Re: [ARSCLIST] Interesting WSJ Article on when libraries should discard their holdings.

[Don Cox <doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 03/01/07, Tom Fine wrote:
> I think in the age of the Internet and online reservation/hold
> systems, local libraries probably can get rid of a lot of overlap over
> time. I know our local branch here in Bedford Hills NY is massively
> growing its DVD and audiobooks holdings, somewhat growing its music
> CD's and slowly discarding more and more print books. The deep stacks
> just don't circulate and when there are several other
> rarely-circulated copies in the county library system, they need to
> clear out space. I understand the reasoning very clearly, but I hope
> the efforts are all coordinated so one or two copies of
> seldom-circulated works remain available. At least the "classics." As
> for sound recordings, there is a specific arts/music library in the
> system, which still circulates vinyl (although the records are usually
> not in good condition).

One of the best things about a library is that you can browse around the
shelves and find boks you never knew about. That is particularly useful
for young people.

Those books that are hidden away in central stores cannot be found by
browsing.

I realise that only a tiny proportion of the population has ever been
interested in exploring books. One of the aims of libraries has been to
increase that minority.

> 
> Agree that there's a difference between a research/archive library and
> a local public library. A PUBLIC library is funded by and answerable
> to the public. In other words, if the people want DVD's and
> audiobooks, it's the library's job to provide them. A librarian who
> looks askance at a fellow wanting to borrow "Terminator 2" DVD instead
> of the dusty copy of "For Whom The Bell Tolls" book should not be
> working at a public library.
> 
> For what it's worth, new and bestseller books seem to circulate hard
> and fast, but the reading crowd these days doesn't seem interested in
> the deep stacks. In my case, I am happy enough with this trend because
> my middle aged eyes don't like paperbacks so I've been slowly
> replacing my favorite books with usually first edition and excellent
> condition hard covers for a couple dollars each at various library
> sales. But, for the record, I don't pretend to be a bibliophile and
> actually prefer audiobooks for most new stuff. I can process aural
> info faster than I can read and I remember things told to me or heard
> via audiobook or radio more clearly than things read.

Really? I find audiobooks deadly slow, and never buy them.

Regards
-- 
Don Cox
doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx