readers reading

I found Ross' article much more enjoyable to read than Pawley's, which surprised me since I really enjoyed "Unequal Legacies".  I certainly understood Ross' article more readily than "Beyond Market Models and Resistance".  "In the Company of Readers" encompasses many aspects of reading:  who reads, what they read, how, and why.

First, Ross' comments about reading for pleasure engaged me.  It made me aware of my own hang-ups about recreational reading.  For example, in a young adult literature class last year I was assigned "The Hunger Games"...and loved it.  It was not a love without reservations, however.  I felt that I had to make excuses for taking pleasure in the sci-fi/action/romance novel, that it was, as Ross mentioned, "too easy" or "too fun".  In contrast, I proudly toted around my thick Carl Sagan book this summer.  Clearly I am holding myself (and probably others) to the (maybe not so) old-fashioned ideal of "good" and "bad" reading.  I can admit that I deal with the same issues in movie taste.  It seems that I need to make sure I can maintain a distinct taste while not rendering value judgments in the workplace.  But again the question comes to mind, how much discernment is appropriate--or required--as a librarian (especially a school librarian) when it comes to selecting books for the library?

Fear of impending change came up in Ross' article and is a theme of many library-related articles I have recently read.  While I understand the apprehension some may feel in the face of digitization or some other new reading trend, I believe that society and humanity are always moving, however slowly, forward toward progress.  The author points out that even Socrates bemoaned the advent of writing, fearing it would be the end of oral culture.  While it may be true that we no longer rely on speech alone to transmit and retain information, the shift to the written word made way for much more (and more accurate) information to be stored and retrieved easily.  In the same way, librarians should view changing technologies as opportunities, not that the newest gadget should necessarily be adopted with haste, but with an open mind toward new possibilities.  In other words, I do not believe that reading is in danger of extinction, rather it will simply look different.  Libraries will need to continue to change with the shifting nature of reading and needs of readers.

It is interesting to read about the historical shift from reading out loud to reading silently.  In my first grade classroom, we expect students to transition from "whisper reading" to silent reading over the course of the year.  I am not sure that this expectation is entirely reasonable.  As I have been reading difficult journal articles recently, I've found that whispering (or at least mouthing) the words and gesturing have bolstered my comprehension.  I have recently sought to make more space for my students to "talk to learn".

Oh, and, by the way, I'm changing format--no more article titles at the top of my posts.  I'm so over that.

Tunnel Vision and Blind Spots: What the Past Tells Us About the Present; Reflections on the Twentieth Century History of American Librarianship
Wayne A. Wiegand

It seems that as America's libraries were being built, the process was more like putting out fires than strategically planning.  As stores of information grew, libraries (especially special libraries) cropped up to organize things.  Since early librarians were very academically-minded, I wonder what they would think of our current libraries full of fiction and DVDs.  I prefer the later mindset which stressed that libraries are for reading and readers.

When this article discusses "good reading", it addresses some of the concerns that have floated around in my head the last few weeks.  I've been struggling with how much responsibility a librarian should take for providing high-quality material versus providing what the patrons want.  For example, I am not a huge fan of, say, romance or crime novels.  Do I think they should be removed from libraries?  Of course not.  Would I rather see people check out what I consider to be more quality literature?  Sure, but it is not my place to impose my literary opinions on others.  I am not sure that "good reading" and "neutral service", as late-19th-century librarians sought to provide, can really coexist.  This dichotomy has helped me to clarify my thoughts on the issue.  I also like the idea of a "library faith" or mission and the meaning that has developed over time:  providing materials to all patrons without censorship.