3 ms·
For the sake of those of us that will likely never be in that part of the world would you like to say what the specific volume was?
by sincerely 8y ago
For the sake of those of us that will likely never be in that part of the world would you like to say what the specific volume was?
- ChuckMcM 8y agoIt was the University's main library so there were lots of different ones. For a while, one of the interesting ones was the congressional report on the nature of pornography (it was illustrated) but that eventually made it out into the main stacks, I remember a book on the McCarthy anti-american hearings which had some material on people in Hollywood that was "sensitive", some chemistry books that were pretty explicit about early explosives and their manufacture. That sort of thing. As the article states, and I doubt this was different about USC, restricted books back in the 70's and 80's often seem tame by modern standards.
- hudibras 8y agoWhen I worked in a college library in Seattle, we had a single book that was restricted so that the library patron had to read it* while supervised by a library employee: a out-of-print, full-color field guide from the 1970s to Pacific Northwest mushrooms. *or, more commonly, photocopy specific pages.
- jpatokal 8y agoIncluding psychedelic ones, I presume?
- Mvandenbergh 8y agoI'm guessing the reason for the restriction was the risk of people stealing it or razoring pages out - something that happens with some frequency with out of print art books. It's even more of an issue with books which have images of obscure flora and fauna, at least with an art book if there's demand for a really good picture of a sculpture or painting you can pay someone to go take one, with pictures of rare mushrooms you'd have to go to huge lengths just to find them let alone get good pictures of intact specimens.