Editor’s note: Here’s a fun piece from archivist Daniel Meister – for more archival laughs, join us at the ACA Virtual Conference this June! Click here to get more info and register today.

1) Following original order, or Lust  

Lusting after original order will only end in tears, especially when the only thing original order will tell you is that the records’ creator was badly organized. Original order sometimes makes perfect sense: the whole notion of respect des fonds was created in an imperial age and with government records in mind. Naturally then, it works well with records that originate from a well-structured organization with diligent record-keeping. But thathas long been the exception, not the rule (at least on the private sector side),and never more so with born-digital records. 

2) Being too descriptive, or Gluttony

Fresh records? It’s tempting to feast on them, reading every line and interpreting them in vivid biographical sketches and lavishly detailed finding aids. But does this truly help the user? They are still going to ask to view the files that are relevant to their research. And if you’ve moved on and tackled the next collection in the backlog, well, that one might be of interest to them too…  

3) Selecting too many records for retention, or Greed

It’s true what they say about archival work: there is a sort of magical, mystical, alchemical process by which the records reveal to the archivist the order in which they should be arranged. But sometimes archivists can become too enchanted with how the records can be arranged, and need to stop and ask themselves: should they be? What is the institution’s collections mandate, and what evidentiary value do the records possess? Of course, every now and then, “cool” must serve as a selection criterion—but using that criterion every time? Well, that’s just greedy. 

4) Organizing records by format, or Sloth

In ye olden days, archivists would hive off parts of collections to different departments. Or, in small institutions, they would just separate the materials by type: truly slothful. This fragmenting of the records always jarred with the notion of original order, when that was a more common sin, but it also disrupts the story that the records tell. Some researchers are biased towards text (looking at you, historians), others towards photos (looking at you, normal people), while having the two formats together encourages researchers of all stripes to consider new types of evidence. And that beats an overly-detailed finding aid any day.  

5) Believing the labels on random unprocessed files, or Wrath

Believing the labels is not an effect of wrath, of course, but a cause. Choosing to believe them is more slothful, but it will almost always come back to punish you. It is not a shortcut to a processed collection; it’s a shortcut to hours of tedious interfiling. And if that doesn’t inspire wrath, you are a candidate for sainthood already. 

6) Doing researchers’ research for them, or Envy

Archival processing is its own type of research, though limited in scope. But sometimes archivists want to widen that scope and when a researcher comes calling, it can be the perfect excuse. But don’t give in to that envy, that longing to spend a day with the files, maybe witha little side reading of reference works. For if you do, the backlog will swallow you alive—for it knows that green archivists have more vitamins. 

7) Ignoring the emotional impact of archival work, or Pride

There are many reasons why so many people, for so long, have been convinced they should ignore their emotions, and archivists have not been immune. Frankly, though, doing this will only make you sick, especially when processing difficult records. This is also true of working with donors, people who may be near the end of their lives and want reassurance that someone will care for their records, but also that they will be remembered, and that their lives havehad meaning. This is heavy work and, like them, we need support. Stiff upper lip? That’s for when you’re trimming or bleaching your mustache.

Bio: Daniel R. Meister is an Archivist in the Private Sector Records Unit of the Provincial Archives of New Brunswick.