Quote:
Originally Posted by ZodWallop
You and I read that post very differently. You ignored everything about the cost.
If the imaginary library spends $100 on three academic nonfiction books that will between them have a total of two checkouts in the two year licensing term and the library also sends $100 on ten romance novels, all of whose checkouts will expire before the two year term is up, how is that catering only to a small subset of readers? It is certainly not saying 'so long as a library served its romance patrons it was doing its job'
|
Wow, talk about a “disingenuous misrepresentation”!
When did I ever say that buying romance novels was catering to a “small subset” of readers? My point,
again, is that libraries shouldn’t cater only to their largest subsets. You, perhaps deliberately, claim I said the exact opposite. Here’s something I actually did say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by issybird
In fact, I think that romance should account for a huge part of the purchasing budget, because they are so popular.
|
Nor do I ignore everything about cost. Resources are finite. That doesn’t mean that buying the most books they can with their funds is the best choice; some legitimate library users are entirely left out that way.
Oh, I’d forgotten that you’d let them have “one or two doorstops a month.” They are lucky. And perhaps you could stop pulling figures out of your fundament to prove your point. No one, no one, not even moi, is saying that a putative library should spend a putative $100 on three “academic nonfiction books” that will be read by two readers.