public, the demographic ranged from university students to distinguished intellectuals clad in tweed suits and horn-rimmed glasses.

Amy Tan, Tim O’Brien, Denis Johnson, and Lee Blessing took their seats on the stage and the questions began, moderated by Jim Magnuson from the Michener Center for Writers.

Magnuson introduced the topic, dubbing “The Future of Reading” to be as “daunting a topic as Moby Dick.”

First, Magnuson began by laying out the facts: studies have shown that there has been a significant decrease in reading across the chart–in particular, a 28% decline of reading in youth. Critics blame the Internet for being a major factor in the negative impact on our reading habits.

His first question was simply, “does this group feel threatened by this?”

Tim O’Brien began, saying that he viewed it as a “cultural more than personal matter” when people don’t read his writings, telling the audience the that he’d, “been told on three separate occasions, ‘your [books] are the only ones I’ve ever finished.’” He added, “I think that’s meant to be flattering…but it’s the most disgusting thing I’ve ever heard.”

Denis Johnson saw the situation differently, admitting that “It’s never concerned me that no one would read my book,“ and that he’s actually “way ahead of where I thought I would be” as far as the public response to his writing.

Amy Tan agreed, saying “I would like to think I’m writing not for sales.”

Next, Magnuson directed the question toward the writers, asking them to describe their own history of reading.

Tan described the stages of evolution in her reading preferences, from “the Bible” to “Grimm’s fairy tales” to “personal narrative stories like Jane Eyre“ to “rebellious” books such as Salinger‘s Catcher in the Rye. However, the way she reads today is different–admitting that she finds herself “reading ‘at’ a lot of books,” she lamented, “There are too many books out there…I can’t keep up,” and how it was unfortunate that “If you were to compile my email, I’d have enough for 300 books.”

O’Brien described the introduction of literature into his life as, “books were always coming and going out my house growing up.” He recalled seeing his father “looking at a book with a look of rhapsody” and that “something in his face made me begin reading.”

Johnson described his youthful approach to reading, and lamented the difference in his views today, saying that in his childhood “I was not looking for the author’s picture, I was looking for the characters.”

One of the most interesting discussions that came up was regarding the use of the Internet and media and the role they played in shaping perceptions of authors. For example, the rise of websites like Amazon.com that allow for the general public to review basically any book that has been published.

O’Brien addressed this issue first. Regarding the media’s role in promoting literature, he described books as being “squeezed to death by books and magazines–summarized in a couple of words.”

As for reviews written by the general public, O’Brien called this even more “alarming than the first issue [people not reading at all],” saying that people who “could not spell the word idiot” are penning “Amazon reviews that substitute for actual literary criticism.” Johnson chimed in to add, “reports aren’t replacing literary criticism, they are replacing coffee shop B.S.“ However, it‘s different than just this banter in that “everyone doesn’t just go home and forget what they said…it’s still there. It’s odd…it will be preserved and read by strangers. It’s an electronic endorsement.” He added, that “as an author, it doesn’t seem like it should be permanent.”

On the topic of technology, Magnuson turned the topic over to the rising popularity of ebooks and kindles. Kindles (as explained by Tan to the audience) are electronic reading devices that stores about 200 books in the form of an electronic database. Kindles have been on the rise in the last year, especially after an endorsement by Oprah Winfrey.

When the panelists were asked to comment on their opinion of reading through this new, digitized format, Tan admitted, “I don’t see myself reading on a kindle.” She added, “In airplanes I’ve never seen a person reading on one or anyone over the age of 50 reading an e-book.” Still, it seems like the “in” thing to be doing in the literary world, or as Tan phrased it, “If Toni Morrison is doing it, why can’t I?” [Morrison has recently been featured in a video on Amazon.com, endorsing the kindle].

When the audience was offered the opportunity to ask questions, not surprisingly many of the questions were from fans of the authors. Asking a broad range of questions, they were eager to know what the inspiration was for certain characters in Tan’s The Joy Luck Club. One attendee even asked O’Brien, “what is truth?”

Much of the attitude of the evening could be summed up by an audience member’s question to Johnson: How did he see this wave of new forms of literature [ie: ebooks, the public forum type of review] affecting reading?

Johnson‘s response was simple. “Technology will evolve past what we’re [writers] capable of doing.” It seems that all anyone can do is try to keep up.

Stay tuned!

 

 

Jesse on “Writers on the Future of Reading”

 

Photo by Anthony Maddaloni. Group of writers with Ransom Center director Thomas Staley and moderator Jim Magnuson. Pictured left to right, Lee Blessing, Tim O’Brien, Amy Tan, Denis Johnson, Thomas Staley, and Jim Magnuson

  

The first thing that I noticed as the four guest authors made their leisurely way into the AT&T ballroom and up to the stage is that Amy Tan’s hair was fabulous. More importantly, her remarks—like those of her cohorts Tim O’Brien, Denis Johnson, and Lee Blessing—while mild mannered, were always engaging, thoughtful, and concise. Although the tone remained light, the questions and ensuing discussion often touched on serious and even existential issues, such as the meaning of “truth” in writing and reading. On this subject, O’Brien spoke like a true fiction author, saying “There’s something of a fanaticism that surrounds the word, but ‘truth’ is an elusive critter. Truth evolves and changes, doesn’t it? We’re all makers-uppers of things. There’s a feeling that if a book is well-written and well-imagined, it’s real in a kind of way.”

 

Photo by Anthony Maddaloni. Thomas Staley delivering the introduction.

Though the panel’s topic dealt most immediately with the future of reading, moderator James Magnuson also queried the authors about their early reading habits—a question which provoked some surprising answers. “I started off with a lot of horror stories,” quipped Tan, “including one called the Bible. Bible stories are filled with terrible things, like going to a terrible place if you don’t eat all of your rice.”

 

By contrast, O’Brien noted that he was always “really enthralled and spellbound by Thumbelina,” saying that it was a “look of rhapsody” he once witnessed on his father’s face while engrossed in a book that caused him to take up reading as a child. Substantiating the notion that early literature can have a profound influence for the rest of one’s life, Blessing mentioned that “for some reason, Kidnapped has never gone out of my mind.”

 

When asked about the place of literature in society today, Johnson’s answer was candid and to the point. “We’ve become culturally irrelevant,” he opined, “and we no longer point the way for people. But we’re still important to individuals. We will always be important to individuals.” With this latter message, Johnson brought home the essential point that must surely have warmed the hearts and soothed the minds of those anxious about the place of reading in the years to come: regardless of whether future generations read books on their laptop, their Kindle, or their Blackberry, literature will still reach people on an individual level, and readers will keep filling conference center ballrooms as they did tonight to hear a “dream team” of authors speak, answer questions, and provoke debate.

 

photo by Anthony Maddaloni

 

 

 

 

 

Featured Flair Speaker: Amy Tan

photo by John Foley

 

A novelist. A film-producer. A musician in a rock band. Writer Amy Tan wears many different hats these days, and as of Thursday her most recent will be as a Flair Symposium guest speaker.

I have a personal connection to Tan’s work in that as a child, one of the earliest books I read and loved was her children’s picture book The Moon Lady. A beautifully illustrated book, The Moon Lady portrays a grandmother, Nai-nai, recounting stories to her granddaughters of the time she got lost at the Moon Festival as a child. At the end of the tale, Nai-nai takes her granddaughters out for a moonlit dance of their own, a delightful end to a story with moments that can be scary for a young reader.

The story behind The Moon Lady is one that is derived from a chapter of Tan’s most famous novel, The Joy Luck Club. Tan, who has what the New York Times calls “a fine ear for dialogue, a deep empathy for her subject matter, and a guilelessly straightforward way of writing,” has also penned The Kitchen God’s Wife, The Hundred Secret Senses, The Bonesetter’s Daughter, and Saving Fish from Drowning, all of which were New York Times bestsellers. Tan’s work has been translated into 35 different languages, and The Joy Luck Club was turned into a film for which Tan was the co-producer and co-screenwriter.

In 2007 the National Endowment for the Arts selected The Joy Luck Club for its “Big Read” program, and the novel has been a finalist for the National Book Award and National Book Critics Circle Award. In addition, several of her other novels have appeared as New York Times Notable Books and Booklist Editor’s Choice books. Tan lectures internationally and serves as the literary editor of West, the Los Angeles Times magazine. Perhaps most relevantly for college students, Tan has appeared (as herself) in The Simpsons in November 2000.

On a more musical note, Tan plays tambourine and sings in a rock band comprising several of her literary peers (Barbara Kingsolver, Matt Groening, Stephen King, and Dave Barry) called the Rock Bottom Remainders, which raises money for literacy organizations. She also performed with the San Francisco Symphony and the Hollywood Bowl Orchestra as the narrator of “Sagwa,” a score written for a PBS television series for which she was the creative consultant. Tan recently completed work on a libretto for her novel The Bonesetter’s Daughter.

Featured Speaker: Tim O’Brien

photo by Marion Ettlinger

 First, a quick reminder that Thursday’s panel is free and open to the public. Please see the official Flair webpage on the Ransom Center website for more information.
If you can’t make it to the discussion, all of the symposium events will be shown live on the official Flair webcast.

 

 

 Tim O’Brien was born in Austin, Minnesota and moved to Texas to take a position as a visiting professor at Texas State University-San Marcos, where he holds the Roy F. and Joann Cole Mitte Endowed Chair in Creative Writing.

O’Brien’s Minnesota childhood features prominently in a number of his stories, most notably throughout his short story collection, The Things They Carried. However, most of O’Brien’s writing is on the Vietnam War, a war in which he was drafted and fought in from 1968 to1970. O’Brien’s eight books—many of which have been winners or finalists for various book awards such as the Pulitzer Prize and National Book Critics Circle Award—include If I Die in a Combat Zone, Box Me Up and Ship Me Home (1973), Northern Lights (1975), Going After Cacciato (1978), The Nuclear Age (1985), The Things They Carried (1990), In the Lake of the Woods (1994), Tomcat in Love (1998), and his most recent, July, July (2002).

Hailed by the San Francisco Chronicle as “the best American writer of his generation,” O’Brien’s work is often described as “metafiction” in that it contains both elements of reality and fiction. Like fellow panelist Amy Tan, O’Brien clearly uses his past experiences as a means of understanding what his characters are going through, and posited in The Things They Carried that the “story-truth” (truth as portrayed and/or embroidered through fiction, or what is sometimes called “creative non-fiction”) is sometimes more relevant than the actual truth of what factually occurred.
The Harry Ransom Center is home to the Tim O’Brien papers, which span the entirety of the author’s life and include drafts, proofs, correspondence, and interviews related to his celebrated novels and short stories. The papers were acquired in 2007 and are open for research.

O’Brien will be speaking at the 2008 Flair Symposium, Creating A Usable Past: Writers, Archives, and Institiutions. He will be featured in the panel discussions on Thursday, November 13 (”Writers on the Future of Reading” at 7 p. m. ) and Friday, November 14 (”Building the Archive” at 10 a.m.) with authors Amy Tan, Lee Blessing, and Denis Johnson.

 

Links:
Tim O’Brien papers
Flair Webpage
Flair Schedule of Events
LIVE Flair Webcast

Book Contest and Featured Flair Speaker: Lee Blessing

Lee Blessing (b. 1946) received an M.F.A. in English in 1976, and an M.F.A. in speech and theater in 1979, both from the University of Iowa. An accomplished playwright, Blessing has received numerous awards. His love of baseball can be seen in several of his plays, namely, Cobb, Cooperstown, and The Winning Streak. He has written plays, teleplays, and screenplays. Currently, he is the head of the graduate playwriting program at Rutgers University. His papers, which consist mostly of typescripts of plays, are held at the Harry Ransom Center.

Blessing finds inspiration for his plays in true events. A Walk in the Woods, which was adapted for television in 1989, is a story about a Russian arms dealer and his American counterpart. The play takes its title from a discussion held in the woods between Soviet Yuli Kvitsinsky and American Paul Nitze. A Walk in the Woods earned Blessing nominations for a Tony Award and a Pulitzer Prize.

In the Fall 2008 issue of the Ransom Center’s publication “Ransom Edition,” Blessing submitted a list of recommended reading that can be seen here. 

In honor of Blessing’s contributions and the Flair Symposium, we are holding a giveaway in which one person will win a set of each of the books on Blessing’s recommended reading list.
To enter, please submit your name by November 17 and a few thoughts about the Flair Symposium, Lee Blessing, and/or the Ransom Center to flairblog2008@gmail.com. You do not have to be registered to attend the Flair Symposium or live in the Austin area to win! The winner will be notified by email.

Blessing will be speaking at the 2008 Flair Symposium, Creating A Usable Past: Writers, Archives, and Institiutions. He will be featured in the panel discussions on Thursday, November 13 (“Writers on the Future of Reading” at 7 p. m. ) and Friday, November 14 (“Building the Archive” at 10 a.m.).

Thursday’s panel is free and open to the public. Please see the official Flair webpage on the Ransom Center website for more information.

Links:
Lee Blessing’s List of Recommended Reading
Fall 2008 “Ransom Edition” publication
Lee Blessing’s papers at the Harry Ransom Center
Flair Symposium Schedule of Events
Flair LIVE Webcast

Featured Flair Speaker: Denis Johnson

Denis Johnson, born in Germany in 1949 and raised in Tokyo and Manila, writes with a distinctly American style.  His work often depicts social misfits living on the edge of some apocalypse.  He received his M.F.A from the University of Iowa and has earned many awards. Originally a poet, Johnson has published novels, plays, short stories, and a collection of nonfiction essays. His first book of poetry, The Man Among the Seals, earned him recognition at age 19.  Johnson began moving between poetry and fiction after publishing his first novel, Angels, which grew from a short story that appeared in The Atlantic. 

            Johnson is best known for his collection of short stories, Jesus’ Son, published in 1992.  The stories defy genre, having the feeling of a unified, though nonlinear, narrative.  The narrator of Jesus’ Son, though never given a proper name, struggles with addiction and interpersonal connections that give life meaning.  Jesus’ Son was adapted into a film in 1999, in which Johnson himself appears as Terrance Webber, a man in an emergency room with a knife lodged in his eye. 

            Tree of Smoke, Johnson’s latest novel published in 2007, won the National Book Award and was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize.  The story, set in Vietnam in the 1960s, follows Skip Sands and Bill Houston, one of the protagonists of Johnson’s first novel Angels. 

 

 

At the Flair Symposium, Johnson will be a featured speaker in the panel discussions on Thursday (“Writers on the Future of Reading”) and Friday (“Building the Archive”).

 

 

Thursday’s panel discussion, “Writers on the Future of Reading”, is free and open to the public. More information about the Flair Symposium schedule of events can be found here.  

A Brief History of Flair: 1994-present

“Creating A Usable Past” is the Ransom Center’s 8th Flair Symposium. Since 1992, each Symposium has been uniquely fashioned to focus on topics that are contemporary, provacative, and relevant–as a result a a variety of speakers and guests have been drawn to it. Regardless of the participant list, subject matter, or even the location, Flair has consistently provided an interesting and thought-provoking outlook on literary topics.

 

1994: The State and Fate of Publishing

The inagural Flair symposium was described as “A symposium devoted to a retrospective look at the last century of publishing and an inquiry into its present state, the fate of the written word, the impact of technology, and the opportunities for the next century.”

 

Featured speakers at the 1994 Symposium included:
Robert Berdahl, President, The University of Texas at Austin
Simon Jenkins, London Times – opening address
Joanna Hitchcock, University of Texas Press
Dave Bartlett, Temple University Press
Joseph J. Esposito, President, Encyclopedia Britannica
Donald Lamm, President, W. W. Norton Publishing Co.
Greg Curtis, Editor, Texas Monthly
Lawrence Wright, The New Yorker
Robert Wallace, ABC Prime Time Live
Virginia Postrell, Editor, Reason magazine
Anita Desai, author
Shelby Hearon, author
Bruce Hunter, literary agent
Richard Ekman, Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
Jerome S. Rubin, Professor, MIT Media Laboratory
Carlos Fuentes, author

1996: Shouting in the Evening: British Theater 1956-1996  

With a string of recent theater-related acquisitions (Tom Stoppard, Arnold Wesker, David Hare, and James Saunders), the Ransom Center’s second Symposium “enabled scholars to look more widely at this era of theatre, from scriptwriting and set design to acting and production.” 

 

Featured speakers at the 1996 Symposium included:

Tom Stoppard, playwright
David Hare, director
Frith Banbury, director
Oscar Brockett, theater historian, The University of Texas at Austin
Ruby Cohn, author
Simon Gray, playwright
Mel Gussow, New York Times theater critic
Janet Suzman, actress and director
Timberlake Wertenbaker, playwright
Michael Billington, The Guardian
Charlotte Canning, author
David Mark Cohen, Professor-The University of Texas at Austin, playwright

 

1998: Writing the Lives of Women

1998’s Symposium brought together influential figures to discuss and portray the way women’s lives are represented. Topics ranged from women’s literary and political biography and the study of women in literature to the image of women in Hollywood and the media.

 

Featured speakers at the 1998 Symposium included:

Fleur Cowles
Rachel Brownstein, Celia Morris, author and speaker
Zipporah Wiseman, Professor of law
Bonnie Angelo, Time Magazine correspondent
Frank Barrie, National Theatre
Gayle Hunnicutt, actress
Brenda Maddox, author, biographer, and journalist
Diana Middlebrook, writer and professor of English at Stanford University
Akexander Walker, author
Desley Deacon, author and American Studies professor
Elspeth Rostow, Dean of the LBJ School of Publkic Affairs
Janet Staiger, Radio Television Film- The University of Texas at Austin

Carol McKay, Professor of English, The University of Texas at Austin

Thomas Staley, Director, Ransom Center
William Livingston, Senior Vice-President of The University of Texas at Austin

 

 

2000: The Infinite Library: Old Worlds and New: Manuscripts, Archives, and Special Collections in the 21st Century 

2000’s Symposium brought together leading author, publishers, librarians, university administrators, national policy shapers, representatives of leading foundations, and experts in information technology to discuss key issues facing humanities research and special collections in the new century. Panel discussions included, “Variant States: Futures of the Library”, “Visions and Revisions: Authors and Their Archives”, and “Excavating the Imagination: Scholars at Work.”

Featured Speakers at the 2000 Symposium included:
William Chace, President, Emory University
Jean Ashton, Director, Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Columbia University
Jean-Claude Guedon, Professor, Comparative Literature, Universite de Montreal
Douglas Greenberg, President and CEO, Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation
Lynne Brindley, Chief Executive, The British Library
Ellen Dunlap, President, American Antiquarian Society
Richard Ekman, President, Council of Independent Colleges
Deanna Marcum, President, Council on Library and Information Resources
Diane Johnson, author
James Salter, author
Arnold Wesker, playwright
Roy Foster, Carroll Professor of Irish History, University of Oxford
Alice Prochaska, Director, Special Collections, The British Library
Prosser Gifford, Director, Scholarly Programs, The Library of Congress
James Fallows, National Correspondent, The Atlantic Monthly
Fleur Cowles 

 

 2002: Writers’ Rights

Located in London due to renovations that were occurring at the Ransom Center’s location in Austin, Texas, 2002’s Symposium was co-hosted by the Institute of English Studies at the University of London, addressing ”a topic rendered urgent by the pace of contemporary technological change.”

 

Featured Speakers at the 2002 Symposium included:

Nicholas Mann, Dean, School of Advanced Study
Thomas F. Staley, Director, Harry Ransom Center
Maureen Duffy, International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organizations
Anthony Murphy, Director of Copyright in U.K. Patent Office
Patricj Parrinder, Professor of English, University of Reading
David Godwin, agent, DG Assoociates
Maureen Duffy, writer
Fiona Macmillan, Professor of Law, Birkbeck College
Mark Le Fanu, Society of Authors
Jean Ashton, Director of Rare Books & Manuscript Library, Columbia University
Diane Middlebrook, biographer
Carmen Callil, publisher and author
John Sutherland, Lord Northcliffe Professor of Modern English Literature, University College London
Chris Barlas, Rightscom.com
Jane Dorner, Chair of the Copyright Licensing Agency; freelance writer & editor
Paul Ayris, Director of Library Services at University College London (UCL)
Penny Carter, Cambridge University Press

 

 

2004: The State and Fate of Modernism

 

Running parallel to the opening of the newly renovated Ransom Center, “The State and Fate of Modernism” addressed “the origins and legacy of modernism.” Panels included “Institutions of Modernism”, “The Political Contexts of Modernism”, and “The Forking Paths of American Modernism.”

 

Featured Speakers at the 2004 Symposium included:

Richard Lariviere, Dean, College of Liberal Arts, The University of Texas at Austin

Marjorie Perloff, Professor, Stanford University

Kurt Heinzelman, Harry Ransom Center

Richard Poirier, Professor, Rutgers University

James Watson, Professor,Tulsa University

Cathy Henderson, Harry Ransom Center

Breon Mitchell, Lilly Library, Indiana University

Patricia Willis, Beinecke Library, Yale

Jean Ashton, Rare Book & Ms Library, Columbia University

Sara Blair, Professor,Michigan University

Maria DiBattista, Professor,Princeton University

Susan Stanford Friedman, Wisconsin

Mia Carter, The University of Texas at Austin

Stephen Enniss, Woodruff Library, Emory

Glenn Horowitz, Glenn Horowitz Bookseller

Thomas Staley, Director, Harry Ransom Center

Morris Dickstein, Professor, CUNY

Brian Bremen, Professor,The University of Texas at Austin

George Bornstein, Professor, Michigan University

Elizabeth Cullingford, Professor,The University of Texas at Austin

Max Rudin, Library of America

Joseph Parisi, Poetry Magazine

Mark Morrison, Professor, Penn State University

Ira Nadel, Professor, University of British Columbia

Warwich Gould, Professor, University of London

Michael North, Professor, UCLA

Catherine Turner, Professor, Misericordia

Jennifer Wicke, Professor,Virginia

Daniel Albright, Harvard University

Sean Latham, Professor, Tulsa University

Karen Lawrence, Professor, UC Irvine

2006: The Sense of Our Time: Norman Mailer and America in Conflict

2006’s Symposium looked to the works and ideas of Norman Mailer as the starting points to explore the cultural conflicts that confronted post-World War II America, addressing topics from civil rights to war, sexual politics to the rise of “new Journalism.”

 

Featured speakers at the 2006 Symposium included:

Norman Mailer
David Oshinsky, The University of Texas at Austin
Shelley Fisher Fiskin, Stanford University
Sam Tanenhaus, Editor, The New York Times Book Review
Gay Talese
Morris Dickstein, Center for the Humanities, City University of New York
Robert Abzug, The University of Texas at Austin

Alan Petigny, University of Florida
Paul Boyer, University of Wiconsin-Madison
Phil Ford, The University of Texas at Austin
J. Michael Lennon, Mailer Archivist
Susan Douglas, University of Michigan
Elaine Tyler May, University of Minnesota
Janet Davis, The University of Texas at Austin
Steven Isenberg, The University of Texas at Austin
Lawrence Schiller

Who is Fleur Cowles?

Fleur Cowles, photo by Andrew Cake

Fleur Cowles is an American original. She made her way into the public eye as Associate Editor of Look magazine in the late 1940s, and made her distinct mark in 1950 when she published Flair magazine. Though the magazine was short-lived, it is still considered one of the most innovative magazines in the history of publishing. Flair set a new standard for magazines with enlightened feature articles, sophisticated advertising layouts, and uniqueness and beauty on every page.

Cowles’ success is not limited to her magazine publications: for over 50 years Fleur Cowles has been a prolific writer and internationally recognized artist. Her paintings, filled with jungle beasts and enormous flowers, have been exhibited more than 40 times in galleries and museums around the world. She currently resides in London and serves on boards supporting such activities as art, literature, and the preservation of wildlife.

Fleur Cowles the Harry Ransom Center: The Connection

In 1992, Cowles was drawn to the Ransom Center’s aim to “bring together literary and artistic achievements of 20^thcentury.” As a result, the Fleur Cowles Endowment was established to support fellowships, internships, acquisitions, and the Fleur Cowles Room in the Harry Ransom Center. Since 1994, the Ransom Center’s Fleur Cowles Flair Symposium has honored the ideals set forth by Fleur Cowles and her landmark Flair magazine.

Fleur Cowles Room in the Harry Ransom Center, photo by Eric Beggs

 Click here to view two videos on the Ransom Center website featuring an interview with Cowles and a montage of Flair images.

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to A Flair for Archives. The goal of this blog is to document and commemorate the events of the 8th Fleur Cowles Flair Symposium, November 13 through 15, 2008 at the Harry Ransom Center in Austin, Texas. Written and maintained by three undergraduate Ransom Center interns, the comments, reflections, and facts recorded here will pay tribute to and preserve the happenings of Flair.

To start with the most basics of basics, what is Flair?

Established in 1992 with the Fleur Cowles Endowment and initiated in 1994, the Fleur Cowles Flair Symposium is a biennial event hosted at the Harry Ransom Center. A diverse group of individuals from around the world is drawn to the event and its focus on the “contemporary scene within our culture.” As Flair topics explore the extensive, unique, and diverse elements of society, the Symposium itself is characterized by its “thoughtful lectures, charged debate, and distinguished cast of speakers.”

This year’s Flair Symposium, Creating a Usable Past: Writers, Archives, and Institutions, pays tribute to the the art of the archive- the acquisition, organization, and maintenance required to preserve each collection. In panel discussions such as “Building the Archive” and “The Changing Shape of Archives”, writers, dealers, archivists, agents, and scholars will address the components that collectively cause archives to be both an interesting and necessary part of history.

We are honored and excited to be able to write the Ransom Center’s first blog, and we look forward to seeing you at Flair! For those who are not able to make it out this year, not to worry–you can visit the Ransom Center’s Flair website during the Symposium dates (11/13-11/15) to watch events via a live webcast.

For More Information:

Official Flair Website

Flair Schedule of Events

List of Featured Speakers