link

Jessica has posted responses from her friend Kevin, a public librarian, to my post that started a discussion about the services libraries provide. (There is also a comment here.) Most of his responses focus on how difficult it would be to implement these services because of the budgetary and time constraints libraries and their staff face. Naturally, I completely neglected this point in my original post except to say that perhaps my suggestions would work better in a for-profit business than a library. I was writing about how to better serve patrons.

And I'm not sure what he means by being "overly focused on books" or why that's a problem.

Here's what I mean. Books, though wonderful in many ways, do not have anywhere close to the monopoly on information that they used to have. People talk more, they watch TV, they read and write and play on the internet. There are now many more ways of doing what you could only do with books 50 or 100 years ago. So then, what are libraries about: frail printed bound volumes, or uniting people with information, art, and entertainment? If libraries are mostly for books, then you should expect them to continue declining in importance relative to other information sources.

Perhaps what I am trying to do here is describe a different idea of the market where libraries participate: one where people learn and exchange information. This description is certainly broader than the usual idea that a public library is some kind of sacred institution essential to the functioning of a literate democratic society. While the library may be essential, in terms of democratizing knowledge the glory days of libraries are over. And one key advantage of the internet is that it doesn't depend on the reluctant patronage of a cash-strapped government.