Librarians need a better apologetic
Robert Darnton, a scholar on books and the director of the Harvard Library, delivers a defense of the traditional library in this New York Review of Books essay. I love libraries. They began transforming my life from elementary school and they kept doing it up through graduate school and my young career as a college teacher. So, I don’t really need to hear a defense of libraries. I love them and use them. But in the age of the internet, apparently, librarians and lovers of libraries are anxious to make their libraries relevant. The problem is, Darnton’s essay really isn’t that persuasive. His argument makes perfect sense to me, and it can be summed up as: Libraries are great because books are great and because they are places where scholars and students can go to use the internet.
That’s not very powerful. The argument “books are good” only works with people who usually already like libraries. And the internet argument is flaccid, too. This is his best paragraph, however:
In fact, the strongest argument for the old-fashioned book is its effectiveness for ordinary readers. Thanks to Google, scholars are able to search, navigate, harvest, mine, deep link, and crawl (the terms vary along with the technology) through millions of Web sites and electronic texts. At the same time, anyone in search of a good read can pick up a printed volume and thumb through it at ease, enjoying the magic of words as ink on paper. No computer screen gives satisfaction like the printed page. But the Internet delivers data that can be transformed into a classical codex. It already has made print-on-demand a thriving industry, and it promises to make books available from computers that will operate like ATM machines: log in, order electronically, and out comes a printed and bound volume. Perhaps someday a text on a hand-held screen will please the eye as thoroughly as a page of a codex produced two thousand years ago.
Here’s an idea: it’s never very effective to tell a younger generation that something old is important. They won’t believe you. You have to show them it’s important. So librarians need to do something to make their buildings important. Make them places where students must go. Make the information there more valuable than information somewhere else. Make them places where scholars must go, where they have to go. Make them places where knowledge is found. And if the internet won’t allow it, then we’ll simply be having far fewer libraries. But the ones we do have, I think, will be great places to visit. Nevertheless, Darnton’s history of the library is very informative and shows how the library changed history, and still might.



WORLD Magazine Library powered by Amazon
Term Life Insurance at Savings up to 75%!
Logos Bible Software for Bible Study
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Free Hardcover ESV Study Bible!
















back to top37 Comments to “Librarians need a better apologetic”
At the libraries in our county, they try to draw people in by offering free video and DVD rental, internet, and free babysitting once a week, and for a whole week in the summer.
They do get quite a few people in for those services, as this is the poorest County in the State, and most people don’t have computers, and can’t afford to rent videos. However, those people almost never check out books to go with the videos, and mostly they use the computer to play games.
The librarians just love us homeschoolers who check out 20-30 books at a time. Some of the wonderful old books I check out haven’t been read in years, if ever. The librarians often complain that it was a waste for them to go to college to get a degree just to be a video store clerk.
Report comment to moderator
Libraries are an old fashioned form of the Internet. Schools should continue to require library research so they can see how old folks used to Google stuff.
Libraries are also good for local history. There is no place better to review old newspapers and books about your town than in your town.
Aside from that, most books I “read” are on my iPod.
Report comment to moderator
Perhaps someday a text on a hand-held screen will please the eye as thoroughly as a page of a codex produced two thousand years ago.
I used a Kindle for awhile last week. Surprisingly nice. E-ink is quite pleasing on the eye. Plus, the form factor and user interface is in many ways is an improvement over the standard book.
In our growing digital age, libraries will soon be just for nostalgians who like to go ‘antiquing’ for old books and papers.
Report comment to moderator
My city recently voted on whether to enact a tiny tax increase to vastly improve our library system, and it was overwhelmingly rejected. The most common reason was “Why should I pay more for a place I’ll never use?”
Great logic, hayseed. I think I might blow this one-horse burg.
Report comment to moderator
In our growing digital age, libraries will soon be just for nostalgians who like to go ‘antiquing’ for old books and papers.
Hey!! I love old books and papers and don’t even want to try Kindle. I’m with the essay: nothing beats the smell and feel of a real book.
Report comment to moderator
I read an article a while back about the library in a nearby town, where they have been working to make the place more suited to today’s young people. They provide a place where the teens go after school to do homework, chat, and play video games. It’s pretty popular, and they’re working at getting newer video game technology such as Wii. There’s also a drama group that meets there and does some pretty impressive stuff, from what I read.
It’s a lot different from what libraries used to be (I’m sure they arrange the building so people who still want a quiet place to read can do so), but it meets the needs of the community today (which, incidentally, has a large Mexican immigrant population). The library is a better place for the teens to hang out after school than in the streets or unsupervised at home. They help each other with homework, and also have the resources of the library available to do their schoolwork.
And they don’t ignore the books, either. The librarians have learned what kind of books interest these young people most (non-fiction, which surprised me), and they set out displays of these books near the video games. The kids won’t browse the shelves, but with the books there in plain sight, they do check them out and read them.
Report comment to moderator
I couldn’t live without the library, but I’m sympathetic to how they’re swimming against the tide–ours is the local homeless hangout.
And do you know the two most common questions librarians get asked? Where’s the copy machine? Where are the rest rooms?
Kindles look promising to me–but only if I can check the e-books out of the library to read on them!
Report comment to moderator
Perhaps they ought to put greater emphasis on having the ability to aid someone in research. THe internet has tons of information – but most of it is garbage. A decent research librarian can help one learn to research well.
Report comment to moderator
Kimberly,
I hear ya. I hear ya. I like the smell and feel of old vinyl LPs too – and the feel of a wood tennis racket, the sound of a rotary dialed telephone. But time moves only one way. The network is the library.
And, the network is the librarian too. http://www.msdewey.com/
KRM,
Our company has a full time digital librarian for helping with research. Invaluable.
Report comment to moderator
I was the librarian in our home school. 200 feet of book shelves, full. Learning through reading was the preferred form of child-play. The long-term results were far-reaching.
Report comment to moderator
Private libraries may supplant public libraries as well as or better than the internet replaces public libraries. Consider bookmooch for instance. Why in the world should taxpayers pay for brick and mortar? It’s not the place of government to lend books anyway.
Report comment to moderator
Travis–
I use the internet too. I’ve used JSTOR a little, and I love it, also a variety of other online databases. They’re very handy. Online books are also handy for searching.
For pleasure reading, though, give me a book anytime.
Report comment to moderator
#11 ” It’s not the place of government to lend books anyway.”
A library isn’t primarily about lending books, it’s about making educational and cultural resources available to the whole community. Sounds like a reasonable function of local government to me.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline,
Really? So, do you think public libraries should be providing gay, lesbian, transgender, fascist, atheistic cultural resources to our young ones? Is it government’s place to educate the general populace? When did this become a right? I don’t see it in the constitution as a right.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline, your suggestion of “reasonableness” as a test of acceptableness for forced taxation is a bit naive. It’s like saying “well, if it’s for the ‘greater good’…” as your only test. Numerous atrocities have been committed by governments based on simple tests like “greater good” and “reasonable.”
Report comment to moderator
I have to agree with Wiglaf on this topic. The government is a justice system, not a literacy system. Education is the responsibility of the family, not the government. Let people buy property, own libraries and charge membership fees and fines for stolen items up to four times the value of the item as the scriptures teach regarding restitution for theft. If people really want to use the library, they can pay for it and in the end appreciate it a whole lot more. There will be less thefts too, as people realize that they’ll have to either pay quadruple for the book or work off their debt to the owners.
Report comment to moderator
Librarians will continue to have jobs for years to come, but I suspect that most traditional lending libraries will soon go the way of the Dodo. I’m a grad student, and accessing journal articles electronically rather than trudging across campus has convinced me of the merits of the internet. If folks want the tactile experience of paper books, they can pay money for them. Electronic delivery and a good e-book reader will be much more cost effective and convenient.
Report comment to moderator
Reg, you and one of my cousins would get along great, she is a librarian at a university.
Rostin, I agree with you.
Report comment to moderator
Wiglaf,
Municipal government (which is where the control of the library rests in every community I have lived in) is a lot more responsive to the community (in the places I have lived) than state or federal government. People actually know their elected leaders personally. (I admit, I’ve never lived in a huge city – I’m talking places of twenty to thirty thousand or less.)
The local paper reports on what goes on in city council meetings. When people want the council to do something differently they show up and say so. If they don’t like the way their elected leaders do things they vote them out – or run for office themselves.
That includes how the library is run. I can’t imagine our local library trying to provide “gay, lesbian, transgender, fascist, atheistic cultural resources” – people wouldn’t stand for it. I didn’t say they have to make every possible resource available – they provide the ones the community considers valuable. Because, as you point out, the community is who pays the taxes.
You ask, “Is it government’s place to educate the general populace? When did this become a right? I don’t see it in the constitution as a right.”
Who said anything about it being a right? It’s a choice the community makes, through its leaders, to provide those services to themselves, because they know the whole community will benefit.
Report comment to moderator
Wiglaf, is there ANYTHING you think the government should do?
Report comment to moderator
Wiglaf: So, do you think public libraries should be providing gay, lesbian, transgender, fascist, atheistic cultural resources to our young ones?
Yes. And also Christian, conservative, traditionalist, libertarian, Jewish and libertarian ones.
I don’t know how you think “private libraries” would work. Without government funds, they’d have to make money, and then they’d be a business without the freely available resources of libraries.
Is it government’s place to educate the general populace?
Yes! That is one of the most obvious examples of promoting the general welfare as there can be. It is exactly what government should be doing.
When did this become a right?
1776.
Report comment to moderator
Bianca at #16: If people really want to use the library, they can pay for it and in the end appreciate it a whole lot more.
Then it’s not a library, it’s a rental business.
The whole point of a public library is to make resources available free to people of any income level. If you can’t afford books, you can still read them. If you can afford books but don’t want to buy a copy of everything you read, you can read them.
I didn’t realize stinginess was a Christian virtue until I encountered some of the people here.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg
YOU WRITE:… “I didn’t realize stinginess was a Christian virtue until I encountered some of the people here.”
It’s not a Christian virtue. Unfortunately there are are ‘few’ who would make a library a business. There are thousands of kids and adults who can’t pay for books, etc., or rentals. I hope that the US never even thinks of such a mean spirited ‘new library’ system.
Report comment to moderator
This may be a historic day: Victoria and I agree on this one!
Report comment to moderator
“Yes. And also Christian, conservative, traditionalist, libertarian, Jewish and libertarian ones.”
Public libraries have limited resources. They have to pick and choose. The question is, what bias will they use in their choices? Should taxpayers be forced to pay for their choices.
“I don’t know how you think “private libraries” would work.”
You obviously didn’t check out the link in my comment #11 on how it can work. It can be local through churches and private schools as well.
“one of the most obvious examples of promoting the general welfare”
Ahh, but that is most definitely not the case because everyone doesn’t use public libraries. By your example of helping poor people who can’t afford it, you present a SPECIFIC welfare, not a GENERAL welfare. The “general welfare” clause is not a carte blanche to spend money on whatever social programs the government can come up with.
“I didn’t realize stinginess was a Christian virtue”
I wouldn’t call spending someone else’s money through forced taxation open-handed either. In that case, it’s the law by threat of force. There’s no longer “stingy” or “open-handed” to it.
Report comment to moderator
Government spending is not a virture either.
Report comment to moderator
Wiglaf at #25: Public libraries have limited resources. They have to pick and choose. The question is, what bias will they use in their choices?
This is a strawman. The libraries I’ve used never seem to have a bias one way or the other. I can go to the one nearest where I live, which is fairly small, and find Ann Coulter and Al Franken; Richard Dawkins and D. James Kennedy; and pretty much any other contrasting combination you could think of.
If I ever ran into a library that seemed devoted to keeping resources promoting only one political or religious viewpoint and stifling all others, I’d be surprised.
Should taxpayers be forced to pay for their choices.
Yes. And this is a matter of public vote like many other things. If your local political candidates argued for shutting down your public library system, and enough voters liked that idea to elect them, you’d get your way.
You obviously didn’t check out the link in my comment #11 on how it can work. It can be local through churches and private schools as well.
I’m aware of Bookmooch. It’s a good idea and could be a useful resource, but it’s not a substitute for a library. (Most decent libraries, in addition to books you can borrow, also house reference books that they don’t let people take home but that you can use for as long as you need to while there. They also have trained research librarians to help students and others find materials they may not know about. Bookmooch can’t do that.)
It’s funny how you complain about your imagined one-sided collections in public libraries and then suggest that churches could replace them. In the first place, a church is almost certainly not going to even attempt to provide a variety of resources, especially anything that contradicts the church’s own theological and political positions; secondly, how many churchgoers do you think are going to approve spending church resources on a public library, and even if they would be willing, how many churches have the resources to do it while supporting all the other things they need money for?
Ahh, but that is most definitely not the case because everyone doesn’t use public libraries. By your example of helping poor people who can’t afford it, you present a SPECIFIC welfare, not a GENERAL welfare. The “general welfare” clause is not a carte blanche to spend money on whatever social programs the government can come up with.
Living among a literate population benefits everybody. Providing resources to encourage literacy certainly do promote the general welfare. You have this myopic individualistic point of view where you assume the only person benefiting is the person actually using the library, but that isn’t true.
And as I said, even those direct (vs. indirect) benefits apply to everybody. I can afford to buy books, and I’m surrounded by a couple hundred of them in the room where I’m typing this. But even so, I get a lot of books from the library because I don’t want to buy (and find shelf space for) every book I’m interested in reading. Or I get books that I’m not even sure I want to read, and have the opportunity to graze through them without having to commit to reading them in detail.
A library is not a “social program,” and it’s certainly not a poorly-thought one.
Report comment to moderator
“This is a strawman.”
Hardly. If you go to enough libraries, public and private, you begin to see the bias. With limited resources, there is no choice to be objective. Perhaps the Library of Congress comes the closest.
“then suggest that churches could replace them”
To quote you, this is a strawman. Did I say it was the only avenue for replacing public libraries. BTW, a church library could be a PRIVATE library open to the public. That’s an important distinction. I’ve seen churches spend money on a lot of crazy stuff. I think libraries would be a higher priority especially if there were no public libraries. A transgender organization could certainly start their own library if they wished.
“how many churchgoers do you think are going to approve spending church resources on a public library, and even if they would be willing, how many churches have the resources…”
Why do you always insist on putting private enterprise in a box that would never meet or exceed what government is doing now? There are plenty of small local libraries who have far less resources than many churches these days.
“and have the opportunity to graze through”
You can even do that at a bookstore.
A library is not a “social program,”
Yes it is. A PUBLIC library is a social program even by your own description.
Report comment to moderator
I am SO impressed with our local library. They have a great summer reading program, with prizes for all ages depending on the number of hours you’ve spent reading, along with lots of fun, free activities for the kids. During the school year, they have school age crafts and activities, story times for all ages and homeschool groups. Our library, along with many others I’ve seen also has a nearby playground – another way of making an outing to the library fun for everyone.
If libraries keep providing these types of things, I don’t think they’ll ever go out of style – at least not for families with children. I don’t know how I’d keep my 7 year old supplied with reading material if not for the library. She’s certainly not going to use a Kindle or do all her reading on my computer! And if families with kids keep using the libary, then the children will grow up with a love of books and libraries too.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg – 24
I don’t know what to say, YOU and I agree on something, anything? It’s about time
Report comment to moderator
NY Girl, a playground? — that’s really nice, what a great idea.
Report comment to moderator
22 (Steve) It’s not stinginess at all, but the Protestant Work Ethic. It teaches individual and familial responsibility – something sadly lost in our society today.
Report comment to moderator
Bianca, some kids, families have little money, and you think they should be taught some sort familial responsibility? – What’s lost on some is a heart to help.
No one can appreciate something they can’t afford, but need to learn, study and receive an education.
17 Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;
18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;
1 Timothy 6
Report comment to moderator
Boston Public Library
A Brief History and Description
Guides to the Library
Founded in 1848, by an act of the Great and General Court of Massachusetts, the Boston Public Library (BPL) was the first large free municipal library in the United States. The Boston Public Library’s first building of its own was a former schoolhouse located on Mason Street that was opened to the public on March 20, 1854. The Library’s collections approximated 16,000 volumes, and it was obvious from the day the doors were first opened that the quarters were inadequate. In December of that same year the Library’s Commissioners were authorized to locate a new building upon a lot on Boylston Street. The present Copley Square location has been home to the Library since 1895, when architect Charles Follen McKim completed his “palace for the people.”
http://www.bpl.org/guides/history.htm
Report comment to moderator
I believe libraries started as endowments by rich people. I’d have no problem with a community’s Bill Gates providing funds for libraries and think that might be the best alternative. Those “poor people” we’ve been discussing aren’t the ones who go to the library and load up with books, for the most part. I take full advantage of my library, and enjoy it, but from a tax perspective I can’t really justify the government spending tax money so that I can read books others have paid to let me read. Probably private libraries would be better.
But I do think communities can rightly choose to have a public library, and I’m hard pressed to find a good alternative to a public park, another feature that everyone pays for and not everyone uses.
Report comment to moderator
#35 “Those “poor people” we’ve been discussing aren’t the ones who go to the library and load up with books, for the most part.”
I wondered about that statement, so I looked up some studies about library usage. And I discovered that, while it is correct that low-income people do not check out as many books, they do use the library, just in other ways. They use it more for reference sources (computer or otherwise), and they attend library programs.
Specifically, one study found the following differences among different ethnic groups and income levels:
1) genealogy research was almost six times higher in libraries serving Native Americans than in libraries as a whole.
2) library programs as a whole were much less popular in libraries serving Asian-Americans than libraries serving other minority and ethnic groups.
3) resume writing occurred primarily in libraries serving African-Americans.
4) schoolwork activities occurred more often in libraries serving African-Americans than in the other minority and ethnic groups
5) the use of library as “place” (e.g., as a social gathering place) was more prevalent in libraries serving Asian-Americans than in the other groups.
6) attendance at library programs and the use of audio/visual equipment and phones were the highest within libraries serving lower income populations.
It sounds to me like the lower income people are definitely making use of library resources, and the libraries are learning what resources are most needed by different groups.
I also found, in another study, that 66% of those surveyed had used the library in the past year, that library expenditures averaged $25 per capita (I’m not certain whether this was nationwide or not), that people (i.e. taxpayers) thought more should be spent on libraries, and that over 80% consider public libraries and important and valuable resource for the community.
(If anyone is interested in the links for these, I can provide them, but I did not include them here because other people keep talking about the blog software eating their comments when links are included.)
Report comment to moderator
wiglaf: Why do you always insist on putting private enterprise in a box that would never meet or exceed what government is doing now? There are plenty of small local libraries who have far less resources than many churches these days.
Yes, but they are libraries. They are not libraries + sanctuaries + charity programs + music programs + religious education programs + paid staff that have nothing to do with the library.
Report comment to moderator