Note: For this paper, I chose to focus on the topic of this week's readings!
Quality vs. demand
During the first week of this current spring semester, I was casually talking with a friend and a fellow MLS student about this Readers’ Advisory course. I was thrilled, I told them, for the chance to delve into genres that I have avoided up to this point for various reasons. For example, I had categorized romance, mystery, and thrillers as ‘low-brow’ guilty pleasures and had not in many years allowed myself a chance to enjoy them for what they offer. I went on to exclaim to my friend that there exists such a genre called ‘gentle reads’! Admittedly, we both lightheartedly poked fun at the gentle reads genre, neither of us knowing much about it. Eventually, I made a comment along the lines of: “Well, it’s not my place to judge a reader’s taste. I’m just supposed to help them find something that they might enjoy.”
At this point, we diverged and fell into a debate about the role of the librarian in the service of readers’ advisory. From one perspective, the readers’ advisory librarian should strive to provide a non-judgmental reference service for the reader. If the patron is seeking a gentle read, then it is the librarian’s responsibility to help them find a gentle read that they might enjoy. As Joyce Saricks puts it, “Readers’ advisory is about public service, about meeting readers where they are and helping them find something they’ll enjoy. Whatever that may be today—or tomorrow” (2008, p. 12). The other perspective imagines the librarian as a resource for the patron but also as a source of guidance and on the subject of reading and a guardian of intellectual history. “Is it not your duty as a librarian,” my friend asked, “to challenge the reader, to aid the public in becoming knowledgeable and ethical members of society?” I didn’t have a great rebuttal.
In his article entitled “Should Libraries' Target Audience Be Cheapskates With Mass-Market Tastes?” (2007), John Miller poses a series of questions that hits at the heart of this debate: “What are libraries for? Are they cultural storehouses that contain the best that has been thought and said? Or are they more like actual stores, responding to whatever fickle taste or Mitch Albom tearjerker is all the rage at this very moment?” Miller’s inquiry brings to the surface broader questions about the intrinsic value of reading. Can we compare the value of reading for pleasure with the value of reading for information or edification? Is it even possible or necessary to disentangle these two ways of reading?
Mary Chelton has named this split the “entertainment vs. information false dichotomy” (2009, p. 254), a dichotomy which implies (incorrectly, I believe) that reading for fun or pleasure is not as valuable as and does not overlap with nonfiction or reading for the acquisition of information.
Connie Van Fleet responds to these looming questions with a discussion of a librarian’s inherent and inevitable personal bias. Librarians and MLS students are often avid readers, and many, she argues, have learned to judge books by supposedly objective, academic standards of literature rather than by subjective individual taste. She refers to this as the “‘good book’ versus ‘good literature’ dichotomy” (Van Fleet, 2008, p.226). Van Fleet contends that librarians working in readers’ advisory must accept the validity of personal preferences and focus on the value of books based on their appeal to readers.
Part of the librarian’s work in accepting the value of books outside of their preferences and biases lies in breaking down these misleading dichotomies of “leisure vs. work” or “entertainment vs. information” that often contribute to a prioritization of nonfiction or “literature” over popular fiction. In a critical exploration of escapist reading, Soheli Begum (2011) urges the librarian to (re)consider escapism -- so often associated with “pulp” or “trashy” fiction -- as the nurturing of a reader’s ability to imagine experiences outside of their own. Further, escapist reading can have broader implications than merely offering a leisure activity. In Begum’s words, “The transformative nature of leisure reading is such that it can be considered by many a means of maintaining humanity and a sense of self in sometimes uncertain and dangerous settings” (2011, p. 740).
When it comes to collection development and collection weeding -- making room for popular contemporary fiction by discarding classics that remain on the shelves, untouched -- the librarian may find themselves in a stickier position, navigating the space between patron demand, personal biases and notions of quality. We’ll return to John Miller (2007), who suggests at the end of his editorial that librarians should serve as “advisors and guardians of an intellectual inheritance,” grounding libraries in the foundations of this cultural inheritance without falling entirely to the force of the latest trend. Miller draws a comparison between a library and a dictionary, both of which, in my opinion, must remain permeable to the organic and shifting tides of language and reading while simultaneously retaining a firm footing in the many layers of language and reading that have preceded our present moment.
References
Begum, S. (2011). Readers' advisory and underestimated roles of escapist reading. Library Review, 60(9), 738-747. doi:10.1108/00242531111176763
Chelton, M. (2009). Reader’s Advisory Work. Reference and information services in the 21st century : an introduction / Kay Ann Cassell and Uma Hiremath. New York : Neal-Schuman Publishers, 254.
Miller, J. J. (2007). In the fray: Should libraries’ target audience be cheapskates with mass-market tastes? Wall Street Journal, D9. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB116778551807865463
Saricks, J. (2008). Readers' advisory--flash in the pan or here to stay?. Booklist, (21). 12.
Van Fleet, C. (2008). Education for Readers' Advisory Service in Library and Information Science Programs Challenges and Opportunities. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 47(3), 224-229.
Quality vs. demand
During the first week of this current spring semester, I was casually talking with a friend and a fellow MLS student about this Readers’ Advisory course. I was thrilled, I told them, for the chance to delve into genres that I have avoided up to this point for various reasons. For example, I had categorized romance, mystery, and thrillers as ‘low-brow’ guilty pleasures and had not in many years allowed myself a chance to enjoy them for what they offer. I went on to exclaim to my friend that there exists such a genre called ‘gentle reads’! Admittedly, we both lightheartedly poked fun at the gentle reads genre, neither of us knowing much about it. Eventually, I made a comment along the lines of: “Well, it’s not my place to judge a reader’s taste. I’m just supposed to help them find something that they might enjoy.”
At this point, we diverged and fell into a debate about the role of the librarian in the service of readers’ advisory. From one perspective, the readers’ advisory librarian should strive to provide a non-judgmental reference service for the reader. If the patron is seeking a gentle read, then it is the librarian’s responsibility to help them find a gentle read that they might enjoy. As Joyce Saricks puts it, “Readers’ advisory is about public service, about meeting readers where they are and helping them find something they’ll enjoy. Whatever that may be today—or tomorrow” (2008, p. 12). The other perspective imagines the librarian as a resource for the patron but also as a source of guidance and on the subject of reading and a guardian of intellectual history. “Is it not your duty as a librarian,” my friend asked, “to challenge the reader, to aid the public in becoming knowledgeable and ethical members of society?” I didn’t have a great rebuttal.
In his article entitled “Should Libraries' Target Audience Be Cheapskates With Mass-Market Tastes?” (2007), John Miller poses a series of questions that hits at the heart of this debate: “What are libraries for? Are they cultural storehouses that contain the best that has been thought and said? Or are they more like actual stores, responding to whatever fickle taste or Mitch Albom tearjerker is all the rage at this very moment?” Miller’s inquiry brings to the surface broader questions about the intrinsic value of reading. Can we compare the value of reading for pleasure with the value of reading for information or edification? Is it even possible or necessary to disentangle these two ways of reading?
Mary Chelton has named this split the “entertainment vs. information false dichotomy” (2009, p. 254), a dichotomy which implies (incorrectly, I believe) that reading for fun or pleasure is not as valuable as and does not overlap with nonfiction or reading for the acquisition of information.
Connie Van Fleet responds to these looming questions with a discussion of a librarian’s inherent and inevitable personal bias. Librarians and MLS students are often avid readers, and many, she argues, have learned to judge books by supposedly objective, academic standards of literature rather than by subjective individual taste. She refers to this as the “‘good book’ versus ‘good literature’ dichotomy” (Van Fleet, 2008, p.226). Van Fleet contends that librarians working in readers’ advisory must accept the validity of personal preferences and focus on the value of books based on their appeal to readers.
Part of the librarian’s work in accepting the value of books outside of their preferences and biases lies in breaking down these misleading dichotomies of “leisure vs. work” or “entertainment vs. information” that often contribute to a prioritization of nonfiction or “literature” over popular fiction. In a critical exploration of escapist reading, Soheli Begum (2011) urges the librarian to (re)consider escapism -- so often associated with “pulp” or “trashy” fiction -- as the nurturing of a reader’s ability to imagine experiences outside of their own. Further, escapist reading can have broader implications than merely offering a leisure activity. In Begum’s words, “The transformative nature of leisure reading is such that it can be considered by many a means of maintaining humanity and a sense of self in sometimes uncertain and dangerous settings” (2011, p. 740).
When it comes to collection development and collection weeding -- making room for popular contemporary fiction by discarding classics that remain on the shelves, untouched -- the librarian may find themselves in a stickier position, navigating the space between patron demand, personal biases and notions of quality. We’ll return to John Miller (2007), who suggests at the end of his editorial that librarians should serve as “advisors and guardians of an intellectual inheritance,” grounding libraries in the foundations of this cultural inheritance without falling entirely to the force of the latest trend. Miller draws a comparison between a library and a dictionary, both of which, in my opinion, must remain permeable to the organic and shifting tides of language and reading while simultaneously retaining a firm footing in the many layers of language and reading that have preceded our present moment.
References
Begum, S. (2011). Readers' advisory and underestimated roles of escapist reading. Library Review, 60(9), 738-747. doi:10.1108/00242531111176763
Chelton, M. (2009). Reader’s Advisory Work. Reference and information services in the 21st century : an introduction / Kay Ann Cassell and Uma Hiremath. New York : Neal-Schuman Publishers, 254.
Miller, J. J. (2007). In the fray: Should libraries’ target audience be cheapskates with mass-market tastes? Wall Street Journal, D9. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB116778551807865463
Saricks, J. (2008). Readers' advisory--flash in the pan or here to stay?. Booklist, (21). 12.
Van Fleet, C. (2008). Education for Readers' Advisory Service in Library and Information Science Programs Challenges and Opportunities. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 47(3), 224-229.
Hello,
ReplyDeleteYour statement "When it comes to collection development and collection weeding -- making room for popular contemporary fiction by discarding classics that remain on the shelves, untouched -- the librarian may find themselves in a stickier position, navigating the space between patron demand, personal biases and notions of quality" goes beyond personal opinion. There have been several times in the past year that I do not want to order another cookbook on the paleo trend. The library already has a bunch of books on this topic and there are countless free recipes on-line. I could spend that book money on something else, however it comes down to one major factor: The paleo diet cook books circulate very often.
The library patrons are asking for more books on paleo cook books and paleo nutrition books. As long as the books are asked for and the circulation numbers are high then my book purchases in that subject area are justified according to the patrons and library board. We are a public library and we give the patrons the materials they ask for.
Leah, I like your paper topic, it is very thought provoking, especially your conversation with your friend. Is it not your duty as a librarian,” my friend asked, “to challenge the reader, to aid the public in becoming knowledgeable and ethical members of society?” I think of the aspect that this is a free country and with that freedom comes the right to read what you want. The idea of challenging the reader seems like a great notion, but patrons want the books they can escape with. But isn't that challenging them as well? And maybe our patrons need a little escape because they are challenged by so much information from news and social media.
ReplyDeleteThanks for delving into this topic from such a variety of lenses: it was refreshing to consider this debate from the perspective of your real-life conversation with your friend, from the more overarching perspective of "what is a library for", and ultimately from the metaphoric comparison of a library and a dictionary--I really liked this comparison and will use it in my future considerations on this topic for sure!
ReplyDelete