GIGO
Since I'm just getting around to reading my December edition of American Libraries, yesterday I came across the Opinion article by David Isaacson, "Don't Just Read - Read Good Books." I thought it wonderfully appropriate for my current course, and thus decided to take a closer look at it. Issacson argues that "Librarians ought to have the courage to say that some books aren't worth reading at all." I don't agree with that exact statement, because I know that patrons' reading interests are as diverse as they are colorful. I am reminded of a time when I recommended my favorite mystery to two patrons in the space of one week, and both of them came back and said they just hated it. So I would argue that Librarians should give patrons all kinds of synopsis, reviews, and any other information they request, but should hold off on giving their own opinion unless asked to do so by the patron.
Isaacson concludes with this statement, "Literacy is better than illiteracy, but discriminating readers are ever so much better than undiscriminating ones." And I thought, "Is he right?"
I would say yes, Issacson is correct in his thinking. After reading the article, I went to the OED to confirm the definition of discrimination : "To distinguish with the mind or intellect; to perceive, observe, or note the difference in or between." The ability to make this distinction is of vital importance, I believe. Whether the reader reads "the classics" or is content to read contemporary popular fiction, that person should have the ability to distinguish between the two. That is a point on which Librarians can be of tremendous help; we aren't here to tell a patron that a book is "good" or "bad," but we should encourage the patron to make the decision for him/herself. I can think of nothing worse than having the time to read anything at my fingertips, yet not being able to distinguish between solid, well-written prose or poetry, and the trite, run-of-the-mill fiction that is often published.
That brings me to my subject heading "GIGO." I learned this phrase as a child (I think I even learned a tune to sing it to...) : Garbage In, Garbage Out. If all one reads is garbage (and who decides it's garbage?), then they won't be able to produce any original thoughts or opinions; they will just be regurgitating garbage. There is no need to ban any kind of fiction (or nonfiction) from a library's collection, unless there is a statistical drop in interest for that author/genre. Sections of a collection should not be pulled just because of a few people's opinion.
By adhering to this argument, I, as a Reader's Advisor, would encourage any patron to read the synopsis of a book that they found interesting. I would help them look for reviews of the book, if they wished. Once I gave them all the information and/or advice requested, I would encourage them to read at least three chapters. If they didn't like it after three chapters, then just bring it back in to the library and find another book. There is nothing wrong with not finishing a book that you have started.
Isaacson concludes with this statement, "Literacy is better than illiteracy, but discriminating readers are ever so much better than undiscriminating ones." And I thought, "Is he right?"
I would say yes, Issacson is correct in his thinking. After reading the article, I went to the OED to confirm the definition of discrimination : "To distinguish with the mind or intellect; to perceive, observe, or note the difference in or between." The ability to make this distinction is of vital importance, I believe. Whether the reader reads "the classics" or is content to read contemporary popular fiction, that person should have the ability to distinguish between the two. That is a point on which Librarians can be of tremendous help; we aren't here to tell a patron that a book is "good" or "bad," but we should encourage the patron to make the decision for him/herself. I can think of nothing worse than having the time to read anything at my fingertips, yet not being able to distinguish between solid, well-written prose or poetry, and the trite, run-of-the-mill fiction that is often published.
That brings me to my subject heading "GIGO." I learned this phrase as a child (I think I even learned a tune to sing it to...) : Garbage In, Garbage Out. If all one reads is garbage (and who decides it's garbage?), then they won't be able to produce any original thoughts or opinions; they will just be regurgitating garbage. There is no need to ban any kind of fiction (or nonfiction) from a library's collection, unless there is a statistical drop in interest for that author/genre. Sections of a collection should not be pulled just because of a few people's opinion.
By adhering to this argument, I, as a Reader's Advisor, would encourage any patron to read the synopsis of a book that they found interesting. I would help them look for reviews of the book, if they wished. Once I gave them all the information and/or advice requested, I would encourage them to read at least three chapters. If they didn't like it after three chapters, then just bring it back in to the library and find another book. There is nothing wrong with not finishing a book that you have started.
posted by ActLikeOne | 8:51 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home