In The Future of Reading, information consultant Tom Peters lays out a lofty library agenda. He exhorts libraries to “be part of [the] reading revolution, supporting and defending the rights of digital readers.” Peters warns “If readers don’t assert their rights in the dawning e-reading era, someone else will snatch up those rights” and suggests “that libraries and library associations develop, promulgate, and defend a Reader Bill of Rights for the Digital Era.” While it’s always great when someone writes passionately about libraries, this article evokes a bygone constituency, an illusory war and an unlikely fighting force.
- In public libraries, readers are no longer the power base that Peters describes; video circulation and computers for free internet access increasingly drive usage1. In academia, faculty will continue to influence the efficacy of reading, learning methods and formats— not libraries.
- Secondarily, as happened in the music industry, the so-called reading revolution will play itself out between consumers and a few industry giants. It would be unaffected by any effort libraries could muster around it. Moreover, a key public library reader group is unphased by the revolution and therefore focusing on it would be ill-advised. Children’s materials represent 35% of total circulation2 and fortunately kids are blissfully unaware of the vexations over media formats and digital rights. They just want their picture books and videos, and libraries have that turf covered pretty well already.
- Lastly, even if readers’ rights were as threatened as Peters believes, I wouldn’t rely on libraries to defend them. Advocacy isn’t a library strong suit after all.
I’ve observed that aspirational language about democracy, protecting rights and defending freedom is a staple of material originating from the library community. It strikes me as more hindrance than help, for it weighs contemporary libraries down with a mantle no institution could live up to. Today libraries are beset with practical problems that threaten their viability. Mythologizing them de-focuses the profession from relevant issues and fosters institutional insulation. It engenders a false nostalgia for roles and values that may never have been real in the first place—and encourages looking back versus looking forward. Additionally, it draws libraries to areas where they cannot excel. (Read the Peters article and honestly ask yourself whether you can see libraries doing a good job with what he proposes.) Mythology also obviates the funding problem, which may render all other arguments moot if it is not addressed by more than reliance on nostalgia and symbolism.
So my exhortation to public libraries is to set aside lofty aspirations for awhile and focus intently on what will bring new patrons through your doors and to your websites. This doesn’t have to be a sellout—it just needs to focus on content and services people cannot get elsewhere, or outsource to lower cost providers. I’m willing to bet that if libraries become the preferred provider in a few areas, lots of other things (including an aspirational mission) will fall into place.
1Two recent articles are below. For additional references, see Librarians get bad press in 2009.
• Record Herald and Indianola Tribune, Oct 30th, New media vie against books for library space
• Cincinnati.com, Oct 25th, Library war: Videos top books
2IMLS Press Release, June 30, 2009, IMLS Publishes FY 2007 Public Libraries Survey Report and Galbi, Douglas A., July 29, 2007. Book Circulation Per U.S. Public Library User Since 1856.
