Quote:
Originally Posted by HoopyFrood
I don't see the problem, if the e-books are too high the library shouldn't buy them. Buy the dead tree version. I mean this is like a no-brainer. I like e-books, but I don't want my taxes financing the greed of these e-book publishers.
But I've always felt the library is for and about books, not CD's, not DVD's, not video tapes...you get the idea. Books and reading pure and simple.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg
They could go a long way in that direction with no complaint from me.
I've never read this, but I think acquisitions librarians must experience some tension between catering to the public desire to read the latest bestseller and the traditional library mission of building a permanent collection of the best-reviewed books on virtually all subjects. Suppose that the only fiction purchased, by a small town library, consisted of single copies of titles that had won, or been nominated, for any of the many annual awards program existing for both literary and genre fiction. This would build an excellent collection while virtually eliminating overpaying for recent releases. But it would also eliminate a lot of public support for libraries.
|
This is off topic but the mission of the modern library (going back to the 19th century when library science started to emerge) has never been about providing only books and definitely not only "the best-reviewed books on virtually all subjects". The mission of libraries is primarily to provide information, in whatever form it may be. They also serve other missions such as promoting literacy and even serving as places where people in a community can gather for things as various as a book or teens in a gaming tournament.
Librarians are taught to try to be as impartial as possible when including material in a library's collection. This doesn't mean there is no discretion at all but we can't rule out a book just because one person may consider it fluff or because someone else thinks the library should store non-fiction books. So even though one librarian may only read book reviewed in the New York Times Review of Books or books published by academic presses, she can't limit the libraries collection to those books. That's limiting information, which we're not in the business of doing.
You may think that a novel doesn't provide information but information can be found in many places. Children's fiction often provides information about different subjects. They're fictional but they help children learn about a variety of issues. YA fiction can often have information on how teens handle topics such as sex, relationships, friendships, etc. Is it factual in the sense that a non-fiction will be? No. Still, many adolescents can still gain some useful information.
Even adult fiction can be informative. I can't begin to count all of the things I've learned about different time periods, people, cultures, etc. from reading novels.
Additionally, information doesn't only come in books. It can come in the form of a book on tape, a CD of Chopin's greatest hits, a DVD of a documentary and more.
So my point in all of this is that the mission of libraries as we know them is to provide information to their communities in a variety of formats. That's why the restriction of e-books by the major publishers is frustrating for librarians. I know that for now, nearly all books are still published as p-books but as e-books become more popular and even the preferred distribution for books, the restrictions on e-books will become more troubling.
I'm not even sure that boycotting Random House will make a difference. I think they're sending a message that they really couldn't give a rat's butt about whether or not libraries buy their e-books. They would rather have all those people who borrow e-books from the library buy from them directly. That would profitable for them. What better way to send that message than by making e-books cost prohibitive to obtain for libraries? It makes sense from their POV but it is still frustrating for libraries.