[Publib] In response to M. McGrorty

[Therese Bigelow]

Obviously this discussion hit a nerve with me.  I've been a librarian for more than 40 years and I am uncomfortable with Michael's take on how libraries selected in the past.  If I am interpreting him correctly he felt that we did it right then.  

To me it was a different philosophy in place. Librarians selected based on their concept of quality rather than anticipated readership and kept everything in case someone might ask for it.  In other words public libraries warehoused a lot of titles with little to no readership for years based on this quality barometer.  We only selected what we considered to be good for people to read.  It didn't matter whether they wanted to read it or not.  It allowed us to feel sort of superior to those who might want to read more base literature.

My belief is that public libraries today, thanks to the revolution in thinking Baltimore County started, buy for all kinds of users and hopefully with more respect than in the past for readers who like romance novels and mysteries as much as those who read the classics.  And we still buy the books that interest what Michael classes as "the better books folks."

Therese Bigelow
Chesapeake Public Library
----------
Here's the scoop.  It's true that libraries have to serve a broad public.
> That was true fifty years ago too, only they also catered to the higher
> class of reader, because those folks were politically important and made
> noise.  There was a philosophy out there about "better books" that was
> widely prescribed to.  Over time, the constituency changed and the library's
> view with it--broadened, true; became inclusive, true; became interested in
> literacy, sure--but it left the "better books" folk in the dust.  The reply
> to them:  go the college library, you knucklehead.  Well, okay, maybe I'll
> just do that.
>
> And when I do, I will have shaken the dust of the public library off my
> sandals forever.  And, instead of posting a huge banner on the back of my
> truck supporting the local library levy whenever it comes up, I will just
> keep mum and write letters supporting the library of my alma mater(s).  You
> know how the Boy Scouts and the little league work?  People participate in
> them when their kids are in that particular age bracket.  When the kids grow
> up, the parents leave.  Now then.  If I don't have a personal stake in the
> public library, why should I support the institution?  Because it's a good
> idea generally?  Because I'm a dingbat socialist who believes in such
> things?  Both of these are true, but I know which side my Tolstoy is
> buttered on.
>
> Finally:  ever wonder why it is that librarians, among other educated
> people, think that bookstores are terrible these days, turned into flashy
> wastelands of non-book items, non-book books and non-book workers?  It's
> because that's true.  It is also becoming true of the library.  I avoid the
> chain book stores.  I am also avoiding the chain-book libraries.  You think
> you can afford to lose me?  Place you bets and we'll see when the wheel
> stops turning.
>
> M. McGrorty