Personal blog: All opinions are only my own, unless you want to borrow them. (he/him)
I know that many librarians (myself included) and library-lovers have been saying this ad nauseam. We’ve been saying this long before Amazon’s Kindle Unlimited service unleashed the current flood of op-ed pieces. But this is important and it needs to be said:
Libraries are, have always been, and will always be much more than just collections of books.
What the ‘death of the library’ means for the future of books by S.E. Smith (posted on The Daily Dot on July 30, 2014)
In his critique of the new “bookless” library in Texas, Adam Feldman states the essential value of libraries and librarians better than I’ve ever been able to:
This Librarian Is Not Impressed With Your Digital, No-Books Library (posted on Next City on August 8, 2014)
I’ve been following the development and launch of the BiblioTech Digital Library from the beginning. I have my own issues with it but there’s one thing in particular that bothers me:
Why do we keep calling it a “bookless” library?
This bothers me all the more because, as best I can tell, the people who created the BiblioTech library are the ones who first decided to call it that.
Let me make this as clear as I can:
Ebooks are books.
They’re legit. They’re not “less than” or ersatz or denigrated versions of books. Ebook collections at libraries aren’t “bookless” just because they’re digital.
It does libraries a disservice to devalue ebooks this way. Our patrons want ebooks and we devote significant time and effort to try and supply them. When we talk about ebooks as though they’re intrinsically second-class items, it demeans the wants & needs of our patrons, and it demeans our efforts & our work on this front.
If ebooks aren’t real books, then how do we justify the expense of maintaining e-collections?
We must get away from calling this thing a “bookless” library.
Last week, Amazon launched their new Kindle Unlimited service—$10 a month for unlimited ebook & e-audiobook loans direct through Amazon.
American Libraries Magazine wrote a reaction piece about it:
And Forbes posted this deliberately provocative op-ed piece:
A Google search turns up many more blogs and opinion pieces from librarians reacting to this. As one might expect, the Forbes post generated a tremendous hue-and-cry.
Continue reading “Amazon Unlimited”
Frank Nero presents one of the best arguments in favor of public library investment I’ve read:
My view by Frank Nero: Libraries are a crucial investment in children, education, community by Frank Nero (posted on the Miami Herald on June 29, 2014)
In addition to the compelling numbers associated with the economic impact of libraries in a community, he offers powerful statements about the value and purpose of libraries.
On education and early literacy:
[E]arly exposure to books and reading is a critical determinant in a child’s academic success, and the independent research skills that libraries foster are both an essential ingredient in academic success and lifelong learning.
Public libraries have always been the gateway to education for preschool children and have always played a major role in supporting formal education.
And this perfectly sums up an argument that I frequently make about the role of libraries in the Digital Age:
The physical space that libraries have is a real asset that shouldn’t be ignored during this era of transition to all things digital. Libraries are community centers where people come and access the resources they need to do whatever they need to do. That may be for schoolwork, it may be to apply for a job or unemployment benefits, or it may be to run a business. Libraries can be the span to help bridge the digital divide.
The success of libraries in the future may have a lot to do with how flexible they can be in adapting to the needs of the community, but even so, the core mission of libraries remains the same. Its traditional role has always been as a community resource for information and referral – it’s just that technology is changing how it does that. We must recognize that libraries are not just a collection of books, but a collection of experiences and opportunities.
I’d like to see Mr. Nero’s op-ed piece shared as widely as possible.
“Everything to everyone is a very confusing mixed message.”
This is one of the last lines in this post from UX Magazine:
Five Customer Experience Lessons Coffee Taught Me by Tyler Wells (posted on May 5, 2014)
As a digital librarian, my library’s website is the entrance point for the Digital Branch. So it’s no surprise that I spend a lot of time thinking about library websites and following discussions about the subject. Sometimes, I even write about it.
A couple of years ago, I noticed a lot of people comparing library websites to Amazon.com. Amazon has far more stuff in their catalog than any library system (probably—I don’t actually have any numbers to back up this statement) and yet they manage to maintain a site that’s much more user friendly and highly functional than most library websites; their information architecture, their UX design, and the ways they leverage their product metadata puts most library websites to shame.
Why can’t library websites be more like Amazon?
Continue reading “Everything to Everyone, or: Why Library Websites Are So Complicated”
Education and the empowerment of marginalized people are essential values for me. They form the core of my ethics, my morality. This is why I chose to go into public library service.
For the past several decades, we’ve witnessed a steady and dramatic increase in the gap between those who hold the greatest wealth and power, and those who don’t. More wealth lies in the hands of fewer people than ever before in the modern world, and more people in the middle and lower classes are struggling harder just to get by. Fewer companies control larger portions of industry and the market. We’re witnessing the destructive consequences of this.
Those who possess wealth and power have a vested interest in holding on to it and in guarding it against those who would compete with them for it. Over the past several decades, those who control the purse strings have been enforcing changes in our nation’s educational milieu and social empowerment systems to produce the kinds of workers who will fit harmlessly into the economic and social structures that reinforce the wealthy and powerful in their power and wealth. The last thing powerful people want is to lift up those who would threaten their position.
The last thing they want is the kind of universal education and social empowerment that public libraries hold as a core value.
Continue reading “Education & Empowerment”
No one argues that essential titles from the history of literature should be in a library collection, even if they rarely circulate. Plutarch, for example: his writings aren’t exactly high circ but most public libraries have him in their collections, and just about everyone agrees that he should be there. Some titles are necessary in order to say you boast a complete and worthy collection. Literacy is more than simply teaching people to read—it’s also about teaching them to read well and widely. Complete and worthy collections are essential to that goal.
When it comes to books, it’s understood and acknowledged that certain titles stay in the collection even if they don’t meet required circ levels. These titles have a cultural value that trumps their circ value.
But I rarely if ever see a similar trump applied when libraries weed their movie collections. There doesn’t seem to be an understanding that certain films are important. If a library has a DVD of one of the foundational works of cinema and it doesn’t circulate, it seems that no one thinks twice about weeding it.
Continue reading “The Value of Movie Collections in Libraries”
I read this article a couple weeks ago and I keep thinking about it:
The Loneliness of the Long-Distance Reader by Colin Robinson (posted on The New York Times on January 4, 2014)
In it, the author argues that one of the consequences of the decline of professional book reviewing and slashed library budgets is the loss of quality guidance for readers. Expertise has been replaced by crowd-sourcing, solipsistic online communities, and impersonal algorithms of limited nuance.
For the past several years, the main focus of libraries has been library technology and innovation. As a digital librarian, I spend all my time at work dealing with issues of library technology and service in an online world. This is an irreducibly important field.
Articles like this one remind me that readers’ advisory is one of the most important services libraries offer in this digital age. As intently as we focus on becoming leaders in library technology, I wonder if it wouldn’t serve our community and our industry just as well—if not better—to focus on becoming leaders and innovators in the field of readers’ advisory. There’s an obvious need for it.
The first and most fundamental obligation of a public library—of any tax-funded public service—is to serve all members of their community equally and impartially.
A public library cannot be allowed to take any action, nor take any official public stance, which jeopardizes or undermines their impartiality or the equity of their service to members of their community.
A Library Board should never be allowed to take any action that puts a public library in such a position.
Continue reading “Further Thoughts on the Morton Grove Public Library Controversy”
I saw this article on the Chicago Tribune website today:
Morton Grove Library trustees rejects atheist blogger’s donation by Lee V. Gaines (posted on December 20, 2013)
This really bothers me. That the Board Treasurer is so ignorant and intolerant that she considers atheism a “hate group”. That she took it upon herself to act as the morality police for the community. That five members of the Library Board consider it more important to take this discriminatory stance than to accept needed funds to maintain library services.
The article makes no mention of any stipulations attached to the donation, and I confirmed that there were none—the Morton Grove Public Library wouldn’t have been required to purchase materials on atheism with the money, or take any action to promote atheism to the community. The donation was a no-strings-attached attempt by an interested private citizen who wanted to help.
Furthermore, public institutions funded by tax revenues are prohibited from taking any official stance on religious matters. To render any explicit judgement—either positive or negative—regarding the legitimacy of any religious belief or system is a violation of the public trust.
I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t say with certainly, but I would be curious to know if it’s a violation of law, too.
To refuse a donation from a private individual because of that individual’s religious beliefs is an explicit negative endorsement of those beliefs. That would make it an explicit violation of the prohibition against a tax-funded public institution from taking such a position.
I encourage all interested tax-paying residents of Morton Grove to petition the Library Board to reconsider their decision. I encourage the community to consult with civil rights attorneys to establish the legality of this action.
And please understand—this is not an action undertaken by the librarians or staff of the Morton Grove Public Library. This decision was made solely by their Board.
John the Librarian 