We when talk about reference, readers advisory and how to answer patrons questions, I can't help but be a little confused and almost disappointed at the passivist and impartial stance we are expected to take towards patron inquiries. This acquiescent, progressive attitude has been plaguing me since I started this program last fall. Why can't I, a somewhat educated person, who has been trained in the art of library science, use my best judgement and people reading skills and say "Yes, this book is better than that book."
I am constantly reminded of David Isaacson's controversial opinion article in the December issue of American Libraries, "Don't Just Read -- Read Good Books". Isaacson, a retired librarian, takes the stance and is bold enough to say "that some books aren't worth reading at all and don't belong even in the most "balanced" collections." Now, out of context that statement sounds a little harsh, and I think that's what spurned the negative criticism. On the other side, I am sick of being taught to think for myself, develop an opion, be able to back it up and then keep quiet when someone is asking for help.
What is the difference between deciding which materials to include in a collection and which books to suggest to a patron to read? During the collection development process isn't the goal to include the best materials for the library?
Why is it okay, or "normal" for a public library to be stocked with copies of the New York Times best sellers, but I want to borrow a copy of Tom Sawyer, Tess of the D'Urbervilles and Anna Karenina and I have to wait a week because there is only one copy of each and "classics" are only kept in the basement stacks at the central library? Where have we gone wrong?
I agree with Isaacson and I also am not trying to be elitist, however; is it wrong to want to make people aware of their full potential, to challenge their intellect? Clearly, this type of opportunity is not an option for every patron. Yet, somewhere along the lines a person will come in who is welcome to new discoveries, suggestions and yes, an opinion from a professional who is there to give it. People are intimidated by what they do know. Sometimes, all they need is a little encouragement, especially for material like the classics, that patrons associate with English class and too hard to read.
Again, it seems like this profession that is so worried about the future, technology and moving foward, is scared of the idea that the past has something to offer. From the time I was in eighth to tenth grade I read 23 Danielle Steel books. After that 23rd book and 23rd tall, beautiful woman with an aquiline nose and blonde hair in a low chignon at the nape of the neck, I had an awakening, an epiphany. What was the point in reading another Danielle Steel novel? Absolutely nothing because I already knew the ending, the middle and the beginning. I could have been satisfied and continued reading aboout 23 more blonde beauties and help Ms. Steel's statistics, but instead I challenged myself and am now open to many other types of literature.
Overall, I think that most library professionals have this sort of motto and want to help patrons find what they are looking for. Fortunately, Isaacson has the guts to say what others do not and realizes that impartiality is not always the most beneficial choice.
Heidi
P.S.
Here is the link to the article for UW students.
http://ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/pqdweb?did=1270899121&sid=1&Fmt=6&clientId=3751&RQT=309&VName=PQD
