> And each time (at least so far), the outcome has
> been that selection/usage/knowledge/advice - the
> value added services provided by library personnel
> (often, but not always, in a physical library
> environment), is what gives the library it's raison
> d'être.
It seems to me that it is wildly absurd to hold that such
things are the *raison d'être* of the library. And I'm
not sure that you'll find a non-librarian anywhere who
would come up with anything like this list when asked
"What is a ( your ) library's raison d'être ?"
Selection, I suppose, comes closest to being a significant
value-added element provided by library personnel ( but
added to *what* ; and what percentage of library
personnel is responsible for selection ; and how much
less pertinent is local selection as a librarian activity
nowadays than it once was ? ).
It isn't at all clear to me what might be meant above by
"usage" as a value-added service provided by library
personnel.
The real problem seems to lie with that "knowledge"
and "advice" part, which has been grotesquely
hyperbolicized by the occupational group ( call it a
"profession" if that makes you feel better ) itself . To
the extent of making the group look really ridiculous,
to say nothing of pretentious, from the outside ( to the
extent that others pay any attention to it at all -- which
they almost universally don't, as far as I can tell ).
And the idiotic acme of such hyperbolicization is the
notion that anyone in his/her right mind should think
it appropriate to turn to a librarian in order to learn
critical thinking.
The very idea that I would consider turning to any one
of the thousands of librarians I have known with the
request "Please teach me how to think critically" has
me rolling all over the floor in hysteric laughter. Most
of them seemed indeed to be more uncritical, themselves,
in their thinking than my plumber, my barber, my car
mechanic, my next-door neighbors, or the average man
or woman in the street.
- Laval Hunsucker
----- Original Message -----
> From: Ted Koppel <tpk_at_AUTO-GRAPHICS.COM>
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 3:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] "Is a Bookless Library Still a Library?"
>
> Is this really a new controversy? Seems like this is a Rolodex argument -
> every now and then it pops to the top of the list and then moves along.
>
> It seems to me that we had the same conversations 30+ years ago when online
> citation databases became available to libraries. And even more recently,
> when publishers and aggregators made available the full text of journal articles
> digitally.
>
> Each time, the question "What is a library? Does it have a reason to
> exist?" comes up. And each time (at least so far), the outcome has been
> that selection/usage/knowledge/advice - the value added services provided by
> library personnel (often, but not always, in a physical library environment), is
> what gives the library it's raison d'être.
>
> I'm somewhat disheartened by Mr. Huppert's assertion that librarians are
> nothing more than accountants. I'm hoping he was saying it sardonically.
>
> I'm more inclined to agree with Karen Coyle; that it is not *only* book and
> not *only* databases and not *only* personnel that gives the library its value -
> rather, it is the combination of all three that either makes a library valuable
> (or as sometimes happens, not.)
>
>
> Ted
>
Received on Fri Jul 15 2011 - 19:20:26 EDT