Ezra Klein: Libraries vs. Amazon

« Political Fiction | Main | Former Professors of Mine Unite! »

January 02, 2007

Libraries vs. Amazon

This is weird:

Checking Out [John J. Miller]
Are public libraries supposed to repositories of the best that has been thought and said, or are they supposed to compete with bookstores for customers? In Fairfax County, Va., librarians are removing classics that haven't been checked out recently so they can make more room for bestsellers and titles that Oprah likes. I've got some pretty strong libertarian tendencies, but I've always had a soft spot for public libraries. If they merely become government-run versions of what the private sector delivers so efficiently nowadays—the ability to purchase just about any book ever printed, and often at a very good price if you're willing to buy from a secondhand seller—then maybe we don't really need them anymore.

Since when do bookstores allow you to check out books for no fee, finish them, and bring them back? That's the primary difference between libraries and bookstores -- they make reading cheap, if not free. As it happens, John and I work at magazines. Books magically flow into our offices, and those that don't can be freely ordered from the kind elves staffing publisher publicity departments. But for those whose employment (or lack thereof) eschews such perks, $25.95 (or a bit over $20 on Amazon, once shipping is included) for Special Topics in Calamity Physics is steep. Libraries make it less so. That's their function: Not to serve as a dusty repository of the classics, but to economically democratize the world of letters.

So far as the Fairfax branches go, I'm all for keeping the hits of yesteryear available, but they are, I''ll remind John, delivered fairly efficiently by the private sector, and for dirt-cheap if you're willing to go secondhand. The Education of Henry Adams, one of the removed classics, is available for $1.44 on Amazon -- $13.05 cheaper than the cheapest copy of Special Topics. So it would seem the libraries could do more good by making the pricier, contemporary novels widely available, rather than duplicating the inexpensive back catalogues of the private sector. Indeed, it seems oddly un-libertarian to demand that libraries paternalistically ignore market pressures and consumer preferences in order to stock the titles that educated elites have deemed "classics." Nothing against the classics, of course, but it would certainly seem that in the age of Amazon and online used retailers, libraries should ensure their stock hews as close to the preferences of their users as possible.

January 2, 2007 in Books | Permalink

Comments

Speaking as an (academic) librarian... Shelf space is at a premium at most libraries; remember, every book in basically requires that another book be removed.

At the same time, "popular reading" does not generally compete with the classics for shelf space, because they're shelved separately. What's happening, I guess, is that ex-bestsellers are being kept instead of the classics.

I should also point out that most of the "classics" are available for free online via Project Gutenberg, Bartleby, etc.

Posted by: Mac | Jan 2, 2007 3:00:28 PM

Well if you don't have a computer or $1.98 plus shipping and a credit card to order, I guess your just screwed!!!

It's easy to say "its cheaper online" when you are online and have a credit card and some discretionary income. As usual, the poor get screwed once again.

Posted by: Doubting Thomas | Jan 2, 2007 3:30:56 PM

Speaking for myself, I'm more likely to use the library for denser nonfiction, academic texts, etc., less because of the relative purchase prices, but because I'm far less certain I want to own some of those texts until I've had a chance to look them over... and brick-and-mortar stores are even less likely to have some of them available than the library. I like having access to older or more challenging stuff-- classics are less of an issue, because they are available online for free and there are cheap paperbacks readily available-- without having to shop. I probably never would have bothered to put Adam Smith on my wish list, but I did put him on reserve at the library.

Posted by: latts | Jan 2, 2007 3:38:30 PM

Let me get this straight, DT... The poor are screwed because the library is giving them books that people want to read rather that books they want people to read but people don't?

And if you hadn't noticed, libraries have internet access now and have for some time. Also, as I should have pointed out, in a large metropolitan system some library is likely to have any book you want, and if none does there's interlibrary loan. Oh, and the books the libraries discard will be available for purchase for a dime. Most people can swing that.

Posted by: Mac | Jan 2, 2007 3:45:49 PM

As usual, the poor get screwed once again.

Of course they do. If they didn't, no one would mind being poor and no one would strive for wealth....it would be meaningless.

The lesson is plan not to be poor.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Jan 2, 2007 4:01:30 PM

Quickly, Wadsworth! Fetch Frederick his monocle!

Posted by: August J. Pollak | Jan 2, 2007 4:13:11 PM

"Special Topics in Calamity Physics"

Which I just read, after checking it out from the library . . .

A pretty good novel, but not one I'd pay an enormous sum to own . . .

Posted by: rea | Jan 2, 2007 4:39:47 PM

ha ha!! that was funny, august j. pollak!!!
by the way, happy new year, fred!

Posted by: jacqueline | Jan 2, 2007 5:24:49 PM

I noticed recently on Amazon a bunch of preposterously cheap used copies, where the sellers noted that they have library markings, but are otherwise in good condition.

And so the long-tail moves from the public library onto Amazon.

Well, fine. But what happens when these copies disappear into private hands. Then what?

Posted by: Mickeleh | Jan 2, 2007 5:26:26 PM

The key question, I think, is whether or not Libraries should be in the business of declaring what books are more worth reading than others or whether their obligation rests with providing the public with what it wants. Obviously there will be some of each. One role of the public library is to make available the books that are important enough that people want to read them but which they aren't willing to buy -- they're actually a correction for a missing market. On the other hand, that role has to be balanced with the goal of making available to the public what ever books the public wants to read. A given library could stock only "important classics" or only pulp romance novels, but the optimal solution is to be somewhere in between, and the trick is finding the balance. Making the decision on the basis of what's actually being read seems like as reasonable a way as any to make those decisions.

One of the tenets of _conservative_ libertarianism often seems to me to be "let the market sort it out, but when the market doesn't do what I personally want it to do we should bludgeon the 'bad actors' into doing what I want them to do so that the market does what I want it to do." Elitist attitudes are good at confusing market failure with moral failure.

Posted by: Galen H. Brown | Jan 2, 2007 6:25:20 PM

I don't watch "Oprah," but I hear about her. I seem to remember some titles from authors like Faulkner on her reading list.

Posted by: Brian | Jan 2, 2007 7:00:06 PM

I love how people like Freddy here and the Cornerites sneer that we are "wannabe Europeans", and in the next breath offer a rousing defense of "the classics", which were almost without exception produced by ... Europeans.

Posted by: Thlayli | Jan 2, 2007 7:13:39 PM

I use interlibrary loan all the time. All libraries have it. So for a branch to sell a classic doesn't mean that book is no longer available to library patrons. So his complaint is without merit. Of course.

Posted by: RWB | Jan 2, 2007 7:15:46 PM

I support what the PL (public library) is doing in general, if I got the context correctly, but there have been some misunderstandings and distortions by others, (not by Ezra here) in the past.

More l8tr..just checkin' in, and cookin' dinner at same time.

Posted by: benny05 | Jan 2, 2007 7:30:39 PM

the solution to most of the complaints here is simple: libraries should be funded (by the gov't, with taxation monies generated from real, fair taxation of large corporations like amazon) to set up special electronic projects, in which the lesser known, less popular "classics" are stored, and anyone can access them via a computer. those computers should be connected to printers, for those poor folks with out them, income test if you need it, but let those without the 1.98$ and/or computer at home print out the copies. keep untold millions of lesser known books on computer, and you'll all the shelf space you need for the latest rowling book.

i have librarian family members who work in electronic book projects for libraries. you down load a book onto your computer or ipod via some connection at home or at the libarary, and it's good for a specific amount of time. the future is in not being so stupid about technology. just today i was reading about 100$ PCs coming on the market. there should be a "make america #1 in technology bill" which, among other things, computerizes places like libraries, makes wifi available for free in most/all communities, and gives tax breaks or free computers to those who can't afford them.

everyone wins. even you conservatives and libertarians. a more informed, information and technology savvy population is one that needs fewer of your taxdollars to survive.

Posted by: chicago dyke | Jan 2, 2007 8:14:29 PM

I've replaced many of mine, swallowed up by Katrina, at thrift stores where paperback versions, some unread, cost as little as a quarter. Didn't even need my credit card.

Posted by: peggy | Jan 2, 2007 8:49:03 PM

Clarification: Fairfax County isn't dumping classics. Here's a statement from the Fairfax County library director: "Recent media reports have misled readers to believe that we’ve eliminated all copies of classic titles from our branches. This could not be further from the truth...Because there’s a growing demand for more and more books in more and more formats, we have to balance the need to offer classic literature, and satisfy public demand, with the physical limitations of our finite shelf space...Therefore we have to make difficult decisions about what items to keep in our collection." In fact, many of the authors cited in the Washington Post's article, "Hello, Grisham -- So Long, Hemingway?", like, um, Hemingway, are not being discarded.

Motive: Circulation, or how many books are checked out, is a library's most important statistic. State and local funding for a library is determined based on circulation, and it is one of the primary success metrics used to determine the efficacy of a library's programs or leaders. If a library isn't moving materials, they don't get the public's money, which seems like a fair bargain.

Reality: Public libraries have always had to had to balance cost vs. access. They still help any patron get the right information, in the right format, for free or low cost. For example, Fairfax provides free, online access to jillions of magazine articles, research reports, and reference databases. They offer Interlibrary Loan, and even a chat-based reference service. Fairfax, and 4,000 other public libraries across the country lets you download--for free-- audio books, eBooks, videos, and albums. Your own public library probably offers all of these services, too. Question is, when was the last time you entered your public library's website or branch?

Sad Reality: The answer is probably, not for a long time. Use statistics show that library patrons are very much senior citizens, the poor, and families with young kids, and that as the economy slows, library use increases proportionately. The tradeoffs being made by Fairfax, and most other public libraries are just indicators of how America is changing. Demographic and economic change means less space for 3rd-string classics to make room for more English as a second language materials,large-print books, DVDs, free Internet terminals, or removing shelving all together to make way for an expanded Children's story room.

Amazing Fact: You can still get anything in print, or out of it, from your library, online or on paper. Seriously. Call your PL's reference desk and ask a real person for help with virtually any information request. It's so cool!

However, for all of you young, affluent, no-kid having, broadband at home persons with plenty of leisure time who visit the library to pick up a classic because you happened to be nearby or needed to use the bathroom--the public library is doing its best for you, but there are other services that are getting a bigger piece of a shrinking library budget pie.

Disclosure: I am a librarian.

Posted by: invincible_sword_goddess | Jan 2, 2007 9:31:35 PM

Many new books are only available in hardcover, and thus the ones which are the most expensive. This makes the library the best deal in town if you want to read new books. Even if you don't have internet access and a credit card, there are plenty of brick-and-mortar used bookstores that people still avail themselves of.

Posted by: Constantine | Jan 2, 2007 9:48:43 PM

"I've replaced many of mine, swallowed up by Katrina, at thrift stores where paperback versions, some unread, cost as little as a quarter. Didn't even need my credit card."

That's the beauty of a copyright expiring, as one of my high school English teachers said. It's great that outlets like Dover Classics sells some books for a dollar, because that allows students to take notes directly on the page.

Posted by: Brian | Jan 2, 2007 10:36:43 PM

Another librarian here.

Interlibrary loan can get you almost any book you want. Problem solved.

And yes, libraries must strive for balance in the collection, a balance that will hopefully fulfill the wants and needs of their community.

I work in a community college library. I impress upon all the freshman I talk to how lucky they are to even have access to the world's information -- both old AND new -- in the form of freely available books from the dozen or so academic libraries + the public library system and the nominal library fee they pay to help us purchase databases for articles, reference material and online ebooks.

Everyone shares equally. Everyone has equal access. What a concept.

Posted by: san antone rose | Jan 2, 2007 11:07:16 PM

I see public internet access as an emerging role of public libraries. The local system is very crowded with people using the library computers.

Posted by: Sandals | Jan 2, 2007 11:08:13 PM

Are public libraries supposed to repositories of the best that has been thought and said, or are they supposed to compete with bookstores for customers?

No. Public libraries provide books that people want to read. While National Review types (who, as Ezra notes, receive piles of review copies from Wingnut Welfare Press and other non-vanity publishers) may consider $10 for a book the cost of two triple-shot vanilla lattes, for someone with not much money, that's a lot of money.

I have absolutely no problem with public libraries filling their shelves with romances and potboilers and whatnot, because there'll still be room for good stuff (i.e. not the Regnery catalogue).

That's the beauty of a copyright expiring, as one of my high school English teachers said.

Indeed, it was the 1760-odd ruling against perpetual copyright that allowed the first collections of 'classics' to appear, usually with introductions by contemporary worthies that the publisher could use as a selling point and a source of copyright.

Anyway, as the Manic Street Preachers noted, 'libraries gave us power'. Working class kids with voracious reading habits will consume the contents of public libraries by the shelf, regardless of quality. And that's a damn good thing.

Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Jan 2, 2007 11:42:52 PM

Many new books are only available in hardcover, and thus the ones which are the most expensive.

Is it me, or is there now a longer lead time these days before a paperback edition appears? As much as I love hardbacks, I'm not going to clog my shelves with hardback editions of books with temporary interest, and I don't see any reason not to release simultaneous editions other than for purposes of revision.

Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Jan 2, 2007 11:47:09 PM

Books that "people want to read" - that's called entertainment. I understand why my tax dollars should pay for Faulkner, Darwin, the Encyclopedia Britannica - that's education or close to it. But why should I pay for people to read John Grisham or Tim LaHay or Ann Coulter? If people want Left Behind they can pay for it themselves. Let them establish private lending libraries where they can borrow a best seller for a buck a week. I am a heavy library user myself, but my God, I would rather have all the public libraries closed down if they are going to be converted into free versions of airport book counters.

Posted by: JR | Jan 3, 2007 12:01:54 AM

The basic dilemma of libraries is how to meet these with a limited budget.

If you don't like the result, propose a better way or raise the budget.

And, no, electronic libraries will not solve it - as technology looks at the moment, they'll be a supplement, not a substitute.

So, on the specific issue, what the library has to do is to raise circulation (i.e. stock books people want to get out) while ensuring that anyone who needs a classic can get it. Which is where interlibrary loan and consortia come in (as invincible_sword_goddess) has noted.

Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Jan 3, 2007 12:03:03 AM

Some classics are't that good. Personally I dislike Hemingway.

Posted by: rtaycher1987 | Jan 3, 2007 12:12:20 AM

For a while I was an adjunct professor at a Florida University in the state U. system. I was able to get extremely rare books in the interlibrary system. But only students and some others with privileges can avail themselves of this sort of interlibrary system.

Posted by: daveinboca | Jan 3, 2007 1:21:22 AM

In relation to all this library v. bookstore nonsense, this from the LA Times: Dynamic Pricing of Books Sold by Amazon. Put a book that cost 11.02 in your cart, come back later to find that the price has increased. I think I'll try it out.

Posted by: san antone rose | Jan 3, 2007 2:05:23 AM

Public libraries also have excellent interlibrary loan networks.

Posted by: san antone rose | Jan 3, 2007 2:08:11 AM

Some people just don't like others getting a good for free. I always thought libraries were there to get kids to read and help adults stay informed. Before the internets, libraries were the only place you could read papers from other cities/countries and they offered an unbelievable selection of magazines.

Posted by: Grateful Patron | Jan 3, 2007 3:45:18 AM

Shorter JR:

"Libraries should only loan out the books that I think are good."

So, entertainment is bad? I think I see a solution to the problem. Get rid of all those CDs and DVDs and VHS tapes (except classical music and film versions of the classics, of course) and there will plenty of shelf room for Faulkner and Hemmingway.

Posted by: Bill | Jan 3, 2007 9:42:49 AM

Along the lines of "libraries provide internet access now," there is a nerdy solution to this problem. Those classics, as mentioned above, are online. But the library is not always open. There is, says my techie husband, a hub system, where the library gives access to those classics which would be available to readers at home, via a small notebook computer hooked directly into the library server from locations in the neighborhood. These notebooks could be available for about $100 and could be checked out. Any books no longer under copywright could be made available at home. Granted, those little notebook computers might have too short a shelf life to make it feasible. Actually, anything on microfilm or fiche could be made available this way. In theory.

Posted by: Paula | Jan 3, 2007 9:43:33 AM

In my opinion, libraries should definitely keep the classics on their shelves, even if the same books are available online for three dollars, and, as they already do, offer the latest commercially successful books to all through inter-library loans. More funding would obviously mean more of both. Perhaps there are ways to work with publishers and lower or altogether eliminate a book's purchase price for libraries, in turn giving large publishers tax incentives. I also think we need to build far more libraries in poor communities and promote them like mad. I love, love, love a library. But others have said it so much better than I:

"The library connects us with the insight and knowledge, painfully extracted from Nature, of the greatest minds that ever were, with the best teachers, drawn from the entire planet and from all our history, to instruct us without tiring, and to inspire us to make our own contribution to the collective knowledge of the human species. I think the health of our civilization, the depth of our awareness about the underpinnings of our culture and our concern for the future can all be tested by how well we support our libraries."
— Carl Sagan, from Cosmos

"We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."
— President John F. Kennedy

"Information is the currency of democracy."
— President Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: litbrit | Jan 3, 2007 10:25:56 AM

Invincible Sword Goddess, I've always loved libraries but now find myself hanging out at the Borders and Barnes and Noble much more often; I think it's thanks to the coffee. My bookshelves are overflowing, though, and I'd be back at the library in a *flash* if they installed a Starbucks.

Posted by: Susan | Jan 3, 2007 12:06:30 PM

Library books are not free, they are subsidized by taxes from local communities. A book exchange where used books are put up, bought & read, and returned and paid take a fee for the process of exchanging the books among readers - this would meet the need of access to used books. Libraries need to be more, or they need to go.

Posted by: George | Jan 3, 2007 12:17:13 PM

Libraries need to be more, or they need to go.

"be more" what? One community library of mine offerred all sorts of books, as well as comic graphic novels, and movies. Also, there were internet terminals and free wi-fi access. Now, on one hand, this is the act of "being more" that kept the place such a great community resource. On the other hand, some would claim that this was a waste of the taxpayers' money because the place was much too enjoyable for those that wanted to borrow books and movies for free while using the internet, and, perhaps if you take Fred's perspective, was not making the act of being lower-middle class nearly unpleasant enough.

Posted by: Constantine | Jan 3, 2007 12:40:21 PM

Libraries ARE more.

Summer reading programs. Regular reading programs. Adult literacy programs. Tax Assistance. Rooms for community group meetings. Youth programs. Writing programs.

I'm sure YOU don't have any use for what goes on in a public library, but I assure you that MANY other people do.

Posted by: san antone rose | Jan 3, 2007 12:53:36 PM

Bill says, Shorter JR:
"Libraries should only loan out the books that I think are good."

Bill, there is nothing sacred about reading for entertainment that requires the state to subsidize it, any more than it should subsidize heavy metal bands or bowling leagues. There are good books and there are shit books, and librarians have an obligation to make the distinction. Making distinctions on the basis of quality is what educated people do. The only reason for having public libraries is to advance the cause of education.

Now, if you are a thorough-going relativist, and you don't think that there is any way to judge between How To Talk To A Liberal and A Theory Of Justice, or The Rapture and The Sound And The Fury, then you'll want Coulter and LaHaye on the shelf and Rawls and Faulkner off it, purely on the basis of circulation figures. If that's the way librarians think, then it's time to shut the libraries down. What possible reason can anyone advance for taxpayers' money being used to subsidize mass entertainment?

Posted by: JR | Jan 3, 2007 1:09:18 PM

Building spaces are becoming a premium in terms of customer usage. To weed out books that haven't been checked out in awhile is not a bad idea. For example, if one is reading about "how to "sex (and yes, many still admit they get information from a book, magazine, or sadly, on the Internet from bad sites), one would not want a book from 1945 on the topic. This is not to say students of cultural history would not be interested in learning about sex and its mores from that time, but that is what the research or college library is for...and one can borrow those books via interlibrary loan, as mentioned several times already.

Another consideration is accreditation. Library boards think if PL's have enough to meet accreditation standards, then there is unliklihood they will permit additional funds for new materials that engage the readers. One public library can say it has 40,000 books (which may meet basic standards according to community size), but if they are old, seldom read, etc, then the pre-paying customer will not be checking those out.

Computers and databases are also taking up more space, as someone pointed out earlier. The unemployed looking for work will need the most up-to-date information, via books, databases, and perhaps DVD's. It's possible some folks cannot afford DSL or cable modem subscriptions when they need the money for gas or phone bills.

I've also seen quite a few senior citizens who use the PL for computers because many of them don't have a clue how to use one, so they don't have them at home, and prefer to go somewhere whereby they can get assistance without condescension.

I suspect many classics won't be thrown out, but perhaps if there are 15 copies of Sound and the Fury that schools are no longer requiring for classwork, then it would make sense to me to weed out 10 copies to make room for the latest Jim Cramer book (I use this tome because the public does expect public libraries to carry what they see on CNBC, etc--I know this as truth).

As Miller's story was printed in the WSJ (which requires a subscription, and a paper many PL's carry) today, if he has a book published soon, perhaps he'd to rethink "my book" or a book about sex from 1945 in competiting for shelf space? Libraries buy more books than the public in many instances. Seems to me he might rethink his premise if he wants libraries to buy his works and the liklihood of getting read, in addition to revenue. Reading is still the best path to democracy.

Posted by: benny05 | Jan 3, 2007 2:38:46 PM

JR says:

"Bill, there is nothing sacred about reading for entertainment that requires the state to subsidize it, any more than it should subsidize heavy metal bands or bowling leagues. There are good books and there are shit books, and librarians have an obligation to make the distinction. Making distinctions on the basis of quality is what educated people do."

I never thought of the library as an arbitor of taste (or quality). I think of the library as a place that I can go to and borrow books (and CDs and DVDs) that I want to read (or listen to or watch). I don't really want the library to decide for me what is or isn't "good". How exactly is what you're advocating different from straight-up censorship?

I would love to have a librarian weigh in on this one.

JR further says:

"The only reason for having public libraries is to advance the cause of education."

I disagree with this statement on it's face. Certainly education is a reason for the existence of libraries, but not the only one. How about, for example, providing resources to people who could not otherwise afford them?

JR concludes:

"What possible reason can anyone advance for taxpayers' money being used to subsidize mass entertainment?"

Huh? The reason is: That's what the people (i.e. the other taxpayers) want. Again, what I'm hearing sounds like nothing more than censorship masquarading as the taste police.

Posted by: Bill | Jan 3, 2007 4:47:23 PM

"Interlibrary loan can get you almost any book you want. Problem solved."

That should be - 'almost any book you know you want.'* Problem reopened.

* and, of course, any book a good librarian can figure out that one unknowingly wants - generally, if one asks, and is willing to wait, and etc. Which improves matters somewhat, but not entirely.
_______
JR:
"but my God, I would rather have all the public libraries closed down if they are going to be converted into free versions of airport book counters."

Relax, man. That's not on the table right now - although if funding is eventually cut enough . . .

"The only reason for having public libraries is to advance the cause of education."

Well, one important reason, surely - and entertainment reading - including things that you don't approve of - is one of the biggest boosts to literacy one can provide.

I can't be sure, but I suspect in JR's world, the libraries are filled with dusty Faulkners and Rawls (which I would happily read, but I'll read cereal boxes, appliance manuals, and prescription drug inserts if nothing else is available/nearby) and not a single Harry Potter to be seen.
_______

Are there no private lending libraries? Are there no used bookstores? Then they had better use them, and decrease the surplus book population . . .

Posted by: Dan S. | Jan 3, 2007 4:58:47 PM

Shorter George - I want a library but I don't wanna pay taxes for it.

Hey, George - in your scheme, how exactly do you find the books? Who provides the cataloguing, the OPAC, the interloans, the reference interviews, the recommended books lists, the reviewing, the filtering, the circulation policy?

Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Jan 3, 2007 5:06:40 PM

Library collections are based on community requests and needs. They will hold book clubs and use NYT, Oprah, etc, as sources of recommendations for popular materials. They consult other book reviews in librarian reviews in trade and association publications as well. Where selection is more judicious in terms of costs are in the areas of reference materials, databases, and magazines; those are the most expensive and often recurring in cost. From the vendors, libraries are able to hone profiles based on demographics of users and again, tracking requests over time.

On the "free cost" side librarians are evaluative about which websites they believe will give the best information on particular topics within subject web pages. With the Net, it will depend on many factors, including what other knowledgeable Net Librarians have to say about the sites.

Hard to say what a "shit" book is, because "shit" or alternatively, "great" is in the eye of beholder...or the reader, albeit one doesn't find many vanity press books in libraries unless they are donated. With the advent of vanity press presented by the Net, this will become an interesting challenge for those who evaluate those materials for their public libraries.

Disclaimer: I am not a public librarian, so other PL's, who in my view are the unsung heroes of the library profession, are in a better position to answer some of these questions. My forte is in a different area, but I am an information professional.

Posted by: benny05 | Jan 3, 2007 6:25:09 PM

re:: "shit" books -

"Jane Austen? Why, I go so far as to say that any library is a good library that does not contain a volume by Jane Austen. Even if it contains no other book."
-Mark Twain

re: ""What possible reason can anyone advance for taxpayers' money being used to subsidize mass entertainment?""

What possible reason can anyone advance for taxpayers' money being used to subsidize public parks? The only reason for having public parks is to advance the cause of public health - cardiovascular fitness and exposure to light (for vitamin D synthesis). Obviously we should pave 'em all over, get rid of lowbrow mass-culture grassy fields or basketball courts, and replace it all with some professionally approved exercise equipment. With sun lamps, it doesn't even have to be indoors.

re:"Let them establish private lending libraries where they can borrow a best seller for a buck a week."

Actually, there's an interesting thing here. We don't have private lending libraries established and frequented by different ethnic/class/occupational/political groups. We have public libraries, for everyone.

Posted by: Dan S. | Jan 3, 2007 7:18:56 PM

I believe that it is legitimate for libraries to offer entertaining light reading. However, libraries also have a public mission to enlighten as well as entertain and this has fallen by the wayside with the post-Ronald Regan fetishization of business and privatization. There is a case to be made for cultural continuity and this means making available the "classics" -- i.e., books of historic and literary importance. Without knowledge of the past there can be no future, it is as simple as that.

Some years ago there was a hoax in which a scientist named "Sokal" wrote a paper alleging that physics was an elitist plot to oppress the masses. That kind of thinking was rightly ridiculed, but it seems to be legitimate to make that argument in the field of the humanities.

Ezra Klein, I hope you will re-think your position.

The reason the classics fell into disrepute is that they were hijacked by conservatives as a way to get money from foundations and the pentagon with arguments that they would "fight godless communism" -- only this way could money for education be extracted -- I am thinking of the Columbia "Great Books" and Mortimer Adler's snake oil salesmanship. Women and minorities were excluded from these versions of great books, as was reading them in historic context.

If knowledge is to be considered elitist and the enjoyment and edification provided by classic literature restricted to "elites" then we will see a return to the feudalism of the Middle Ages when only priests were allowed to learn anything.

Posted by: harold | Jan 3, 2007 7:28:31 PM

I would love to have a librarian weigh in on this one.

I'd have to dig out some of my old degree material on this, but consider that libraries buy non-fiction as well as fiction. Do you want them not to discriminate on the basis of quality in that area? And consider the interesting problem that what is available in a library often leads community taste as well as reflects it, especially in areas such as YA reading.

Ultimately libraries have constraints - budget, shelf space and staff time. On this basis they have to discriminate in the strict sense of the word. Generally, they use trade publications and review journals (such as "Library Review" or "Publishers Weekly") to help them make decisions about upcoming fiction - although client requests are also a good indicator.

*Sigh*

Not quite. Sokal's hoax was an attempt to show postmodern cultural studies as useless because the appropriation of scientific jargon annoyed him. He got a paper called "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" published in Social Text by couching the argument that reality didn't exist in post-modern cant borrowed from quantum physics.

It had fuck all to do with "oppressing the masses", but was about whether some "academics" are actually saying anything meaningful or just stringing words together because they sound impressive.

Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Jan 3, 2007 8:28:29 PM

Sorry, Phonecian, according to Wikipedia the Sokal paper argued that:

quantum theory has progressive political implications, the paper claims the New Age concept of the morphogenetic field could be a cutting-edge theory of quantum gravity and concludes that since "physical 'reality' ... is at bottom a social and linguistic construct", a "liberatory science" and "emancipatory mathematics" must be developed that spurn "the elite caste['s] canon of 'high science'" for a "postmodern science [that] provide[s] powerful intellectual support for the progressive political project."

Posted by: harold | Jan 3, 2007 8:51:01 PM

Sorry again, Phoenician, for misspelling your name. Also, I forgot that Alan Sokal was a real person (and a genuine leftist), but, having refreshed my memory, I find that I correctly recalled that a stance of red guard-type anti-"elitism" against the supposed tyranny of expert opinion was indeed a key component of the hoax. It was not just about meaningless jargon.

Posted by: harold | Jan 3, 2007 9:55:51 PM

"Farce" is an odd choice for post-modern jingoistic bafflegab. Refer to Joker. ( Anyone who will buy into the proposition that reality is a social and linguistic construct needs serious couch time with the analyst ).

Posted by: opit | Jan 4, 2007 12:31:53 AM

Dan S:
"Jane Austen? Why, I go so far as to say that any library is a good library that does not contain a volume by Jane Austen. Even if it contains no other book."
-Mark Twain

It always bothered me that apparently Mark Twain (whom I also love) had said he hated Austen's novels. Until I read that he hated them over and over and over again:

http://www.vqronline.org/articles/1999/winter/auerbach-barkeeper-entering/

Posted by: Susan | Jan 4, 2007 1:01:34 AM

Experts may be "often wrong but never in doubt," as they say of the medical profession,; but we need to come to terms with and achieve a balanced view of those who spend their lives getting to know in depth fields of knowledge that most of us aren't able to.

They are just people, fallible, like everyone else, but in a complex society, they perform an essential task as mediators.

http://newton.nap.edu/html/howpeople1/ch2.html

In the field of literature, Twain was arguably an expert. He may have affected to dislike Jane Austen, but was apparently deeply engaged with her work. Another expert, Kipling, a on the other hand, really did revere her -- he wrote a story The Janeites, about a group of soldiers in World War I whose shared love of her novels helped them bear the horrors of war. Both of these writers are rather known for their macho image, incidentally. I noticed, on the other hand, that Mortimer Adler, in his "canon" of "great books" of "the West" admitted one or two of Austen's novels (but all of Dickens). Adler and his kind were more expert in peddling their program to save "the West" than an actual enthusiasts of literature. It seems to be ever thus.

Posted by: harold | Jan 4, 2007 9:58:11 AM

here's a list of some of those "dusty old classics" being eliminated from Fairfax County libraries. I haven't actually read any of them. Good riddance, I say.

The Works of Aristotle Aristotle (Centreville)
Sexual Politics Kate Millett (Centreville)
The Great Philosophers Karl Jaspers (Centreville)
Carry Me Home Diane McWhorter (Centreville)
The Sound and the Fury
William Faulkner (George Mason Regional)
The Mayor of Casterbridge
Thomas Hardy (George Mason Regional)
For Whom the Bell Tolls
Ernest Hemingway (George Mason Regional)
Desolation Angels
Jack Kerouac (George Mason Regional)
Doctor Zhivago
Boris Pasternak (George Mason Regional)
Remembrance of Things Past
Marcel Proust (George Mason Regional)
Oh Pray My Wings Are Gonna Fit Me Well
Maya Angelou (Chantilly Regional)
The Glass Menagerie
Tennessee Williams (Chantilly Regional)
Writings Gertrude Stein (Chantilly Regional)
Jane Eyre Charlotte Bronte (Chantilly Regional)
Doctor Faustus
Christopher Marlowe (Chantilly Regional)
Great Issues in American History
Richard Hofstadter (Chantilly Regional)
The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas
Gertrude Stein (Chantilly Regional)
One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (Pohick Regional)
Babylon Revisited: And other stories
F. Scott Fitzgerald (Reston Regional)
To Kill a Mockingbird Harper Lee (Reston Regional)
The Aeneid Virgil (Sherwood Regional)
The Mill on the Floss
George Eliot (Fairfax City Regional)

Posted by: Jon Swift | Jan 4, 2007 12:41:38 PM

Phoenician:
I wasn't as clear as I could have been. I recognize that public libraries can't carry every book and I realize that some amount of "discrimination" has to occur in the book selection process. If, in the process a book is rejected due to it being poorly written and/or rife with errors (a la Ms. Coulter) I have no problem with that whatsoever. My gripe was with JR's blanket (and silly) "no mass entertainment in the library" statements, and I should have been more careful with my wording so as not to imply that I advocated placing any material on public library shelves regardless of veracity.

Regarding community standards, I'm not inclined to make too much of a fuss about the availability of a particular volume at a particular branch thanks to the wonder that is interlibrary loaning. I realize that it's a small, unscientific sample, but there have been precious few times that some library in the system hasn't had a book I've requested. It's happened more frequently with CDs, but I have eccentric musical tastes.

Posted by: Bill | Jan 4, 2007 12:46:50 PM

Harold, please point out where "oppressing the masses" is found in your cite...

Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Jan 4, 2007 4:58:38 PM

You've inspired me to write a post saluting your efforts to make libraries more democratic by getting rid of stuffy old books.
http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2007/01/who-needs-books.html

Posted by: Jon Swift | Jan 5, 2007 8:04:48 AM

"an elite caste's canon of high science" vs. a supposedly anti-elitist progressive one -- the intended analogy to literary studies is clear in this satiric excerpt. I was not quoting literarly but summarizing from memory and I don't think my summary is off the mark. The impression is given here that somehow the possessors of expert knowledge are an exclusionary elite with nefarious motives who are "contructing" reality to benefit a narrow group rather than the masses. I don't think I can be clearer than that.

Posted by: Harold | Jan 5, 2007 4:33:40 PM

Amazon is accessible everywhere at all times!
--------
Building An eBook Empire | Create An eBook | Building An eBook Empire

Posted by: Building An Ebook Empire | May 2, 2007 7:37:55 PM

liqingchao 07年08月30日
google排名
 google排名
 wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power level
wow power level
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
world of warcraft power leveling
Crm
Crm
呼叫中心
 呼叫中心
 客户关系管理
 客户关系管理
 北京月嫂
 北京月嫂
 china tour
china tour
hongkong hotel
hongkong hotel
beijing tour
beijing tour