 |
 |
----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Although I haven't seen it yet, Nicholson Baker is said to have issued a retraction acknowledging "serious errors" in his reporting of the figures concerning the book-storage capacity of the new San Francisco Public Library, as well as some other aspects of his essay in last week's New Yorker. Not having seen that retraction, I don't know to what extent these errors impair the general thrust of his article, but when I said Baker "may be on to something" it wasn't the case of the San Francisco Public Library that I specifically had in mind (nor any other institution in particular, I hasten to add). It also isn't just a question of how one should go about weeding a collection. The library trends that form the subtext and context of the article - the growth of an ethos of "enterpreneurial librarianship," the uncontrolled costs of technology eating into the funds available for collections and library staffing, the lack of sufficient space for collections in library buildings (new and old), the competing missions of building and preserving collections vs. providing "access" (and what that might mean) ... all these are issues that can and should be discussed both by people within the profession AND by the people who regularly use and care passionately about libraries. Mr. Baker's writing may be unduly confrontational (and, it seems, not always reliable about facts and figures); however, much of the response to his articles from the professional library community has been equally overwrought outrage at his temerity as a layman for daring to question our assumptions and policies. I think there needs to be more dialogue, less outrage and defensive turf-consciousness, and a genuine openness to all points of view. In short: more light and less heat. Andras Riedlmayer [log in to unmask]