« Using NetFlix instead of doing DVD ILLs | Main | Would you like a Walt Crawford in Your Pocket? »
May 17, 2007
Libraries R 4 More than Reading
Steve Bertrand, the Assistant Director of the Kankakee Public Library, wrote a post on She Said/He Said: Kankakee Public Library Blog entitled The Right NOT to Read. He writes:
For centuries, most Libraries' only strategy for confronting the non-reader was to devise ways to seduce them to start reading. Those who refused were marked up as "lost souls" and ignored. I have to ask myself, would I frequent the Kankakee Public Library if I didn't work here. I can honestly say yes. I say yes because KPL has faced up to the problem of what to do for people for which reading has not been, nor ever will be a part of their lifestyle.
According to the OCLC study, we all know now that the library brand is "books." But we do more than that, right? We have wireless access, public use computers, classes of all sorts, author readings, book clubs, craft events, DVDs, CDs, music performances, art exhibits--on and on. We're about more than reading. A lot more.
It's long been an irritation to me that libraries have summer reading clubs. I want a library to have a summer non-reading club. You'd get points for using the various services and resources the library provides that don't deal with reading. You could combine the two and just call it the Summer Library Club. Some points for reading, some points for using the wi-fi, some points for coming to a gaming night, some points for checking out a DVD, etc.
I know of at least three libraries that only this year are "allowing" their summer reading participants to count audio books. Let's. Get. Real. We cry and scream that we're about more than books, and then with our own programs and resources focus on books like we have blinders on.
Think for just a second. What are you in charge of at your library? What do you do every day? How can you bring non-reading activities into the fold? What can you do to be more inclusive of those who either can't read or simply don't enjoy that as a pastime? We're for everybody--not just the few, the elite, the readers.
May 17, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c511253ef00e5505214f98833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Libraries R 4 More than Reading:
Comments
Thank you for your kind words, ms./mr. floatingcloud.
Posted by: Sarah Houghton-Jan (LibrarianInBlack.net) | May21, 2007
I sent this post (Libraries R4...) to my library director and he is now circulating it around. Thank you for having the guts to say it! Cheers to you. I am a teen services librarian in North Carolina. Here is my wiki page.
http://dclstrategicplan.pbwiki.com/TLC:+Teen+Loving+Care
Posted by: floatingclouds | May21, 2007
What I mean is that when libraries get upset that we're identified with something that many people love and try to shake off that association, we run the risk of making those people feel as if we are better than them, that we wish they'd rise above their old-fashioned obsession with an outdated technology and get interested in our databases and so forth.
The OCLC report basically said "gee, how awful, people think we're about books. Oh well, we can use that." And yes, we are about more than books, but why should we be annoyed that people love us for our books, and maybe only for our books? It should be okay that some people aren't interested in databases.
I agree with you that we shouldn't act as if reading books is morally superior to watching a DVD or gaming. But if some of our patrons want to enjoy books, let's not act as if they are unenlightened about libraries because they want trashy entertainment instead of useful technology. (I'm not saying you are saying that - but some of the stuff I'm hearing these days sounds way too much like early 20th century efforts to wean people from fiction so they can move to more elevating material. Only now it's from books to newer forms of communication.)
I admit when I read that you were irritated that libraries have summer reading clubs I didn't realize you meant you wish libraries celebrated other things as well and that exclusively focusing on one thing was what irritated you. I thought you meant you were irritated that libraries have summer reading clubs. I should probably add I don't work in a public library and I find having a competition about how many books you read a tad bizarre. Reading more isn't better, it's just reading more. (I guess I assumed "reading club" meant people talking to one another about what they're reading.) So maybe I should just shut up now and let public librarians figure this out...
Posted by: Barbara Fister | May20, 2007
I love the program you mention Elizabeth. This is a great example of how a library can expand its own mental horizons, following what our public already has done themselves.
Posted by: Sarah Houghton-Jan (LiB) | May19, 2007
Barbara--How exactly would libraries be turning their backs on anyone by offering, and promoting, materials other than printed books? We do that now; well, we all do the first part (offering), but we don't all do the second part (promoting) which doesn't make sense. Reading clubs irritate me because _that's all there is_. If we are truly about equal opportunities, equal access, and equal respect for whatever floats people's boats, we should have DVD clubs, respect audio books as a form of reading, and on and on. Being book-centric is not necessarily the best thing for us as libraries, and it also does not mean excluding everyone else.
Posted by: Sarah Houghton-Jan (LiB) | May19, 2007
For our smaller winter reading program, we created a bingo-like card and in each square were different activties patrons could perform instead of a traditional reading log. Examples: Listen to an audiobook for an hour. Read to a child. Attend a library program. Read a magazine or newspaper. Check out an iPod. Ask a librarian about an online database. You get the gist. Patrons had to complete five activities to receive a prize, a personalized keychain flashlight. We've seen an overall increase in participation, in particular by moms who simply don't have time to read entire books because they are too busy reading to their children and doing a million other things. They think it's great that mom is rewarded too (even if for reading 50 pages or a magazine) and sets a great example for the entire family. How is this a bad thing? This summer patrons can review any two items for a CD case (we have a music theme). Items include books, audiobooks, Playaways, DVD's, CD's, downloadable eBooks and audiobooks. For every additional reviewed item, they are entered into the grand prize. I'm a Gen-Xer but more of an old soul. I believe there is an expectation that a library have books, but we do a whole lot more!
Posted by: Elizabeth | May19, 2007
PS: My blind friends are voracious readers. Not counting audio books as reading is bizarre and discriminatory.
Posted by: Barbara Fister | May19, 2007
I'm fine with sponsoring programs that celebrate other things libraries do - that's a great idea - but why be irritated by reading clubs? People love to read socially. Should we tell them to go to a bookstore if they want to indulge in something so timewasting? I worry about telling people who love libraries and identify them with books that we actually think books are beneath our notice these days. The OCLC report (to me) reeked with condescension.
Libraries have been havens for people whose reading tastes run to the non-educational, non-sanctioned genres. Wayne Weigand said "American public librarians have been willing to serve (if not necessarily to endorse) the democracies of culture manifest in America's multiple reading tastes for most of this century by giving patrons what they want. . . . their professional service in effect has helped millions of 20th-century library patrons evolve multiple canons unique to their own culture."
I don't think we should promote reading because it's good for you, or elevate reading over other things (listening, watching, gaming, whatever) - but I also don't think we should say "X is better for you than reading those trashy romances." Janice Radway opened my mind to what people who read them get out of the experience. I just hope in the 21st century library we don't turn our backs on people who rely on us.
Posted by: Barbara Fister | May19, 2007
I agree with Cara. It's the point I've been trying to make for years at our library. As the mommy of the media collections I'm tired of being the stepchild. What's important are ideas, characters, emotions, escape, and enjoyment, whether you get it from a book or a movie.
Posted by: Ellen | May18, 2007
While it's true that the library brand will probably be "books" for many years still, I think it's downright discriminatory not to count audio books in a reading club. What about dyslexics or blind people? It's ridiculous to say that the only kind of reading that counts is the reading of the printed page within a bound volume.
To me, libraries are about giving people a chance to open their minds to new ideas, whether those come from books, online sources, CDs, DVDs, magazines, etc. In terms of "intellectual" value, I'm sure that many of the documentaries on DVD beat the paperback romance novels, yet only the romance novels would count toward summer reading.
Posted by: cara | May18, 2007
I think many libraries have summer reading since it is such an essential function for children to read well. It doesn't mean we exclude the rest. Much of the time, this is a campaign to get people in the door, then they can see all the things libraries are. Most libraries allow parents to read to their kids and that counts towards the completion of the program. Audiobooks would be no different, as it is still a book. I think people would be more up in arms if movies counted :)
Posted by: Jeff | May18, 2007
While it's great that libraries have more available than just books, that doesn't mean we shift focus away from reading.
Counting audio books in a book club? What's the point then. Might as well not even have a book club if you're not going to read a book.
As a tax-payer, I believe libraries to be repositories of knowledge and places of learning. Reading is part of learning, having classes is great, art exhibits and music performances are fantastic, but to shift focus to entertainment, DVDs, WiFi, Gaming isn't what a library should be for. There's more than enough commercial avenues for those things. That doesn't mean we can't offer them, but it shouldn't be our focus.
Posted by: Tim | May18, 2007
I agree with the sentiment that people have the right not to read, just as I have the right not to exercise ;) Both are often presented in terms of being good for you...
However, I wonder at the equation of reading with eliteness. Can't reading be for all? And libraries have a function to promote reading, or at the least offer support for it as an activity. this is not to deny all the other good things libraries do, and they should be promoted; but we need to be careful not to expand libraries so much that they stand for everything and nothing.
Posted by: Pete Smith | May18, 2007
It never really occurred to me that listening to a book wasn't "reading" it... I guess that's technically correct, but how could you not count it in a reading club? I guess I've really read far fewer books than I thought, then.
Posted by: Emily | May17, 2007
