the woes of a librarian
Feb. 25th, 2007 05:50 pmWay back in uni, when we learnt about the history of libraries and librarianship, we learnt about an argument that still goes on today:
Should we, as librarians, cater to our patrons wants, or should we strive to lift them to higher grounds?
There was a time, in some public libraries, where you wouldn't be allowed to pick books yourself. You had a little booklet that listed all the books you had read already, and to gain the right to read a Marlitt novel (for those who've never heard of Marlitt, insert Rosamunde Pilcher instead, same thing), you had to read two Shakespeares, figuratively speaking.
Personally, I tend to believe that we should cater to what our patrons want. What is the point of making them check out Goethe's Faust when all they want to read is Where is my cow??
That was the theory.
However, now that I am faced with the practical side, I can't help thinking that it would be okay to at least stretch my patrons' limits a bit, get them used to more challenging books.
And we are still a far stretch away from anything that would deserve the word "literature" by the definition used in my family.
For example, there is this one girl - or woman, rather, she's the wife of one of my friends from work and she has a little baby boy herself, so she's rather past the age of "girl" - who lets her husband check out books for her.
She's the Maeve Haran / Marian Keyes / Sophie Kinsella / Susan Elizabeth Phillips sort of person.
Now, there's nothing wrong with that. I own a Maeve Haran myself, which I read when I feel sick and depressed.
But whenever I put together books for her to read, I want to put in something a bit different, something she probably wouldn't pick up herself.
As I said, this is not about getting her to read Shakespeare.
But I think that I could start small, let her read a Georgette Heyer, something that is well written and has a romantic, funny plot she might like.
From there, we could go on to less fluffy, without her even knowing I'm changing her reading habits.
But is it my job to change reading habits? Should I influence a patron's choice just because I think it's a waste of time to read the same old plot line over and over again, by a bunch of different yet interchangeable authors?
Should I let get the soldiers who love to read our war novels get to read Remarque instead of Konsalik?
Or should I just do what they want me to do, which is find them the books they know they will like rather than suggest the books I think they might like?
When somebody comes to check out a Wolfgang Hohlbein novel I can't help but cringe and suggest that if they like fantasy, how about trying Tolkien or Pratchett or Douglas Adams? Not that I devoured Tolkien, but Hohlbein is so horribly bad it makes my eyes bleed. (At least, the two of his novels I survived did.)
How do I keep my own preferences out of the picture? Just because I adore Thomas Mann's command of the German language and love Shakespeare's wit and admire Tolstoj's insight doesn't mean they do. And there are so many things I haven't read yet and it's unlikely I ever will, how do I know I am right to think there could be better ways to spend a day reading?
Things were plain and simple in theory. Practice is much more difficult.
Should we, as librarians, cater to our patrons wants, or should we strive to lift them to higher grounds?
There was a time, in some public libraries, where you wouldn't be allowed to pick books yourself. You had a little booklet that listed all the books you had read already, and to gain the right to read a Marlitt novel (for those who've never heard of Marlitt, insert Rosamunde Pilcher instead, same thing), you had to read two Shakespeares, figuratively speaking.
Personally, I tend to believe that we should cater to what our patrons want. What is the point of making them check out Goethe's Faust when all they want to read is Where is my cow??
That was the theory.
However, now that I am faced with the practical side, I can't help thinking that it would be okay to at least stretch my patrons' limits a bit, get them used to more challenging books.
And we are still a far stretch away from anything that would deserve the word "literature" by the definition used in my family.
For example, there is this one girl - or woman, rather, she's the wife of one of my friends from work and she has a little baby boy herself, so she's rather past the age of "girl" - who lets her husband check out books for her.
She's the Maeve Haran / Marian Keyes / Sophie Kinsella / Susan Elizabeth Phillips sort of person.
Now, there's nothing wrong with that. I own a Maeve Haran myself, which I read when I feel sick and depressed.
But whenever I put together books for her to read, I want to put in something a bit different, something she probably wouldn't pick up herself.
As I said, this is not about getting her to read Shakespeare.
But I think that I could start small, let her read a Georgette Heyer, something that is well written and has a romantic, funny plot she might like.
From there, we could go on to less fluffy, without her even knowing I'm changing her reading habits.
But is it my job to change reading habits? Should I influence a patron's choice just because I think it's a waste of time to read the same old plot line over and over again, by a bunch of different yet interchangeable authors?
Should I let get the soldiers who love to read our war novels get to read Remarque instead of Konsalik?
Or should I just do what they want me to do, which is find them the books they know they will like rather than suggest the books I think they might like?
When somebody comes to check out a Wolfgang Hohlbein novel I can't help but cringe and suggest that if they like fantasy, how about trying Tolkien or Pratchett or Douglas Adams? Not that I devoured Tolkien, but Hohlbein is so horribly bad it makes my eyes bleed. (At least, the two of his novels I survived did.)
How do I keep my own preferences out of the picture? Just because I adore Thomas Mann's command of the German language and love Shakespeare's wit and admire Tolstoj's insight doesn't mean they do. And there are so many things I haven't read yet and it's unlikely I ever will, how do I know I am right to think there could be better ways to spend a day reading?
Things were plain and simple in theory. Practice is much more difficult.