Quote:
Originally Posted by DNSB
Perhaps we should try to remember that the biggest reason libraries tend to skew towards romances, though I, personally, consider bodice rippers as an insulting term, is simply because those books are what their clients are reading. Would you expect the library to budget for purchasing more books in genres that you would prefer to read but that are not as popular at the expense of those who do not read those genres?
|
Well, romances are what some of their clients are reading. And those who read romances are likely to read a lot of romances; many books in that genre are short quick reads.
My own opinion is that libraries overconsider churn with quick reads to drive their purchases (in part because this inflates their numbers, leading to more funding, and I also suspect they're relatively cheap) in favor of serving their entire population. Someone who likes serious history, for example, is never going to be able to get through as many books as the typical romance reader. So from the library's point of view, one history book that is kept out for its entire lending period isn't nearly as effective a purchase as two or three romances that turn over in days. Unfortunately this means that one portion of their clientele is served while another is largely ignored and I don't this is just.
(Am I looking at you, New Hampshire OverDrive?)