I was in library school about 15 years ago and this was a huge debate at the time. Should libraries give people what is judged to be good for them -- literature, information, a source of self-education -- or should they give 'em what they want - popular reading, internet access, entertainment - the LCD approach. At the time, the give-em-what-they-want approach was trendy. As I recall, the main proponent of this was the head librarian at Enoch Pratt, but the then-head librarian of San Jose Public was an eager acolyte. Then of course there were the social revolution librarians, who saw the library as the seeedbed of changing the world to a diverse, equal, politically correct place. The SR librarians didn't think anyone ought to set themselves up as arbiters of what was good for others, so they tended to align with the LCD librarians. Both dismissed the Classics librarians as elitist snobs.

Ah, me.

It seems to me that a balance between popular and great books is both desireable and possible, and that as for making judgments, that is part of what librarians are trained to do. Both sides of the fence hiss with indignation if this theory is put forth.

Rosefolly, MLS

I myself think that

Here is a link that might be useful: Library Trends

This is a scary prospect. Libraries should have both. Not seven copies of Mitch Albom, but two... and people who don't-can't-won't spend the money to buy the book wait in line like the rest of us. And they keep one copy of the Hemingway and other important works. There is room for all if they stop catering only to the masses and if people realize that yes, they can read any book they want in the library, but they may not have instant gratification. Instead they may have to wait for it. Instant gratification cannot be applied to every facet of our lives.

Just yesterday, I was trying to find ONE copy of Elizabeth Gaskell's Cranford. I had to search five different libraries before I located just one copy. And my husband wonders why I stockpile books. If I don't keep them, I sure as heck can't count on the library to have them. The responsibility falls on me to keep these books for my kids.

PAM

With the exception of New Grub Street, I'm not able to find George Gissing's books in our local library--I mean county-wide, not just my branch.

Years ago, the library had what they called "stacks" somewhere in the back of the building. The popular stuff was out on shelves, but you could ask for, and get, most anything you wanted. I suppose it is always a space question, but surely we must keep the classics for the future and try to educate our young people to read them.

Carolyn, who thinks today's dentists and policemen are kids.

Carolyn, add parents to that list :)

I remember my library always carrying the latest best seller, as well as the 'classics', or literature. I don't see why they can't continue to do so - if money was no object. Unfortunately, in our city they refused to pass a property tax, so our libraries, along with other services, have been severely curtailed. Pity.

Our library system in Surrey operates a 'reserve store' which keeps copies of books that are not in much demand, but are held to be important. Often these are non-fiction. They also do inter-library loans, so that every user basically has access to all the books in the entire county, for a tiny admin charge per special loan. Some individual library branches also have extra books in the backrooms and usually indicate that on the relevant shelves. All in all it works really well.

I agree with Pam that the libraries should have a moderate number of current bestsellers; alongside a wide range of classics.

However, to answer the actual title of this thread - what I look for in my library is predominantly non-fiction. More or less educational rather than 'how to'; but not always. Sometimes I want to find the best book to buy; right now I have half a dozen books on oil painting techniques on loan. Once I've checked them all out, I'll order the best one from Amazon. Sometimes I just want to research a particular topic for a painting or writing project.

What a fascinating debate. It alarms me when libraries start devoting more space to CDs, DVDs (popular movies), and the latest John Grisham and start tossing classics. I do understand they need to serve their customers, but I also think libraries do have a higher calling -- to have and promote the classics. I completely agree that ... libraries should seek to shore up the culture against the eroding force of trends. If that makes me elitist, so be it. But if libraries don't hold on to these older books, who will? It's true I can (and did) buy a copy of Cranford on Alibris for myself, but if someone just discovers this book and is on a limited budget or has little or no computer access, where are they to go?

The main library in my town is closed for a year due to nearby construction and I have to get nearly all my library books through inter-library loan. The two branch libraries that remain open have mostly non-fiction, popular fiction, and whatever is on the high school and middle school reading lists and that's it. Thank goodness the other libraries in state still have the classics.

Geez, I think this topic hit a button for me! Bottomline, I'll agree with anyanka and Pam that libraries should have a moderate number of current bestsellers alongside a wide range of classics (emphasis on WIDE RANGE).

Merry, thanks for posting this.

I heard once that libraries cull their collection by looking at what has been borrowed and what has not been borrowed. I may be wrong, but if there is truth in this, we have a perfect opportunity for a simple grass roots effort.

Every time we go to the library, we take out one extra book - a classic - whether we read it or not, it shows that the title has been circulated. It may be an easy and effective way to change things one book at a time. What do you think?

PAM

Hey, I like it!

PAM,

The main character in Bellwether by Connie Willis checks out old classics from the library for the sole purpose of keeping them off the sale table. I instantly liked her!

I do feel libraries have a responsibility to keep at least a few copies of every classic or great work within their system - even if it means fewer copies of John Grisham, Danielle Steel, and Mitch Albom. Those books are easily available, the others are not. The local bookstores here have an extremely limited selection of classics (almost non-existent in some). And not everyone is in a position to order books online sight unseen. How many of us have just discovered a writer by browsing through the stacks at the library? If those titles or writers are not represented there, they may not get ordered online either because they may become unknown.

I'll stop now, this could easily become a very long rant!

I tend to agree with Pam, and have occasionally followed the suggestion of checking out classics, just so it would go on the record and not be culled.

When I worked in the library system, every two years or so, staff had to do what was called "weeding". And that was the criteria -- what had not been checked out in so many years had to go. It was a shame, because some classics were lost. Those "weeds" were then sold at the library book sale and this was how I came into possession of some of my classical works.

I get irritated when I go to my city public library and cannot find a single work by Gissing, yet see on the shelves, about 7 copies of Mitch Abom, et al. of that ilk. The lack of classics there has driven me to use the local University library more often, as I have found they tend to hang on to the classics and also have a wider range of those, albeit often old and tattered and worn.

And, yes, here in the city library, it is a question of space, apparently: many new DVD's and VCR's and the allotment for building extension is finite. Whereas, the local University is expanding for the 3rd time in the last 30 years and money for buildings and space does not seem to be an issue....

short answer-I want my library to have any author or book that I happen to want to read. For me, that often means the classics, or authors who wrote 25-50 years ago-books that are OOP and unavailable easily to purchase-or authors I want to try out before buying.
Long answer-I feel that all libraries should be in the business of making reading of all types available to the public, AND preserving the great literature of each generation for the study and entertainment of the following generations. I don't read Albom, or Grisham, or Harlequin romances, for that matter. But we have patrons who do, and we provide a real service-it happens that our service area encompasses several nursing homes and retirement centers, and many of these residents inhale several books a week-they could never afford to buy what they want to read, be it bestseller or romance paperback. We need to carry those. We weed each year, and we also (ssshhh) will check out old favorites that haven't been taken out since the last time we read them, just to keep them around in the hopes that someone else will fall in love....but is that realistic?
We're a small branch. The HQ branch downtown has a full floor of fiction, including the classics-a full floor of non-fiction, a reference section, a big children's section that covers half a floor (the books are skinnier...hehehe!) In the last 20 years or so, they've added without expanding the building: magazines, visual and audio media, a business reference center and about a dozen public use computers. They have shifted and reoriented shelves, squeezed turning paperback racks into the tightest corners, moved the tables closer together and put shelves in hallways. They even moved the computer-techie guys out of town to a nearby industrial park. They are landlocked and height locked-no where to go.
Maybe the solution is lots of little "Library of Congress" model sites in each state capital-the best "so-many" books of each year, added to the standardly-accepted "classics", standing alone from the popular "public libraries." And those of us who feel it's important will need to ante up! Crank up those ovens, girls-we're having a bake sale!

woodnymph-The University will put your name on a room, or a wing, or the building if you give enough $$$. The library is also a recruiting tool for potential students-you bet they get and spend the money. I wish real estate agents would see a viable library system as a selling point...maybe then there'd be more support.

Public libraries have exasperated me for about twenty-five to thirty years now. It makes me very sad -- and irritable, I'm afraid -- because I so loved visiting my hometown library when I was a child and teenager. I enjoyed university libraries when I was a student, and of course I found the world-renowned libraries awe-inspiring when I got to visit and do research in them. But some time in the late 1970s or early 1980s, I noticed that most local libraries were awful; and they seem to have gotten worse and worse, in my opinion. Part of it, I think, is the expansion beyond books to other media, as others have already mentioned. With it, the library seemed to have lost a lot of its dignity -- in staffing as well as in its patrons. The last time I was in our local library, the place was a zoo.

I seem to be able, though, to find most true book classics and, of course, all the current bestsellers in the public library. What I can't find is the middle stuff -- say, older than twenty years but newer than about a hundred years -- that was once popular enough (though probably not bestsellers) because it was eventually displaced by "the newest thing" in readers' consciousness. This represents a lot of what I read as a kid and in my teens, for instance.

Another thing that irks me is the blooming takeover of certain genres. Now, if you happen to enjoy those genres, it's not going to bother you much. But there's one genre in particular the appears to be a giant amoeba that threatens to take up all the space several other genres could share with it; and because it's such a popular genre, the library staff apparently has to allow it to engulf and push out the "weaker" genres. Bah! Pffft.

Name the date cece... I'll bake till I'm blue! (or burnt)

And I am headed to the library tomorrow where I shall bring home a few classics for a vacation.

PAM

I feel guilty for not using my public library more, and I'd like to save some money by using them, but my main challenges are:

1) They aren't open on Sundays (when I might have more free time to go there)
2) They aren't in a convenient location for me to get to/from
3) There are very few branches in my county, and they often don't have the books I'm looking for
4) I would only get two weeks and am only allowed one renewal for my books

I do want to start introducing my children to the library, though. I think libraries still have a lot to offer young readers, but... I need to teach my kids how to be kind to books before I trust them to borrow them. They are still too young to be given this responsibility.

Of course, when it comes to finding books, libraries aren't the only places that are lacking. I often find that even my local bookstores don't stock the books I want to read. I quite frequently have to order or buy online the books I'm looking for.

As much as I love having a book in my hands, I think we are going to see eBooks, eReaders, etc., become more common, and I do think they are practical for some of the classics you can't find in your local library. Some university libraries have been quite proactive about putting etext on the web for readers to download or read online (e.g., University of Va has done a good job at this and there are always sites like Gutenberg, etc.).

Georgia peach,

I think if I suddenly found my library full of e-books and e-texts and all of that paperless stuff, I would run home, log onto Amazon, abebooks, alibris and others and spend thousands of dollars immediately so huge would be my fear of a bookless world.

I am a peruser. I like to go to the library for books I found on the monthly "what are you reading" threads, but I am also constantly just walking the shelves to see if something catches my eye. I read untold numbers of really wonderful books that way and have discovered many authors. And with the library, there isn't that fear of buying a book only to hate it by page 12. If you dislike a library book, it's okay. If I dislike I book I invested my own money into, I feel the need to finish it.

Libraries are free educations and in a world where everyone is bemoaning the public schools, and complaining of the cost of college/university tuition, I would have thought the libraries would be busier than ever. But learning takes effort and sad to say, we are (collectively) becoming less inclined to put forth efforts these days.

I mentioned in an earlier posting how I could not find Cranford by Gaskell for a reading group. That was our third choice. The first two, The Egoist by George Meredith and The Diary of a Nobody by the Grossmith Brothers were both also scrapped because we simply could not locate the books and not everyone in my group is able to run out and buy the selections each month. In these three cases, our library let us down. Oh, to be sure, the library has towering ceilings with huge windows, room for lots of comfy sofas and chairs, displays by local artisans and all sorts of other stuff that takes up space where books could be shelved. Give me a building jammed with books - not cathedral ceilings that take up space.

Just venting,
PAM

One message in all this is, if there is a book you love, buy it. If you think you'll read it several times in your lifetime, buy it in hardback so it will last. Publishers used to keep slow selling books in backstock for a long time, but stopped doing this about 25 years ago when tax laws changed.

You simply cannot rely on libraries to archive books you love. I once knew a retired librarian who told me that she only owned a single shelf of favorite books, because she knew she could get anything else she wanted at the library.

This is no longer true.

BTW, even though they are mad for electronic media these days, you can't count on them for your favorite movies, either. You'd better own those yourself as well.

Rosefolly

I love libraries, and I'm not opposed to being elitist, but I find the idea of libraries filled with books that no one checks out to be depressing. I find the idea that the classics that are checked out aren't actually read, but just checked out so they don't fall on the sale list to be even more depressing.

Why aren't people checking out "For Whom the Bell Tolls"? Lack of interest is certainly one possible reason. How about numerous, cheaply available copies? I can get it new from Amazon for less than $10; from half.com new for less than $6 and used for less than $1. I could probably go to my local used bookstore and get it for a similar used price. If publishers are still publishing books like this, then people (or classes) are still buying, so the book is getting some readership. If it hasn't moved in a couple years from a library, I have no problem with them making space for new books.

So what happens to the wonderful books by Elizabeth Gaskell, George Gissing, or any other 19th century English novelist not named Dickens? To be honest, public libraries haven't had tons of those titles for many years, but even if they had, is it the role of the small, municipal library to preserve these books? Isn't that what large, endowed, university libraries are for? With Inter-library loan, the occasional reader can still get it. That still makes it hard for a book group to discuss The Egoist if they aren't willing or can't afford to buy it (though it is freely available online). I just don't see that every library should hold onto copies of these books just because there is a slim chance a book group might want to discuss it. There are over a million people in Fairfax County, and for over two years, not one of them has checked out For Whom the Bell Tolls in any of the 21 libraries. I can understand the desire to remove the book, clear the dust away, and try something else in its place.

Don't tease, Frieda; which genre is the giant amoeba?

"Maybe the solution is lots of little "Library of Congress" model sites in each state capital"

Florida at least already has that. The State Library lends books and videos to public libraries throughout the state. The LofC doesn't circulate except to members of Congress.

I was all set to start checking out classics on a regular basis and wondered why I had to have it pointed out to me, when I read wrmjr's post and found it makes a lot of sense. It's too bad everyone hasn't the opportunity to have a "classic" education, but at least people are reading! Maybe I'll just take one book home for a visit.

Sorry, cjoseph, I didn't mean to tease. But I was tiptoeing because there's nothing inherently wrong with the genre, or the liking of it. It's just that it has come to dominate the entertainment media -- books, films, television, video games, and Internet forums (though it isn't as invasive here at Reader's Paradise) -- so thoroughly that those of us who have limited interest in it wonder sometimes why it is so popular, and we sometimes feel that what we like is shortchanged. I remember someone saying, "Not being mainstream is really a curse." It's as true in the enjoyment of libraries as it is in anything else.

I do love reading...books as well as all the other mediums..However, as I grow older, and my eyes do not always cooperate, I find that reading on the computer screen is becoming more and more attractive: I can increase the font size, and read much easier than when I get out the magnifying specs. I really hope the projects like Gutenberg, and the like are successful...There will always be books that go out of print, and hopefully they will at least survive on some network server.
Bob

frieda, you still haven't said which genre is taking over our libraries and short-changing us.

I have never been in a position to use a large city/college lending library although I do remember hours spent in a very Victorian reference library where the books had to be ordered and read in situ.
This was a most time-consuming process because you had to know what books you needed before you started and had to go through the card index to find their numbers etc.
As the building had no loos (or what you in the US euphemistically call bathrooms) all the books had to be returned to the aged crone behind the desk before you could leave and re-issued on your return.

In the mainly rural county in which I live the thing I want to find at my local branch library is that, when I get there, it is open.
Spending cuts have forced many of the branches to close for whole and half-days.
Once inside, although a light and airy place (so different from the dark and church-like hush of libraries from my childhood) there seem to be lots of totally empty shelves. All books are kept in the middle . . .which I suppose saves bending or stretching.
Do we need special eye-catching displays of the 'newest' 'quickest' 'blockbuster' reads? Some books can only be borrowed for a week instead of the usual two, they must be of the sub-species
popular/easy-to-read/no-brain-required' and yes I do appreciate that there is a need for these books and that millions of Catherine Cookson books are read every year and who am I to suggest people might like to spead their wings and try something new.

We have none of these problems with my favourite mobile library. Regular as clockwork, except when it breaks down, they can't find a driver or an accident closes the road. We get fifteen-twenty minutes once a fortnight, no fines are charged for late returns and they often 'overlook' payment for ordered books . . . and I order plenty!
They seem to carry several thousand books, sometimes rather older and more battered than those in the main library, but the shortness of time and the close proximity of the shelves means I always find a good selection of quite unusual titles to keep me going until their next visit.
I would be happy for the library powers-that-be to park the van in my garden and give me a spare key.

BTW I understand that the mobile libraries in Scotland that use the local ferries to visit the islands of the Hebrides, Orkneys and Shetlands, have microwaves, basic food and sleeping bags on board in case they get stranded overnight.
Camping in one's own libary could be fun.

Perhaps we should turn Frieda's reticence into a guessing game. I say the genre is Fantasy & SF.

Out of curiosity, and also to check if my smug satisfaction with our libary system is justified, I searched the catalogue for the three books mentioned by Pam. Surrey libraries have three or four copies of the first two, and a couple of dozen 'Diaries of a Nobody' spread across the county. Phew.

Mumby mentions the joy of discovering a writer just by browsing; that is exactly why libraries should try and maintain as wide a range as possible. Some of my most treasured childhood memories involve hours spent treasure-hunting in the library. - By the way, both my daughters consider it a Special Treat and a Grand Day Out when we have one of our excursions to Epsom (ca 10 miles from here), where they have a particularly large and well-stocked library. I go for the art books, Kyra finds graphic novels and Rhianna disappears into their teenage section. Nowadays, we can even return the Epsom books at our local library, which has made it even more attractive to go and browse elsewhere.

I think that the biggest problem with most public libraries is the person running it.
In our local library we are depending on the taste and judgement of this person to supply us with the books we "need".
I'm not sure what the best solution might be but I know for sure that it has to involve people like you and me serving on these library boards and giving them our opinions.
Many broad decisions are being made by library boards who are simply out of the loop in these matters.

>I say the genre is Fantasy & SF

I agree, esp when you mentioned video games. But I'm not sure thats the 'problem'. I have no issue with libraries having this genre or any other on the stacks. I have a problem with having only best sellers of any genre on the stacks, at the expense of lesser known works, or classics. And yoyo I so agree with you - our library board in our very conservative city is very conservative and the selections (and the decisions in funding) show their bent. I do think that many of the members are out of the loop, or just want to show the city council that their readership numbers go up because they have so many popular best sellers.

As an Aussie, I have to disagree with some of the comments in the original article in regards to my country. Books are not here 'cheaper than they have ever been'. I have Agatha Christie books that I paid 95 cents for in the early 1970s, which at that time was probably five times the price of a chocolate bar. Now, what in the US are called 'mass market paperbacks', are $18-23 which is about 15 times the price of a chocolate bar. Books here are expensive compared with US prices, and so libraries, in stocking these books, are catering to many people who could not afford to buy them.
On the other hand, the book shop I work in has quite a large classics section where the books, because they are out of copyright, cost only $6-12, depending on the edition you choose. In addition, we will order any book we can source for no cost, so if we don't have that Gaskill, we can get it for you.

Having said that, I do think that libraries should cater to a wide variety of tastes. The problem comes with one person deciding what the other people should read. It seems too elitist to say that libraries shouldn't stock modern blockbusters because they are inferior to other books. Some of the books we now consider classics were written to a formula of the day. We often have disagreements here about whether certain books are enjoyable - surely the important thing is that people are reading.

I do think that libraries should cater to a wide variety of tastes. The problem comes with one person deciding what the other people should read.Exactly -- one person, or the committees (boards) that are interested only in the bottom line. The problem is many public libraries in the US are catering to very narrow taste, and I think that's what most of us are really complaining about. Now, whether this is because the preponderance of the clientele only want certain types of books, or the space and budget restraints are inhibiting the purchase of a broad collection...I'm not sure, but I suspect it's both.

It's very disheartening to me, though, to see choice shrinking rather than expanding in public libraries. I have nothing against sci-fi/fantasy being well represented for readers who love it. I do object to mediocre and poorly written sci-fi/fantasy crowding out other genres, though. (I certainly can't tell, though, what is good and what is bad in the genre because I don't read enough of it, but I've been told very frequently by several family members who love the genre that about 70% of it is crap. I'll take their word for it because among them they have almost 150 years of reading experience, a lot of it in sf/fantasy, and even they see their beloved genre is over-represented -- and debased because of it.)

There comes a point when a significant portion of the clientele is not being served well because the most popular genres are hogging everything, and those people will get discouraged and turn away; perhaps some potential readers will be lost because the library doesn't have much of anything they need or have an interest in. The libraries have already lost me, but I don't count because I have other resources -- it's those who don't have alternatives I feel the saddest for.

Well I see more mystery than sci-fi/fantasy and I love my mysteries. Yes, popular needs to be there but on the other hand 2 years for classic lit is too short a time. 2 years for the best seller stuff is perfect! Good judgement is needed and that's always hard to come by.

And I agree I'd rather have a well stocked old library than an airy, modern library with space wasted for ambiance. San Francisco spent a fortune on their new library and discovered they didn't have enough shelf space for their books! It's beautiful, except for all those carts with unshelfed books.

I have to agree with Kath on the price of books. As in Australia books are very expensive over here . . . and often poorly printed on cheap paper and badly bound.
Although I am well-able to afford to buy the books I want I seldom bother but rely on the library to find them for me.
The last pb I bought was Lord of the Flies. As I handed it to the woman serving in our local books shop she remarked on how cheap it was. At £5.99 it didn't seem cheap to me, but she said it was old stock (printed 1996) and an 'Educational edition' which are less expensive.
Most hard backs now cost at least £20 and often the pages start turning yellow within a few months.
To convert the ££ to US$$ I think you have to more-or-less double the figure as the $ is now so low against the £.

As anyanka did, I checked on the internet to see which of the books mentioned were available in our county libraries. (well is was raining ALL day yesterday and is pouring today)

14 copies of Diary of a Nobody
30 " " Cranford
13 " " For Whom the Bell Tolls
0 " " Egoist but several others by Meredith.

Also quite a selection of Gissing and Mitch Albom ( a writer new to me).
Some of the above are modern reprints but several copies are held in the main library store.
A copy of the Hemmingway and some Albom are in the library at Glos. prison!
There is also a wide selection of Non-F about Gissing (PAM have you read The Born Exile: George Gissing by Gillian Tindall?), Meredith, Hemmingway etc.

I decided to check my library system (20 branches serving a population of about 600,000) for the books mentioned above as well.

For Whom the Bell Tolls 20 copies
Cranford 4 copies
Diary of a Nobody 1 copy
The Egoist 1 copy

They were all checked in except for six copies of For Whom the Bell Tolls.

I decided to check out a "popular" author so checked John Grisham's Skipping Christmas - they have a total of 45 copies (30 regular, 15 large type). 36 of these are sitting on the shelf! I don't have a problem with the library stocking John Grisham (and I've read him myself) but I would rather wait a little longer for a popular book when it first comes out than to have extra copies at the expense of a broad selection that includes older titles.

(And for the record, imho, Skipping Christmas is really a terrible book. I really do think(and hope) that in a hundred years there will still be people reading Cranford when SC has been forgotten.)

I have been reading this thread with great interest and dismay. I honestly don't know what to think. I want the library to have everything. I understand they cannot. I am going to start hoarding.

gbg

veer, Thank you for the mention of the Gissing bio. Yes, I have heard of it and I do have it here at home. Believe it or not, I was in Lyme Regis in a little book store and was about to walk out without buying anything (A first, I think) when I saw a bit of white spine on a top dusty shelf. Natually, I managed to get it down, dust it off, and lo and behold, it was the Gissing bio. I paid three British pounds for it.

Like gbg, I am hoarding. I've informed my husband why I am doing it and he was actually supportive (he's not a reader) and offered to build even more shelves in the basement library room he is working on for me.

And as far as checking out the classics at the library and bringing them home for a vacation, I am still going to do it. Why? My one little person doing this will not alter the course of the library in any great way. But rather, it is a way to cast my vote for the books that matter. A way of voicing my opinion. Do I want future generations to think of only Stephen King when they go for ghost stories and horror? Or do I want them to be able to experience Henry James, Sheridan LeFanu, The Picture of Dorian Gray, H.P Lovecraft? That's an easy one for me to decide. And if only one person, or a small committee is making these purchasing and culling decisions, why should I not make a small effort in support of the classics? And if I don't do it, who will? 45 copies of John Grisham? Egads... that's overkill.

PAM