If public libraries really exist to promote reading, as opposed to promoting videogaming or tech workshops or whatever the latest trend is, then having the most popular books is possibly a good way to do that. After all, think of all those poor people who would be deprived of reading culture if they couldn’t read the latest John Grisham novel for free. My god, how will democracy survive?

If promoting the reading of bestselling thrillers is what public libraries are about, then they don’t have much reason to exist. A long time ago librarians thought that reading popular tripe would help cultivate the people’s taste for better books, but they gave that up when they realized that reading popular tripe cultivates a taste for reading more popular tripe.

Reading isn’t necessarily a good in itself. Reading is good because of the good things it brings, and promoting reading simply for entertainment isn’t that important, and it’s very far from the ideals about the necessity of libraries for access to information in a democracy that librarians like to trot out when they’re under fire.

The last question from the commenter seems rhetorical, with no way of answering it without seeming naive. “Are they supposed to concentrate on collecting books people don’t want to read?”

Since I’m nothing if not contrarian, I’ll answer, yes. The bestsellers will be read anyway, but libraries could focus on collecting books that people should read.

No, that sounds too “elitist” for librarians. How about this instead? Libraries should concentrate on collecting books that people might want to read, might even enjoy and benefit from, but don’t know about, and then promote them like crazy.

”

—

Annoyed Librarian, “Why Should Libraries Focus on Popular Books?”

I disagree with almost everything said here, but I’ve got a different angle. I’m trying to get a group of underserved, sometimes uninterested teenage boys to read. I’ll collect any crap cartoon, graphic novel, street lit paperback I can find. Get ‘em reading.

So, yes, I disagree, but I always appreciate Annoyed’s sass.

Unlike the thelifeguardlibrarian, I agree with pretty much the entire quote. If I’m elitist, I’m elitist, but I am proud to take a stand for literature and art, and so long as I am at the helm, Uncharted Books will never be accused of not having a point of view.

(via unchartedbooks)

just when i had forgotten how much rage the annoyed librarian fills me with. look out, sorry i’m not sorry i get so mad and foulmouthed about this

NUMBER ONE: public libraries DON’T EXIST TO PROMOTE READING. juxtaposing “reading” with “tech and gaming” is also a silly idea — they’re not opposites! just like in life, there aren’t any binaries in libraries. if they exist to “”“promote”“” any “”“trends,”“” they promote learning and community which often have nothing to do with books or video games or any kind of physical material. it’s way more about having a safe place for kids and families to spend time and learn whatever they want to — whether that’s reading the news on the internet because they don’t have it at home or checking out a god damned tolstoy novel.

god this is such a toxic fucking attitude

librarians as a group have a lot of problems, and maybe being too quick to jump on tech bandwagons and being too tolerant of bullshit are some of them, but the most prohibitive and negative attitude a librarian (especially a public librarian) can have is judgment about what/if their patrons are or are not reading. it’s nobody’s business and the job of a public collection development librarian is to keep people coming to the library so that they can maintain that community space — if it’s books, if it’s a coffee shop, if it’s video games or storytimes or ebooks or comics, what the fuck ever! who cares! public libraries are important and often have nothing to do with art or literature and that’s okay and that’s why i like working in one, frankly

(via unchartedbooks)