Shelf Space – Poll
The past two Fridays, I’ve been involved in a super-secret (or at least super-after-hours) weeding project at the library. Any book that hadn’t been checked out in the last year, regardless of condition, subject or purchase date, was removed from the system and condemned to the basement for the book sale. It’s hard to put a percentage on the purge, but over the course of two shifts, roughly 3,000 books were pulled. And ours is a very small branch.
I’m of two minds on this. On the one hand, there is a limited amount of shelf space. The children’s librarian and I were discussing this — she said (to quote a staff meeting) that the shelves must be considered real estate, and each book must earn its keep. To a point, she’s right: there was a definite space problem, especially at our branch. When trucks for overflow materials have taken up permanent residence in the aisles, it’s hard to argue against thinning the book population.
But at the same time, libraries aren’t Blockbuster.
In an effort to “put the customer first,” the system has experienced an acute attack of bad purchasing. Books by bestselling authors are ordered in overabundance and abandoned within six months. There are no fewer than fifteen extra copies of Nora Roberts’ Tribute in storage at my branch (“in storage” here denotes the back corner of the basement, on the bottom shelf). Double that number for the amount of James Patterson novels that administration over-ordered and has no “real estate” for. As for movies: at least those circulate, but does the system really need 543 copies of Slumdog Millionaire?
And to assist in making room for these and others, I spent eight hours clearing 3,000 books from our shelves –- and those were almost entirely from the nonfiction stacks. (Naturally, I saved a few: On Writing Well by William Zinsser; Writing Creative Nonfiction; The Little Book of Plagiarism by Richard Posner; and Surrender by Sonya Hartnett.)
So here’s my poll to the whole of the Internet (or, more accurately, to whoever stops by my small roadside blog):
Leave a comment, too. I’m curious about this one — do I have reason to complain, or have I been back in the stacks just a bit too long?
 |
Happened to stop by your small roadside blog in my attempts to wear myself out for sleep and decided to comment. As much as I would like to promote new authors and ideas, or thrilling new tales and epic best sellers. . . I have to go with the second choice in your little poll. First off, I wouldn’t want to get into a debate about what kind of books should, or should not be allowed on the shelves of a library, as that might draw vague similarities to some kind of fascist censorship. But I have to agree with your “BAD PURCHASING” view. As you so eloquently put it, “libraries aren’t Blockbuster.” There are a wide variety of books out there that people should read, but haven’t. If you end up removing older books, or books that are borrowed less, to make way for the newer books, or more copies of a current best selling mega hit novel that is most likely a fad that will fizzle away, then what is going to happen to the over all quality of materials in your library.
I have a little story about a friend who recently tried his hardest to find a copy of certain fantasy novel and its sequel. He was unable to to find the novel in two of our smaller local libraries. His faith in the library shaken, he tried to find the books online and hasn’t been to the library in ages. He says things like “I can’t find any of the books (insert friends name here) recommended.” Perhaps there should be a shelf devoted to books that are not leaving the shelves much. Or at least a Recommended Reading shelf. One could place the books in sections or recommend other books that are of a similar theme.”If you enjoyed; Blah, Meh or Bleh, give me a read.” I’m not entirely sure how things are set up in your library, I just happen to be against the idea of getting rid of your wide variety of reading materials for an overabundance of Best-selling, recent reads. Some of these best-selling, recent books loose their appeal the moment you realise they really aren’t that amazing anyway. >_>
And 543 copies of Slumdog Millionaire? I cannot even begin to imagine the strain on out libraries funding stocking that many copies of one film. To run a successful business one should purchase items in reasonable denominations. Buy what you would LIKE to sell, what you are comfortable buying. Not 500+ copies of a book or movie that may or may not end up doing as well as you thought in the long run. The libraries may loose a little business in keeping up with *OCKBUSTERS VIDEO or The local book selling monopoly store, but they are going rent out the the smaller number of books they have. Either way, the library is always going to offer the best bang for your buck. Smart people will know this, and the dumb ones just need to be better informed. Library advertisement anyone?
On another note, I’d like to see more re-selling/re-distribution/re-advertisement of some good older novels. More/Updated press for some of the older books that are becoming overlooked. That can help to get some older books off the shelves and back into our hearts.
Anyway, sleep is summoning me and I must oblige with an unspectacular 5 hour cut scene. Take care.
Karasu said this on April 29, 2009 at 4:21 am |
I wouldn’t say that I’m against new authors and ideas, but I’d prefer to see one or two copies of each new book instead of dozens. Part of using a free service means that there may be some inconvenience involved, such as waiting your turn.
My library does have a “staff recommendations” display, but no one ever looks at it. It also tends to make books harder to find. If someone comes looking for Water for Elephants, is it on the adult fiction shelves, or with the new arrivals? Or is it part of a seasonal display, or staff recommendations? The system really doesn’t work.
There’s also cultural issues to contend with. It’s difficult to get a newcomer to read The Aeneid when they’ve only come in to use the Internet and grab a DVD or five. I can’t force-feed the public good literature, but heaven knows I’ve tried.
Thanks for stopping by — I’m glad at least one other person has an opinion on this!
AyDee said this on April 29, 2009 at 10:01 am |
Exactly. Patients is a virtue. I didn’t mind having to wait for a book I wanted to borrow. I usually took out another novel, or grabbed something from the history shelves. I just don’t think I’d like to see the libraries become something like a cross between a large book store and a video store. Preserve the older or harder to find books for future generations and what not.
Karasu said this on April 29, 2009 at 6:45 pm |
Well, I think there should be different standards for different types of books.
For non-fiction, having a bunch of different books so that there’s something on whatever obscure random topic you want to know about is incredibly valuable. Libraries act in parallel with bookstores and video rentals and so on as far as entertainment goes, but for research purposes they fill a niche on their own. So unless a book is completely out of date, or made redundant by a new version, I think it should stay on the shelf as long as possible – because odds are, people don’t have another way to get the same depth of information on that subject. Except, I guess, for some popular non-fiction – if people read it for entertainment, then I’d sort it like entertainment.
Fiction is different, although I’d still prefer to see variety over a lot of new bestsellers. I agree on the whole ‘wait your turn’ bit – if you want a book that you can read on demand whenever you want, then you should buy it yourself. Fiction-wise, I’ve always seen libraries as a way to try out a whole bunch of new books that I can read and then give back, and not have to worry about if it’s worth paying for and keeping to reread lots of times and have it take up space on my shelf. So on the one hand there should be enough recent stuff to ensure that there’s alwys soemthing new to read, but on the other hand, a whole lot of copies of the same book seems to defeat one of the purposes of a library – to share and reuse books instead buying them for just one or two readings. I don’t know if this would work at all, but video rental places sometimes do it: have a shorter checkout time for new, high-demand books. That way fewer copies of a book can be read by the same number people in the same amount of time. (Although since I’m a bookworm and a fast reader, I guess this is all skewed towards my own reading habits.)
As for reccomending books, maybe you could just post a list? You could put blurbs/reviews next to each book, maybe a picture of the cover – all the info actually on the book cover, but you don’t have to move books aroud. Or you could use stickers or some sort of colorful marker to flag books on the shelf, so favorites would stand out to people browsing.
SallyB said this on May 11, 2009 at 11:53 pm |
The sad thing is, there IS a system for popular books — we call them “sizzlers.” Sizzlers aren’t requestable; they’re first come, first serve. And they only go out for a week. The problem is that the system considers the sizzlers the minority. Of the 543 copies of Slumdog Millionaire, only 140 are sizzlers.
About recommendations: There are pamphlets of “if you liked ____, you’ll love ____!” lying around, but I’ve yet to see anyone reference them. This has, however, given me a damn good idea to run past the staff on Saturday. I’ll let you know.
AyDee said this on May 12, 2009 at 11:33 pm |
I totally agree with this post. I used to shelve part-time at my local library and I’ve got to say, I was pretty shocked when my first training session rolled around. Sure, we had books, but what the HECK were the DVDs and the videos doing there? Why on earth were we ending up with more computer users than any other patrons?
And, apparently, my co-workers didn’t seem to care that old-ish books were still good reading. No, they were like, “Oh, this one looks a little bit manky, chuck it out.” I would have asked them what they were smoking, but try explaining THAT piece of rudeness to my boss…
Argh, I’m going off on a tangent here. Anyway, I don’t find the duplicates thing annoying (after all, they are in demand, therefore more are needed), but I definitely don’t think that this should be at the expense of shelf space for other, older good works.
Also, one thing I want to mention. Where have all the classics gone? Where? Where???
Leah_Daae said this on May 15, 2009 at 3:01 am |
Ideally, libraries would have unlimited space for expansion. But, with tighter budgets and an increased number of tweens looking for Twilight, there’s simply no room for taste.
AyDee said this on May 22, 2009 at 9:54 pm |