The Library of the Future: Occasional Thoughts 1

October 17, 2010

I’ve been thinking a lot about libraries.

To think about the library of the future you must start with an appreciation of libraries today. That appreciation must be derived from being an active customer of libraries — you don’t qualify if you don’t regularly borrow books and other physical (analog) materials. You also don’t qualify if you fail to take advantage of the great online services from your local public library and every other library you have access to (1).

libaryofcongress-sm

Library of Congress, Washington, DC

Copyright 2010 by Thad McIlroy

So this is not an insider’s look at the library of the future and not necessarily the view a librarian might have. I’ll be considering librarians’ perspectives: I respect them a great deal. But just as active readers are often more interesting than publishers when considering the future of publishing, so too are active library users uniquely qualified to consider what they want from their libraries next year or a decade from now.

I’m not interested here in armchair theorists who last used a library when they were 12 years old. Libraries are living, breathing, changing organisms in the future of publishing ecosphere. We must live among the living.

OK. So you’re a civilian, not a library soldier. You care about the future of libraries because you care about culture and/or entertainment, education and community. You care because you know that libraries have always been a place to go to try to understand the complex world that you find yourself a part of. You care because you marvel that somewhere, some time, we deemed that the commons would include resources in published form (2).

So you have good reason to be interested in the library of the future.

Next you might look at how they evolved to where they are today. That’s important. We see clearly in the United States today the truth of the simple dictum: “Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it” (3). Let’s not make this mistake when thinking about the future of libraries.

Then you might look outward at the broad publishing trends covered on my site.

You’ll get a first glimpse of the library of the future.

I’ll conclude this first entry with a quotation from Stephen Ramsay (4):

How do you tell when the person addressing a group of librarians is not a librarian? Easy. He or she will, as surely as day follows night, make a reference to the Library of Alexandria.(5)(6)

To be continued.

Notes:

1. By “every other library you have access to” I’m thinking every other library you can access while NOT paying specifically for that access. (If you specifically pay for access I believe it’s an “information service” not a library, in the way that “library” is most commonly used.)

College and university students have access to libraries that are a part of the institution they pay (or paid) to attend. I don’t have that access (other than limited physical access to local institutional libraries). I, however, am a member of the ACM — Association for Computing Machinery — the world’s largest educational and scientific computing society. It has a superb digital library which I frequently access.

2. Intended in the broad sense that I use the word “publishing” on this site.

3. If you go to a library you can learn all about the origins of this quotation. It has a rich history. Or you can just search online. Try it. I bet you’ll wish you had a librarian at your side who could help you avoid wasting too much time on political web sites appropriating the quotation to justify their interpretation of history. You just want to know who first said it. That George Santayana never said it does not tell you who did.

4. Stephen Ramsay is an Associate Professor of English at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and a Fellow at the Center for Digital Research in the Humanities. “He spends most of his time writing about Digital Humanities and designing and building text technologies for humanist scholars.”

5. If you read the full article that this quotation is taken from you will see both why librarians are marvellous and also why they may not be the first ones we should go to to ask about the future of libraries.

6. I’m not sure why the quotation appeals to me other than it reminds me of a thought I’ve had about people who comment on books and publishing. Whenever I encounter words to the effect of “the most important development since Gutenberg invented the printing press” I know I can change the channel. Although a Google search of “Gutenberg invented the printing press”(in quotation marks) offers 412 citations, the first printing press was invented in China in 593 A.D. Johannes Gutenberg invented the first metal movable-type printing system in Europe, many years later. Perhaps this knowledge should disqualify me from commenting on the future of publishing. However it’s my blog; I’ll comment if I want to.

Tags: , , , ,

Awful Library Books

July 9, 2009

My friend Wendy brought this fun site to my attention: thank you.

The About the Site description begins:

Awfullibrarybooks.wordpress.com is a collection of the worst library holdings. The items featured here are so old, obsolete, awful or just plain stupid that we are horrified that people might be actually checking these items out and depending on the information.

This blog contains actual library holdings. No specific libraries or librarians are named to protect the guilty. Check your shelves, it could be you.

Let me reproduce one entry to give you an idea of the crazy books they uncover:

A great choice for a parenting collection!

June 2, 2009

abuse1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When Children Invite Child Abuse:  A search for answers when love is not enough
Gold
1986

A fellow Michigan ALB spy has given us this gem!  I am speechless just on the title alone!  Who on earth is the target market for this book?  Abusers looking for an “out” ?  Question to the public library with this holding:  are child abusers one of your major patron groups that you feel are being underserved by the public library?

The comments are very good, often humorous, and in the case of this particular title, able to explain that in fact the book “is meant to help parents understand difficult children and is not meant in any way to promote child abuse.”

Another comment notes:

This reminds me of my first encounter with unfortunate LC subject headings in my public library job fresh out of grad school. I found a heading CHILD ABUSE-INSTRUCTION MANUALS and was horrified. It was for a book on how to lead workshops to help folks recovering from abuse or something like that but the initial shock was similar to this book title you found.

Fun, and in some odd way, instructional too!

November 11, 2010

I’ve updated the link above to the new URL. Here’s a bonus image:

With a Foreword by The Village People!

With a Foreword by The Village People!

Tags:

More Data on the Number of On-demand Titles in 2008

May 23, 2009

To find out the inside scoop on stories like that reported in my previous blog entry, I’m now subscribing to Publishers Lunch Deluxe newsletter, which I receive as part of a $20/month membership to Publishers Marketplace. Thus far I’m finding it to be of excellent value for my research and understanding of what’s happening in the world of trade publishing.

Today’s issue features a long article that goes into considerable detail on “the headline that rocked the book industry” a few days back, namely “Number of On-demand Titles Topped Traditional Books in 2008″. Of course the real story is quite different than that lurid headline implied.

It”s not appropriate to quote the article in full, but I’ll extract a few facts. The unnamed author of the story states that his or her source was Bowker executive Kelly Gallagher (he is General Manager of Bowker’s Business Intelligence Segment).

1. The distinction that Bowker made between on-demand and traditional books refers solely to the manufacturing method: traditional offset printing, versus much more recent digital print-on-demand technologies. So the number can’t be interpreted as equal to the number of self-published titles. It refers only to books printed digitally, and assigned a new ISBN number. Traditional book publishing companies are increasingly turning to this newer technology to publish books in short runs where offset would be too expensive (although Bowker has not yet done the analysis to determine what percentage of the books derived from what type of company).

2. The whole self-publishing industry is, statistically speaking, a mess. For example, according to Lulu.com’s Corporate Profile page, in 2008 “Lulu alone published over 400,000 titles.” Blurb.com claims it published 300,000 titles in 2008. That’s 700,000 from just two companies! But as Publishers Lunch points out, “a lot of the output from outfits like Lulu.com…and Blurb.com never get ISBN numbers at all (it’s an optional service at many such companies).”

3. Further compounding the muted value of Bowker’s numbers is that no eBooks are included, whether from Amazon or elsewhere.

4. I had heard just last month from my colleague George Alexander that there is a new class of publisher that is just grabbing as many out of print books as it can, scanning them, and tossing the whole lot onto Amazon to be printed on demand when the occasional order is placed. Kessinger Publishing, for example, has over 33,000 titles listed on Amazon, all of these with new ISBNs. I feel that adding these titles to Bowker’s annual new title output just misleads the industry about what’s really happening in publishing in America. Searching for Kessinger titles on Amazon, the first on the list is Ernest Holmes’ (1887-1960) Your Invisible Power. The book appears to be a combination of Christian reflection and mystic meanderings. Its 52 pages retail for $13.22 and its Amazon.com sales rank is #802,616 in books. Another firm, BiblioBazaar has over 37,000 listings on Amazon.

The Well-Designed Cover of "Your Invisible Power"

The well-designed cover of "Your Invisible Power"

So stay tuned, as the industry associations and analysts burn the midnight oil trying to get a handle on statistics that reveal, rather than conceal.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Children’s Books and the Future of Publishing

September 2, 2008

I’m still catching up on my old New Yorker magazines. Such a pleasure!

Today I have to share with you a marvelous article from the July 21st issue, thankfully online.

It’s called “The Lion and the Mouse: The battle that reshaped children’s literature,” and written beautifully by Jill Lepore.

“The Lion and the Mouse” was the title of an old Aesop’s fable, and as such a very suitable title to the article, but not necessarily revealing of its content.

I have to call this entry “Children’s Books and the Future of Publishing,” because that is the theme of this site, but you will find that the article is mainly concerned with the history of the publication of children’s books, rather than their future. I’m justifying the entry on the basis that if you don’t understand history, you can’t understand the future. But mainly it’s just a marvelous tale, well-told.

It’s an historical chronicle in two parts. The first part, for me the most enthralling, is the story of how children’s books were dragged into the American library system so late in the game, and with so much effort. The story is of the heroic efforts of a certain Anne Carroll Moore to allow children access to books that they could read and enjoy. As the article points out when Ms. Moore moved to New York City in 1895, “you had to be fourteen, and a boy, to get into the Astor Library, which opened in 1854, the same year as the Boston Public Library, the country’s first publicly funded city library, where you had to be sixteen. Even if you got inside, the librarians would shush you, carping about how the “young fry” read nothing but “the trashy”: Scott, Cooper, and Dickens (one century’s garbage being, as ever, another century’s Great Books).”

Anne Carroll Moore was a dynamo, and got her start as a children’s librarian in 1896 at the Children’s Library of the Pratt Institute, before being hired by the New York Public Library in 1902. The article reveals that she was both a groundbreaker and an autocrat, though her work as a groundbreaker appears to outweigh her efforts as an autocrat.

I’ll leave it to you to glean all of the details, but I was thoroughly enthralled by the quote: “She never lacked for an opinion. ‘Dull in a new way,’ she labelled books that she despised.” How useful a comment is that!

The article then moves into an relatively different (though related) episode: her relationship with E.B. White, who would go on to write “Stuart Little” and “Charlotte’s Web”, and what became a battle between them.

A highly recommended read.

Tags: , , , ,