We've been following this story about libraries competing with Barnes and Noble. The WSJ, somewhat predictably, wonders if government-run libraries are an institution worth saving.
Should Libraries' Target Audience Be Cheapskates With Mass-Market Tastes? - WSJ.com
“For Whom the Bell Tolls” may be one of Ernest Hemingway's best-known books, but it isn't exactly flying off the shelves in northern Virginia these days. Precisely nobody has checked out a copy from the Fairfax County Public Library system in the past two years...And now the bell may toll for Hemingway. A software program developed by SirsiDynix, an Alabama-based library-technology company, informs librarians of which books are circulating and which ones aren't. If titles remain untouched for two years, they may be discarded -- permanently. “We're being very ruthless,” boasts library director Sam Clay.
As it happens, the ruthlessness may not ultimately extend to Hemingway's classic. “For Whom the Bell Tolls” could win a special reprieve, and, in the future, copies might remain available at certain branches. Yet lots of other volumes may not fare as well. Books by Charlotte Brontë, William Faulkner, Thomas Hardy, Marcel Proust and Alexander Solzhenitsyn have recently been pulled.
Library officials explain, not unreasonably, that their shelf space is limited and that they want to satisfy the demands of the public. Every unpopular book that's removed from circulation, after all, creates room for a new page-turner by John Grisham, David Baldacci, or James Patterson -- the authors of the three most checked-out books in Fairfax County last month.
But this raises a fundamental question: What are libraries for? Are they cultural storehouses that contain the best that has been thought and said? Or are they more like actual stores, responding to whatever fickle taste or Mitch Albom tearjerker is all the rage at this very moment?
If the answer is the latter, then why must we have government-run libraries at all? There's a fine line between an institution that aims to edify the public and one that merely uses tax dollars to subsidize the recreational habits of bookworms.
Full disclosure: I have plenty of nostalgic ideas about libraries, I used to spend hours a week browsing dusty stacks, and finding obscurities to read. However, my period of living on ramen noodles and butter is long past, and I haven't stepped into a library in years. Especially when used books have become easily available online. For instance, you can purchase For Whom the Bell Tolls for 1¢ (plus 2 bucks shipping) online, or $1 somewhere in Of course, not everyone owns a computer, nor has access to credit cards.
That said, what is the role of the government anyway? Just building interstate highways? Shouldn't tax dollars be spent on infrastructure of the brain too? Does the Archer Daniel Midland company really need ethanol subsidies? Why not spend money making literature available to all? Of course, I think public transit (Amtrak, subways, Chicago Transit Authority, BART, et al) should be subsidized too, but then some might consider me a socialist.
The bottom line is that it has never been easier or cheaper to read a book, and the costs of reading probably will do nothing but drop further.If public libraries attempt to compete in this environment, they will increasingly be seen for what Fairfax County apparently envisions them to be: welfare programs for middle-class readers who would rather borrow Nelson DeMille's newest potboiler than spend a few dollars for it at their local Wal-Mart.
Instead of embracing this doomed model, libraries might seek to differentiate themselves among the many options readers now have, using a good dictionary as the model. Such a dictionary doesn't merely describe the words of a language -- it provides proper spelling, pronunciation and usage. New words come in and old ones go out, but a reliable lexicon becomes a foundation of linguistic stability and coherence. Likewise, libraries should seek to shore up the culture against the eroding force of trends.
The particulars of this task will fall upon the shoulders of individual librarians, who should welcome the opportunity to discriminate between the good and the bad, the timeless and the ephemeral, as librarians traditionally have done. They ought to regard themselves as not just experts in the arcane ways of the Dewey Decimal System, but as teachers, advisers and guardians of an intellectual inheritance.
The alternative is for them to morph into clerks who fill their shelves with whatever their “customers” want, much as stock boys at grocery stores do. Both libraries and the public, however, would be ill-served by such a Faustian bargain.
That's a reference, by the way, to one of literature's great antiheroes. Good luck finding Christopher Marlowe's play about him in a Fairfax County library: “Doctor Faustus” has survived for more than four centuries, but it apparently hasn't been checked out in the past 24 months.
More discussion here
Tags: Books
