I’m going to the library (collective gasp) and looking for some material I could use in my English essay. Basically, the essay’s about humans and vermin insects (like cockroaches). One of the texts I’m using is Kafka’s The Metamorphosis. I thought it would really help the paper if I got something on Jungian archetypes of cockroaches and what they mean.
Unfortunately, I tried searching for some material a few days ago, and due to the son-of-a-felched-goat electronic card catalog, I wasn’t able to find any leads.
What I’m looking for is a book that lists or discusses Jungian archetypes of cockroaches and other types of vermin. Any tips on searching electronically, or promising sections of the library to start trawling, would be very, very much appreciated.
I just checked my university’s online card catalogue using jung and archetypes as keywords and had a few things turn up. One that might be promising has a call number of BF175 .S668 1982, and is entitled “Archetypes, a natural history of the self” by Anthony Stevens. Odds are that the books you find around that book (with similar call numbers… BF1XX.XXXX) might be helpful as well. In fact, looking up just “Jung” gives a ton of books, including, “On Jung” by Richard Bilsker, call number BF173 .B486 2002. As you can see, very similar call numbers. Go find the BF17’s and you’ll probably find something good.
Hope this helps!
(isn’t the dewy decimal system a wonderful thing? All books have got a number, organized by subject. Wonder who came up with such a great idea… probably Dewy).
But I do remember a Beavis & Butthead episode in which the two were reading a phony report on a “Sarah Dickson Dewey” who allegedly invented the Dewey Decimal System. (Then again, it was a Beavis & Butthead episode.)
Perhaps if you used standard spelling in the computerized catalog, such as “skills” rather than “skillz” or “rules” rather than “r001z,” you might have more success.
You are also not likely to find the archetypical bugs you’re looking for in a high-school or a public library. If there’s a university in your locale, I’d start there.
Get yourself a real live reference librarian. They are trained in the arts of literature searches and know what resources are available. They will save you hours of futility. Electronic searching is an art.
A lot of literary criticism is published in journals, not books, and the librarians will know what journals are available.
I’d just like to point out that the system you are referencing is not Dewey Decimal but rather the Library of Congress Classification schedule. Daowajan does not mention what type of libary he is going to.
If it is a public library then it almost certainly does not use LOC. If it is a university library of reasonable size then it almost certainly (though not definitely) does.
I deg to biffer. Most public libraries are slowly shifting over to LOC classification. The Providence Public Library uses it, as does our small local public library, and I think (at least in my experience with the state-wide computer catalog link-up) most of the Rhode Island public libraries either use it or are in the process of conversion.
If you want to be in the know, librarywise, it’s just called LC Classification. It’s never called LOC.
You could do two things:
Ask a librarian for assistance. We don’t bite, but we promise not to treat your question with disdain until you are out of earshot.
Search through journal indexes. Even public libraries will have some academic journals available fulltext. And universities will have even more. If there is no book about your topic, it’s likely somebody wrote a painfully dull journal article that would be indexed in MLA.
You might be able to find some journal articles on Jungian archetypes by using a database such as Psychlit, though Psychlit might be more for clinicians.
hm… not the dewey decimal system… after I posted that I was wondering why it actually didn’t seem to jive with the way the dewy decimal system worked in high school. Learn something new every day.
So, have any luck?
and BobT, are you so shure? I think I remember an X-Files episode that went something like this:
Mulder: The body seems to be drained of blood, and look at this; bite marks all over the arms and face. What do you make of it?
Good to know, BobT, I’ll just return my MLIS at the nearest exit.
“Never” is a very strong word and a quick google search shows many examples of it being referred to as LOC classification. But yes, within the profession LC is the preferred term.
I wasn’t talking to a librarian, however, and wanted to use an abbreviation and still have it clear what I was abbreviating.
Eutychus55, I think perhaps we both overstate our cases. Perhaps it is no longer almost certain that public libraries use Dewey, but I also doubt that, nationwide, most public libraries are converting to LC.
I’ve still never been in a public library using LC (though I know they exist); in most cases I don’t see what the benefit of such a conversion would be (with a major negative being a costly retro-conversion). I’ve been out of public librarianship long enough, though, that I may have missed this trend.
If you have an hour to spare, you might also want to browse through the MLA bibliography–you can usually find some good stuff in there, provided you don’t mind being adventurous and using something that’s not computerized.
The main problem I’m facing in offering any new views is that we still don’t know what kind of library Daowajan is using. But here’s a start: if you’re looking for “a book that lists or discusses Jungian archetypes of cockroaches and other types of vermin,” you’re almost certainly looking for some disappointment. That subject is way too narrow for most authors to write a book about it.
I’m not saying there might not be a book out there somewhere, but I wouldn’t spend a lot of time looking for it. Previous recommendations to look for journal articles are your next best bet. I’d also examine Dissertation Abstracts if you have it available to you and the time to wait to get the material delivered to you via inter-library loan.
obfusciatrist, I had no idea you were a librarian. Here I thought it was just me and BobT (and RickJay maybe, I can’t remember). And an MLIS, too. May I ask what school you went to? I’m still under the impression that we are somewhat rare compared to MLSs.
Eutychus55, I’m afraid I, too, must respectfully disagree with your assertion that “most” public libraries are switching to LC classification. The strong arguments against LC for public libraries (chief among them: it’s lousy for browsing) will never go away, and that combined with inertia will be enough to keep the DDC system alive and well for a long, long time.
MS, though, not an MLS or MLIS.
Simmons College.
Though on my business cards I use MSLIS, which is technically not correct but as an automation vendor it is important to display my library credentials when possible.
Back to the original question, however, I agree that you’re narrowing down thesearch a little too much. Check out Jung’s “Man and his Symbols” for a basic overview.
Also—any reason you’re narrowing it down to Jungian symbolism? Joseph Campbell can be a helpful resource for symbolism questions.
You may also want to try books specifically about insects and cockroaches. I’m a “snake person” and many of the books I have about snakes have a brief overview of what they’ve symbolized throughout the ages. Good luck!
Well, I am technically a librarian in that I have the degree. I’ve been out of the field for quite a while though. I got my degree at the University of Hawaii. A great program for practical librarianship, but pretty small. There are lots of librarians around these parts, though. I believe that we even count a moderator among our ranks.
I have an MLIS from the University of California at Berkeley, using the preferred name of the university.
The school doesn’t give out that degree anymore.
As for “never” for LOC, I should say that the website of the Library of Congress is http://www.loc.gov
But all the time I was in school, we always referred to the institution as LC and the classification system as LC and the subject headings (the big red books) as the LCSH.
There is nothing librarians like more than initials and acronyms that we can throw around. It’s a futile attempt we make to sound like we are smarter than anyone else.
It fools some people.
