Ralph Whittington, a curator of the Main Reading Room of the Library of Congress, recently retired. He was an extremely well respected professional whose name appeared on and in numerous scholarly articles, but he’ll be remembered for his avocation more than his vocation.vocation
For years after its discovery, he tried to donate his outstanding collection of pornography (dating back to the earliest days of filmmaking) to the LoC, but they refused to accept it. (This was the subject of a Daily Show segment, in fact.) There is no question that porn is a very important part of popular culture and a subject of much research, and the LoC is the greatest research facility on Earth (or at least the largest, collectionwise). In your opinion, should they have accepted the gift and said “the Fundies be damned” to those who would have voiced major objection to public money being spent cataloging and housing the collection? (For those who’ve never worked in a library and or been irritated that the copy of War & Peace you donated wound up on the $.25 table at their book sale, every item received by a library must be processed and cataloged, and especially in the case of this collection that would be a long and hard and turgid time consuming procedure.)
Maybe the William Jefferson Clinton Memorial Library has some extra space?
My answer to your question: does the LoC have a religious section? If so, I see no reason why it can’t have this too. It’s supposed to be for everybody, not just those who want to control what everyone else reads, right? If the “Fundies” can have their section of the library at public expense, I fail to see why the rest of us can’t.
(btw: While I don’t have a library sciences degree, I’m a quick study, and I’m free most weekends.)
Yes. Yes, indeed. I can certainly see that the procedure would be long and hard and turgid.
I think that perhaps you’re confusing the LoC with the Smithsonian, “The nation’s attic”. AFAIK, the LoC doesn’t really concern itself that much with pop culture. Here’s their mandate.
Sorry, but I don’t see how preserving somebody’s porn collection will help future generations with their knowledge and creativity.
If you look at some of the lists of their other recent acquisitions, it shows that they’re all fairly serious, “historical interest” type of documents, not “pop culture” or “pop historian” stuff. Presidential papers and whatnot. It’s hard to see how Debbie Does Dallas would fit in.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/mss/acq.html
http://lcweb.loc.gov/rr/mss/acq1997.html
http://lcweb.loc.gov/rr/mss/acq1996.html
Hey, one person’s trash is another person’s historical interest. I think that’s why the phrase “universal knowledge” is found in the LoC’s mission statement.
If the LoC won’t take it, perhaps the Smithsonian will. Then I get dibs on it.
Well, just from the weirdos that frequented the Rock Island Public Library to look at pictures of naked women in the photo books and “pleasured themselves,” the last thing i want to see is the LoC become the new perv hangout.
The LoC already has an extensive porn collection. Every Playboy, Penthouse, etc., ever published is in its collection.
Of course, after a spate of LoC customers went into the porn collection with scissors, now if you want to go through the collection, a LoC staffer stands over your shoulder.
(and no, I don’t know this personally. A college roommate spent a semester in the LoC porn collection while writing a term paper on the evolution of Playboy. Having a quirky sense of humor, he never informed the LoC staff that he was writing a paper. Instead, he went to the LoC every day, took out a few copies of Playboy and started scribbling notes. The staff thought he was a complete freak. :D)
Sua
Well, any film from the very early days of filmmaking would (IMHO) be valuable and useful regardless of the content. Also, when taken as a whole, this collection could provide insight as to the shifting morals and tastes over time and the like.
In short, I would say that this collection would, in general be a valuable acquisition.