Annoyed Librarian

AL on LJ

2008-10-08T17:16:00.004-04:00

http://blog.libraryjournal.com/annoyedlibrarian/

The AL Sells Out

2008-10-06T10:24:00.002-04:00

For those of you who've been missing me while I've been goofing off, you're in luck. For those of you hoping the AL would die off, you'll just have to keep hope alive against the odds. Perhaps there's some medication for you.

A couple of weeks ago, I said I'd be moving, and I am. From now on (or at least until the editor realizes what a troublemaker I can be and fires me), the Annoyed Librarian will be hosted at Library Journal.

Here's the new link:

http://www.libraryjournal.com/annoyedlibrarian

The blog went live this morning. Please update your bookmarks, feeds, links, etc.

The move means that unlike the last few months, I'm going back to blogging in earnest. The editor really has promised me complete control, and she seems like a good egg, plus she's, you know, paying me. I might have been bored with fame, but I'm never bored with fortune.

The comments section will be as open as always, so you can continue to mix it up if you like.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

"Banned" Books Week Strikes Again

2008-09-29T12:50:00.003-04:00

"Banned" Books Week, or BBW, is upon us once again. Since the ALA has nothing new to say on the matter, I don't either. So read the old stuff; it's still better than the nonsense emanating from the ALA. Take a look at the books shown in the first link. Yeah, it's hard for people to get hold of a Harry Potter book, and I'm pretty sure Catcher in the Rye isn't available , either. And forget Huckleberry Finn. You can't find that darn thing anywhere, because it's been "banned." They've all been "banned"! Banned books, indeed. Enter the alternative universe of the ALA Office of Intellectual Freedom, where we are always on the verge of totalitarianism because some rube in Bumflap, GA doesn't like gay penguins. Be sure to check your intellect at the door, though. Otherwise it's hard to take this stuff.

There'll Be Some Changes Made

2008-09-22T13:36:00.003-04:00

As Tony Bennett sings, I'm gonna change my way of livin', and if that ain't enough, I'm gonna change the way I strut my stuff.

Things have been slowing down here, but they're about to speed back up. Last spring my personal life sort of took control of a lot of my time, but let's just say I'm settling down now. Also, I've had some added responsibility at work. These libraries can be so demanding.

Also, the AL will have something of a milestone next month. The AL will finally be in print. I'm saving the details until the release, but I've seen the proofs for everything but the introductory essay (and I've seen a draft of that from the author) and everything looks to be on target. There'll be a special issue of a journal and possibly a monograph. This project has been almost two years in the making, and in that time the monograph has been on, then off, then on again, and is now in limbo. I'd been considering just retiring the AL.

However, I've now got some motivation not only to keep writing, but start up again in earnest. Some people are motivated by love, some by anger, some by a tear on the cheek of a glistening child. I at least am also motivated by money. That's right, someone is finally offering to pay me to write the AL and host the blog, and I've more or less agreed. It looks like sometime in the next couple of weeks the AL will be moving on up to the east side, where I'll finally get a piece of the pie. I'll save the details for the formal announcement, just in case something happens, but it's pretty definite.

My only worry with these changes is that it might mean the AL's going too mainstream, but the goal is to bring the perspective of the Annoyed Librarian, and of course all her faithful readers, to a potentially broader audience, not to knuckle under to the Man. We'll see.

New Thread

2008-09-10T11:00:00.002-04:00

What in the hell happened to the comments section on the last post? I know I'm not posting much these days, but how did a comment on the mindless lists become an argument about Palin? I wasn't even paying attention to the comments until today.

Anyway, it just goes to show that one of the functions of the AL is to provide a forum for anonymous librarians to complain about things. For that function, I apparently don't even need to post, as evidenced by the nearly 200 comments on the last post, most of which have little to do with the topic. This makes things a lot easier on me.

So today, there's no topic. Comment on, commenters!

Mindless List for 2012

2008-08-26T09:05:00.003-04:00

Once again some place called Beloit College has released a new Mindless List for the class of 2012. According to the hype the Beloit College Mindless people put out, the list "provides a look at the cultural touchstones that shape the lives of students entering college." Hmm, we'll see about that. They also say that the "List is shared with faculty and with thousands who request it each year as the school year begins." Thousands of people request this? I find that hard to believe. More likely Beloit College thrusts this on everyone. But let's focus on the claim that this list has anything to do with the cultural touchstones of incoming college students.

"For these students, Sammy Davis Jr., Jim Henson, Ryan White, Stevie Ray Vaughan and Freddy Krueger have always been dead."

If they've always been dead, then are they really cultural touchstones? Does this even make sense? And is Freddy Krueger really dead? He seems to live on in a cable wasteland.

2. Since they were in diapers, karaoke machines have been annoying people at parties.

How is this a touchstone for them? Were they in their diapers singing karaoke?

6. Shampoo and conditioner have always been available in the same bottle.

This seems to be the sort of thing a generation will bond over, a true "touchstone."

8. Their parents may have dropped them in shock when they heard George Bush announce “tax revenue increases.”

Yeah, that seems pretty likely, because their parents no doubt believe every politician's promise and are just shocked when one is broken.

9. Electronic filing of tax returns has always been an option.

And certainly a touchstone of these kid's lives, because no doubt they've been electronically filing all along.

15. Martha Stewart Living has always been setting the style.

The style for whom? These incoming students? Does that seem likely?

22. Clarence Thomas has always sat on the Supreme Court.

And they care about this? Or is it just their leftist professors who care about this?

24. We have always known that “All I Ever Really Needed to Know I Learned in Kindergarten.”

But have any of them read this book, or even heard of it?

26. Wayne Newton has never had a mustache.

Which is an item of central concern for 18-year-olds, who are notorious Wayne Newton fans.

29. Roseanne Barr has never been invited to sing the National Anthem again.

Roseanne who?

31. They have never been able to color a tree using a raw umber Crayola.

And this is a touchstone for them how exactly?

35. They never tasted Benefit Cereal with psyllium.

This can hardly be a touchstone for them, then. Plus, I don't even know what the hell this is.

38. Lenin’s name has never been on a major city in Russia.

Again, if it's never been on a major city, then how exactly do they touch this stone?

39. Employers have always been able to do credit checks on employees.

And I'm sure all these students have had their credit checked many times.

40. Balsamic vinegar has always been available in the U.S.

And these kids have been buying it in droves.

42. Their parents may have watched The American Gladiators on TV the day they were born.

Shouldn't they have been in the hospital giving birth? I guess people who watched American Gladiators didn't think about that sort of thing. Even if their parents were watching this, were the children watching it as well?

43. Personal privacy has always been threatened.

Because no one's personal privacy was ever threatened before 1990.

47. They never heard an attendant ask “Want me to check under the hood?”

I hate to break it to the oldsters compiling this mindless list, but I've never heard that either. Well, maybe in an old movie.

50. They have never known life without Seinfeld references from a show about “nothing.”

Seinfeld started before they were born and ended when they were young. Do Seinfeld references abound among 18-year-olds?

51. Windows 3.0 operating system made IBM PCs user-friendly the year they were born.

Yep, and they all have vivid memories of this.

52. Muscovites have always been able to buy Big Macs.

Even if they ever knew this, they didn't care.

53. The Royal New Zealand Navy has never been permitted a daily ration of rum.

WTF? The Beloit people are really reaching with this one.

54. The Hubble Space Telescope has always been eavesdropping on the heavens.

"Eavesdropping on the heavens"? Who writes this stuff? I can just imagine all these incoming college students, standing on the quad, gazing into the night sky, saying in unison, "Ahh, the Hubble Space Telescope is still eavesdropping on the heavens. What a comforting thought!"

55. 98.6 F or otherwise has always been confirmed in the ear.

Not in my house.

56. Michael Milken has always been a philanthropist promoting prostate cancer research.

Is that what he's up to these days? Does it seem likely that 18-year-olds, even those with prostates, care enough about this to know who Michael Milkin is?

I guess the question is, what constitutes a cultural touchstone. I would argue a cultural touchstone for a generation, if such even makes sense, would be something that most people in the generation would remember that generations on either side of them probably wouldn't, except in the case of boomer culture which they manage to thrust on the rest of us for 40 years, as if that "classic rock" from the 1960s had anything other than nostalgiac appeal. But I digress.

Music seems to be a good cultural touchstone. Most pop music of any decade sucks, but teenagers rememeber it while the rest of us typically avoid it. Television's good as well, because some shows appeal to children only in a certain era. The question is, how can something be a cultural touchstone for a generation if most people in that generation aren't even aware of it? The Royal New Zealand Navy? A television show popular on the day they were born? A book none of them have read? A crayon none of them have used? This doesn't even make sense.

Every year the Beloit College Mindless people flounder around to find something that tells us about these incoming college students. Once again they've failed. All this list does for me is point out what gibberish supposedly educated people can put out on the Internet. It also tells me that if I ever have kids, I wouldn't send them to Beloit College. But, as the Beloit Mindless people would no doubt say, there's no such thing as bad publicity.

The Jewel of Intellectual Unfreedom

2008-08-21T13:52:00.002-04:00

Many of you have possibly already read about The Jewel of Medina by Sherry Jones, a novel about one of Muhammad's wives that was to be published by Random House and had already been chosen as a Book of the Month Club selection. Alas, we'll probably not be able to read the novel. I wouldn't have read it anyway, because Muhammad's romantic life or Muslim views of women hold no interest for me whatsoever, being a more or less liberated twenty-first century woman who is somehow unwilling to abject herself to some man because "The Prophet" told me to. The only annoying thing is why we'll never get to read it--because Random House is afraid to publish it. Some Muslims have complained. They told Random House that the novel might "incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment." The cowards at Random House decided that the potential actions of a bunch of radical Muslim lowlifes was more important than the cause of literature or intellectual freedom. Hardly surprising.

My favorite part of the story was the reaction of a so-called professor at the University of Texas. From the Washington Post article:

According to Natasha Kern, Jones's agent, Spellberg went on to hire an attorney and threatened to sue if her name wasn't taken out of the book's bibliography. "She said it would endanger her family," said Kern, who said Spellberg then contacted several Muslim Web sites and told them to oppose the book's coming publication. Earlier this month, Spellberg wrote in a letter to the Wall Street Journal that the book was "provocative" and followed a tradition of anti-Islamic writings that "use sex and violence to attack the Prophet and his faith." She did not return a phone call or e-mail message for this story.

Wow! Hiring an attorney to get her name out of a bibliography. That must be the first time a professor has ever tried to sue not to get cited. Spellberg must be tenured and not need the citation. Of course she used the time-honored excuse of worrying about her family. She very well might be worried, because the evidence seems to indicate that there are Muslims out there loony enough to go through the bibliography at the end of a novel and systematically kill every one of the living authors. I mean, if you'll wear a bomb and detonate yourself in a public square because you think forty virgins are going to be jumping on you in heaven a moment later, then you're pretty much crazy and stupid enough to be convinced of anything, now aren't you?

I can't sympathize much with this defense, though, considering Spellberg's next action--contacting Muslim websites and telling them about the book. Hardly a purely defensive move there, was it? That was an act of aggression against intellectual freedom. One expects this kind of thing from academia, but it usually comes from the left. Censorship and repression from the right are just as unpleasant. If the book was about Jesus having sex and some Christian professor acted like that, she'd be hooted out of the academy as an anti-intellectual, totalitarian rube she obviously is. Oh well, I guess they like that kind of thing down in Texas.

Does this count as a "challenged" or "banned" book? Probably not, since it's not some parent trying to get a manual of gay sex eliminated from the second grade curriculum in some hole-in-the-wall in Florida. Here we have an actual case of a book not being available at all thanks to the idiotic, illiberal actions of a "professor" and other cowards and morons. Threatened terrorism leading to self-censorship. It's a sad world we live in when we allow liberal values to be overrun by a bunch of violent nuts.

Maybe this book can join the list of so-called "banned books" next month during "Banned" Books Week. Problem is, lots of libraries put up displays of these so-called banned books, but they won't be able to with this one. The totalitarians and religious nuts have won this time. Makes me proud to be an American.

Intellectual freedom means the freedom to think like us.

Don't Criticize the Library...or Else

2008-08-18T07:12:00.003-04:00

Those of you who keep track of library news, or who read the comments to my post last week, probably know about The Library Diaries, by "Ann Meketa." "Ann Meketa" turns out to be "Sally Stern-Hamilton," who worked at the public library in "Luddington, Michigan" for fifteen years until being fired for publishing the book. (You might have to register to view the news story.) It seems The Library Diaries, though purportedly fictional, says mean things about the perverts and crazy characters populating the novel, and some real Luddington people greatly resembling these fictional perverts and crazies patronize Stern-Hamilton's previous place of employment. Just in case the connection between her real life experiences and her fiction wasn't obvious enough, she put a picture of the Luddington Library on the cover of the book. Very clever, Sally!

There are comments both on the Amazon page and the news page going back and forth over the book (including one from some idiot named "Lon" who thinks we should ignore this story and instead be concerned about the Muslim running for POTUS). Some claim that this is a privacy issue, and that she has somehow violated the privacy of the Luddington Library patrons by writing a fictionalized account of some questionable activities and calling characters perverts. That's the point of view of the earnest librarian, no doubt, but who on earth would listen to an earnest librarian.

Some claim that this is a free speech or intellectual freedom issue and that Stern-Hamilton was unjustly fired for exercising her free speech, since apparently she hadn't done anything wrong at work. She wrote a book. The library director fired her because of it. That could be the view of other earnest librarians, those who actually believe all the guff emanating from the ALA about intellectual freedom. Intellectual freedom means the freedom to think like them. I would be very surprised if the ALA Office of "Intellectual Freedom" made any statement whatsoever about this issue. It's pretty obvious from their focus that they think there's something "intellectual" about watching porn in the library. Just goes to show what passes for intellect at the ALA.

According to Stern-Hamilton's own report, she has "not been able to find one lawyer to make a First Amendment (Freedom of Speech, Press) case or even a whistleblower case." Probably not a lot of constitutional lawyers in Luddington, though. Still, given the alleged content of the book, I doubt the ACLU would be very interested. They talk a good game, but civil liberties aren't for everyone, you know.

The story has some strange parts to it. The author claims not to know how Robert Dickson (aka "The Library Director who fires people for writing books") came to know about her little self-published, pseudonymous tome. However, according to one of the comments, people in Luddington learned of the book because the author wrote everyone she knew telling them she'd published it. Speaking from personal experience on this one, I'd have to say you screwed the pooch there, Sally, if indeed you did tell everyone about it. The whole point of a pseudonym is to mask identity and create a different persona. You should have taken a lesson from Auntie AL.

Another commenter thinks it's somehow significant that "even the local retailers in the author's community have refused to sell the book." I'm sure that has everything to do with it being such a mean book and absolutely nothing to do with it being a self-published, print-on-demand title. I'm sure the Bookmark Espresso Cup Coffee Shop in Luddington stocks a lot of books like that.

What puzzles me is why anyone at the library would even care. The director is apparently afraid that the perverts will be offended that someone has written a bad, self-published novel calling characters perverts, because we all know it's highly likely that they're going to read this book and start protesting. This is a book that no one would have heard of and almost no would would have bought. Based on some of the comments, and not just from earnest librarians, the book just sounds like a bad novel, which would explain the vanity press.

Wait, perhaps that's it. Perhaps Dickson was just making all that stuff up about firing the woman because she calls fictionalized characters perverts. Maybe he was really firing her because he read the book, realized that it was a damn silly piece of sub-literary garbage, and couldn't stand working with someone who was such a bad writer. I can see that. I feel the same way sometimes when I read article drafts from some of my colleagues.

Or maybe it's because she committed the ultimate librarian sin: she said something critical about libraries. Many librarians seem to have the critical capacity of cheerleaders. Rah, rah, rah, libraries are all perfect! If we expose any of the unpleasant truths about our libraries, then people will be scared away, so let's cheer, cheer, cheer! Yay! The ALA is one big library cheerleader team, and they look really bad in those outfits.

Longtime readers know how many people used to criticize this blog just because it was mean and didn't speak happy thoughts about librarianship. And of course it's much worse if you don't publish under your real name and "take responsibility" for your words and all that other gobbledygook earnest librarians babble when they don't like what people say. One "distinguished library school professor," if there be such, once wrote somewhere that she wanted people like me and that other anonymous blogger David Durant of Heretical Librarian outed to our colleagues so they could see how awful we were for daring to question the ALA party line. (Durant was never anonymous or pseudonymous, but this particular professor wasn't one to let total ignorance stand in the way of her ideology.) She's probably cheering the Luddington Library right about now, along with all the other earnest, humorless librarians out there.

Yay, team!

Mean Librarian Salaries

2008-08-13T22:12:00.002-04:00

According to the AL Direct, "Mean librarian salaries [are] up 2% in 2008." Supposedly the mean librarian salary is now $57,809. Those mean librarians should try to be a little nicer, like I am, because you attract higher salaries with honey than with vinegar.

Gender Discrimination @ Your Library, or At Least Someone's Library

2008-07-30T13:41:00.006-04:00

I've been glancing at a few of the comments. Sheesh, some people sure want me to die off. Oh well. Takes all kinds to make a world.

Someone sent this job ad to me today. I'm not sure what to say. At least they're honest about the requirements. Check out the title: Male Librarian. They don't want any stinkin' female librarians over there in Saudi Arabia, that's for sure. At least in this country when we want someone with a specific gender or race or whatever, we have the good taste to mask it in some sort of politically correct doublespeak and maybe even feel bad about it.

I like this requirement: "Candidates interested in the Librarian position MUST have an American Library Association accredited master's degree in library science and experience of working in an academic library."

I wish them the best of luck with their search, but...wait, no, I don't wish them any luck at all. To hell with 'em. Still, how many male librarians with ALA-Accredited library degrees would want to take a job with outright gender discrimination? Isn't part of being a male librarian that you're not particularly manly? I mean, you might be, but nobody sees you that way. Nothing personal. Would these male librarians want to work strictly around other males? I would think that one of the benefits of being a male librarian would be the ample pickings for dates (and I do mean ample!). Also, I can't imagine any of the male librarians I've known saying, "yeah, it's a good thing to not hire people based on their gender!"

I wonder what the ALA OIF would have to say about this? Should an ALA-accredited MLS take a job where your library by law couldn't even stock such a common title as the Bible? Would being able to check out a Bible be considered part of one's "intellectual freedom"? Seems to me it would. (ALA OIF, don't bother to comment. This library isn't in America.)

Keep in mind that the male librarian who gets this job would have to be straight, or at least pretend to be so, given the barbaric treatment of homosexuals in Saudi Arabia. Heck, the homosexuals have it worse than the women. They can at least pretend and the state will let them drive and appear alone in public. Hmm, wonder what the ALA would say about the implied position that they require a male librarian who's not gay? Boy, they're very discriminating in the intellectual backwaters over there in Saudi Arabia.

Sure, now you're going to say, the AL discriminates against Saudi Arabia. You're Okay, I'm Okay! We shouldn't judge people just because they have different values than us! Okay, Pollyanna, I'm sure the Saudi Arabians would be very accomodating of your flatulent moral relativism. Maybe they wouldn't even behead you. No, wait, maybe that's Iran.

This job is at what the Saudi Arabians call a "university": the brand new Prince Mohammad bin Fahd University. It's on the "male campus," hence the need for some straight men with ALA-accredited MLSs to work there. Considering that the values of universities in their highest sense involve the questioning of received values and opinions and the intellectual defense of positions, I'm not sure this would pass for a real university. "Oh no, women are bad to be around! Can I have my A-plus now?" wouldn't quite cut it in a real university, at least not as a matter of policy. (Nobody mention Women's Studies departments, please.)

Long-time readers know I'm very concerned with increasing the presence of underrepresented minorities in librarianship, especially hot, straight guys, but I don't think this is the way to do it, even on the very off chance that any of those straigt male librarians are hot.

User Generated Idiocy

2008-07-21T09:46:00.001-04:00

Occasionally I think about the purpose of this blog, and based on the last couple of posts, I'm pretty sure I know. One purpose of the AL is to let librarians vent in the comments, to provide a forum for open discussion and argument. This is of course one of the things that has always bothered my critics. For people who claim not to take anyone seriously who writes anonymously, some of my critics sure seem to get their knickers in a twist about this blog.

The twopointopians should of course be celebrating the AL, because they all love "user generated content," and there aren't many library blogs that have more user generated content than this one. It's possible that the AL has the highest comment to post ratio of any library blog, but I'm not going to bother examining any other library blogs to verify that statement. Even if it was true, I wouldn't really care, anyway.

It is somewhat ironic that the AL is such a twopointopian success story, because in general this is one of the more tedious areas of twopointopia. The problem is, most users don't have any worthwhile content to generate. Read some of the New York Times blogs and watch the comments quickly evolve into user generated idiocy. If it's a political piece, the user generated idiocy often starts with the first comment. I try to insulate myself from idiots in my everyday life, because it depresses me that so many fools are allowed to exercise power over me in the form of voting. The Times comments especially depress me, because even the stupid ones are probably written by the cream of the chaff. Only the brighter idiots read the Times, or at least that's my assumption. I don't even want to know what the ordinary idiots out in the world think.

All the twopointoh stuff makes it so easy for users to generate idiocy. Just think, back in the old days, one had to find a publisher willing to put up with your idiocy, but the twopointoh publishers depend upon it. Without a lot of user-generated idiocy, Blogger, Wordpress, Livejournal, and the like would be barren wastelands. But now, there's an endless supply of idiocy to read! It's a very exciting time to be a librarian, as I'm sure you've heard from everyone applying for a library job in the past decade.

I hate to admit it, but there's even been some idiocy in the AL's comments lately, which is a darn shame. I won't tell you what it is; you'll just have to figure it out for yourselves. I'll give you a hint, though: there's a logical hole large enough for a whole herd of elephants to stampede through, and it has something to do with porn. As for those who respond to the idiocy, what can be said? There's a sucker born every minute, but some of us find it entertaining.

Summertime, And the Livin' is Easy

2008-07-16T16:20:00.002-04:00

I've been meaning to post here for the past couple of weeks. Really, I have. Instead I've been lounging. I even have a couple of topics. There's that million dollar Verizon grant for the gamey librarians, for example. I get suspicious anytime big corporations want to give grants for things, but then I'm just a cynic. Still, it's better than fleecing the taxpayers to fund the gamey librarians and make sure that those poor people on the other side of the digital divide can play World of Wardancing just like their more more affluent slack-jawed peers.

Recently I took one of those life expectancy quizzes, and was thinking of a post on the life expectancy of librarians; unfortunately, that would have required me to do some actual research to find out if there even are stats on librarian life expectancy compared to other professions. I'm guessing longer than coal miners, but other than that I wouldn't know. My work is certainly low stress and physically undemanding, so if I can just keep from balooning up in old age and having a heart attack, I could keep working for a long time to come. Wouldn't that be exciting! However, I just didn't have the will.

Thanks to something else I did, it's going to be even harder to come up with stuff to be annoyed about. I purged my Bloglines of all the blogs I read only to be annoyed. It's amazing how many dull library blogs there are. Some librarians like to brag about what a blogging group librarians are, but rarely are there any blogs worth reading. One in ten, maybe. The popularity of Twitter and "microblogging" among some of these folks doesn't surprise me, since few of them seem to have any thoughts that warrant more than 160 characters, more pictures of library signage excepted of course. Any picture of a library sign saying "Turn Off Your Cell Phone" is definitely worth a thousand words! These library bloggers are clever folk and we must bow to them.

First, I got rid of several defunct blogs. Any blogs with "librarian" in the title by that "distinguished" library school professor got the axe as well, and if you don't know which ones those are, don't bother to find out because they're beyond dull. Next to go were all the high profile library blogs that everyone seems to subscribe to but that haven't produced any interesting content in months, if ever. Goodbye Taming the Web, David Lee King, Librarian.net, Shifted Librarian, and Free Range Librarian. I know we won't miss each other! It's probably a sign of a bad career fit that I find some of the most popular library blogs incredibly boring. Or maybe it's just a sign of boring blogs. These things are so hard to call.

More than ever I have to rely on the kindness of strangers to send me stuff to be annoyed about, but at this point I'm overwhelmed by the email. I vaguely remember a time when I responded to every email, but I haven't been able to do that for months. I can't even keep track of most of the comments these days. I just lack that fire in the belly of the obsessed blogger. Maybe it's a summer thing, though. During the cooler weather we don't sit so much on the library veranda sipping mint julips and waving at passerby, so there's more time to blog. We'll see.

ALA Report: Annual 2008

2008-07-03T12:35:00.003-04:00

If your idea of fun at a professional conference is walking through a suburban shopping mall watching sweaty fat people with mouse ears eat ice cream, then Anaheim is the place for you!

But let us ignore for the moment your contemptible tastes and objectively judge Anaheim as a conference venue. I don't know what ALA idiots chose that miserable location for a conference, but I assume, as with so many things, they have a special committee of idiots doing most of the work. It looks to me they were working from a checklist of what to avoid at a conference venue, but got confused. Some problems:

20,000 librarians without cars go to a "city" dominated by--cars! They got this one just right. Anaheim is incredibly pedestrian-unfriendly, but I suppose the bloated Disney tourists like it that way. As a pedestrian, it was a terrible experience. Long blocks with no shade. Everything made longer because of all the parking lots. Long waits at crosswalks because the 58 lanes of traffic all had to go first. The morons in the cars didn't even seem aware that there were such things as pedestrians. Twice I was almost run over by jerk drivers pulling so quickly into parking lots they didn't notice that there might be (gasp!) people actually walking on the sidewalk in front of them. At one point I was doing my Ratso Rizzo impression, pounding on the hood and yelling, "I'm walking here!" The effect, I might add, was considerably lessened by the sundress.

And then there's food. I'm not sure where to begin on this one, because the area surrounding Disneyland and the convention center is the most culturally barren wasteland I've visited since once being stuck in a small town in North Carolina for a couple of days (don't ask). If a restaurant doesn't have crayons and a children's menu, it doesn't pass muster in the greater Disneyland area. One could walk a mile without passing a coffeeshop or a deli, which is of course perfect in the morning when one wants a coffee or bagel before heading to a tedious meeting. As far as I'm concerned, anyplace where you can't get a decent bagel just isn't worth going to. Regarding the restaurants, if you want anything less bland than an Olive Garden you've got to go far afield, and even then your options are limited. I did manage to find a decent local Mexican place run by decent local Mexicans and an excellent Thai place run by decent local Thais, but that was about it. Local flavor? Interesting food? Forget it.

Drinks, you might ask? Well, obviously there are no interesting bars in Anaheim. The thought would offend the sweaty fat people wearing mouse ears and eating ice cream. Anaheim is nothing if not a lowest common denominator location. Thus, I was relegated to hotel bars. Fortunately, I like a good hotel bar. The bars at the Hilton and Marriott were aesthetically tolerable. The drinks? Eh. Take the advice of someone who has tried this many times--never order a martini at a Hilton. East coast, west coast, flyover country, it doesn't matter. Hilton bartenders wouldn't know how to make a martini if they were channeling Bernard DeVoto. A martini should be cold, cold, cold. It seems to be a policy of Hilton bartenders to serve warm martinis in large glasses so they get even warmer by the time one has finished drinking. Perhaps that's the way that vulgarian Paris likes them, but that's not how they should be done. The Marriott wasn't much better. Take my advice, when in Anaheim or other cultural wastelands, skip the martinis and order gin and tonic, or perhaps a glass of wine. It's harder to mess those up.

Not that I didn't have some good times at ALA. I saw some good friends, had some good chats, and definitely had some fun NOT in the sun. Unfortunately for you all, it's not the kind of thing I can talk about on the AL, so you'll just have to use your imaginations. Next ALA is in Denver, which is more or less an improvement over Anaheim, but then I've never tried Colorado in January. It doesn't sound very inviting.

Long Live the Revolution

2008-06-17T10:00:00.000-04:00

It looks like the Cuban librarian (or "librarian," depending on your point of view) issue is rearing its shaggy head again. Just after I wrote that the regressive librarians are keeping quiet just now, I stumbled onto a blog post engaging the issue from the regressive side while somehow also claiming that the regressive position is the "middle" position. I guess all groups see themselves as the ideological center of the universe, with those other people on the extremes. It's hard to believe, but here's the relevant quote:

Some of us who have written against Kent’s campaign are lifelong socialists and friendly toward the Cuban revolution. But readers should not conclude from that that any of us deny support to real, homegrown dissidents in Cuba, or deny that more freedom of speech in Cuba would be a good thing, or that there are serious problems in Cuba that are partly the result of failures of Castro’s government. On this side, you will not find anybody avoiding the true complex nature of the question. This side, I argue, IS the middle.

That might be the middle position. I don't know and don't really care, and I particularly stopped caring after the phrase "lifelong socialists and friendly toward the Cuban revolution." I stopped caring because I was laughing too hard. Regressive librarians can protest all they want that Kent is some sort of undercover agent or that the librarians aren't really librarians or whatever the arguments are. It doesn't really matter much, since it should be clear to the ALA Council, which occasionally debates this issue, that Cuba is not in America, and thus isn't relevant to the American Library Association.

And why am I laughing at these regressive librarians when I should instead be annoyed at their hypocrisy? It's just because all American communists and socialists and "friends" of the Cuban revolution are so ridiculous, even more ridiculous now that the Cold War is over. They don't care if there's more freedom of any kind in Cuba. For them, intellectual freedom means the freedom to think like them. They're just the same as the pro-Soviet, anti-American communists during the twentieth century. They love the idea of communism and socialism, as long as long as they don't have to live under it.

I can't help but notice that while millions of people under the boot of communist governments over the past 90 years or so tried to escape (that's right, I said escape), very few people from capitalist democracies have been interested in emigrating to communist countries. Oh sure, during the Cold War the occasional traitorous spy would defect to the Soviet Union rather than face execution or prison in his own country, but it was always the communist countries that had to put up fences to keep people in. One didn't see many Westerners braving machine gun fire to move into East Germany

It's the same today with Cuba, especially since it's one of the few communist countries still livin' the dream now that China has become such a global trading power. While there are plenty of Cuban exiles who have escaped from Castro's prison nation, I've yet to read about any American boat people braving the open sea to seek asylum in Cuba, and I don't think it's just because of the American regulations on traveling to Cuba. After all, what do all these communists and socialists care about the laws of capitalist, evil America? And yet, they sit in their comfortable offices at their comfortable computers and write about how great communism is and get friendly with the Revolution. They don't have to worry about their government imprisoning them because they criticize the state or write a blog post poking fun of its leader, if they're even allowed to write blogs.

No free press. No free Internet. No intellectual freedom. No freedom to travel. No freedom to criticize the government. No free elections. No peaceful means of changing regimes. No representation in government. These are the sorts of things one gets with governments like Cuba. Merely to say "that there are serious problems in Cuba that are partly the result of failures of Castro’s government" is to demonstrate that one prefers the dream of (a safely distant) communism to freedom in the lives of individual people. The sham concern with freedom isn't fooling anyone. That's one reason this issue keeps coming up, because no one but a fool would believe that the main motivation to fight Kent and others has anything to do with a concern for complex truths or the niceties of who gets to be called a librarian. The unfoolish all know that it's just this bizarre communist love affair with Castro and the Revolution(!).

Regressive librarians, you may certainly continue to make your arguments and write blogs and emails. After all, you have the benefit of being in a free country that allows for intellectual freedom. But if you want to look less ridiculous and hypocritical, you'll just come out and say you love Castro and the idea of communist revolution and don't care at all about intellectual freedom in Cuba or anywhere else. Who do you think you're fooling?

Nothing Fresh

2008-06-16T10:33:00.002-04:00

My old friends Anonymous have been commenting lately that they don't love me anymore, or something like that. I haven't been paying that much attention, to be honest. But I get the comments via email, and every couple of days take a look at them. And so I hear that "this blog is dying." Well, that may be. I'm not sure what makes a blog living or dying. I'm not posting much lately, and don't know when I will be, but then again there's always the 400 or so posts in the archives. Lots of stuff there.

But maybe it's not dying. Here's another comment: "This blog is not dying. It is just going into hiatus because all the beautiful people are getting geared up to go to ALA and then have a relaxed summer while the academics take a MUCH deserved break. People in the real world will still be working and doing what it takes, but of course we are no where near the cutting edge like the AL. We are just martini less peons."

I'm not sure why it is, but the AL always seems to bring out the resentment in librarians. It's true, we beautiful people are getting ready for ALA, and that in itself is annoying, especially since it's going to be in Anaheim, which from what I've heard is a city without a city. However, I'll have to report on that when I get back. I love the snarky remark about the "real world," wherever that is. "Working and doing what it takes," indeed. It's just a library. We're not saving lives here. It sounds like the "real world" is that place where people work crappy jobs and complain about their lot instead of bettering themselves. Oh well, nothing to do with me.

Part of the problem is that there's just nothing fresh to get annoyed about. The regressive librarians have remained blessedly silent recently. Not much talk about how they're going to socialize the world one library card at a time. The twopointopians are becoming so tedious they're even putting themselves to sleep. How many pictures can one post of library signage before the thrill is gone?

There are some things that might annoy people, such as these "wacky" librarians, but this seems less something to be annoyed about and more something that just makes it embarrassing to be in the same profession, if one can call it a profession.

So you see, the problem with writing a reactionary blog is that one must have something to react to, and it's just a slow period for annoyances. I'm still getting some stuff through the mail, but it's often more of the same old annoyances, fun to read but nothing you haven't heard before. Bad jobs and worse jobs, mostly, though there was the part-time temporary librarian job at a church where one of the duties was to "pray for librarian program and volunteers." I wondered how one might be evaluated on that. "The library program has failed, which means either that you weren't praying or that your prayers were not efficacious. Either way, you're fired."

Thus, if I find something annoying, I'll post about it, but don't get your knickers in a twist. This is only a blog, after all. Enjoy the summer. Lounge about the park. Read a book. Have a martini. I've had a lot of fun writing the AL, but one does start to wonder if anything in librarianship is even worth getting annoyed about. Maybe out in the "real world."

In the Mails

2008-06-04T16:46:00.003-04:00

A couple of people emailed me things today I just had to share.

If you think you're bitter about librarianship, check out Dr. Tim's comments on a Chronicle article about a librarian holding office hours in an academic department. The comments begin at #8 and veer just a bit off topic. Dr. Tim, according to him, is a failed professor turned failed academic librarian turned successful psychiatrist. Of course the failures are all because of affirmative action and and socialist academics and all sorts of other evil machinations, and probably had nothing to do with a lack of ability or the fact that he sounds like a big pain in the ass. I'm sure he can prescribe himself some drugs that will help him calm down.

The second item I'm posting just to help all you librarians who need a job. Check out this job ad. A small town library in Illinois is looking for a library director, and they're offering good money: "$30,000-$36,000 (depending on qualifications)." That "depending on qualifications" cracked me up. Librarians work hard for their money. They're being picky, too. See the requirements:

"Bachelors degree from accredited academic university, MS Library degree preferred. Three years library experience in a position of responsibility Staff, financial, and facilities management, book selection and collection management. Experience working with boards, knowledge of library appropriate technology, Excellent leadership and communication skills."

And some of you complain that there aren't any library jobs out there. Shame on you.

Don't Resent Me Because I'm Secure

2008-06-02T17:57:00.003-04:00

Somebody left a comment on the Boomers post about the lack of job security in special libraries. Here's the end of the quote:

"They are downsized because a know-nothing consultant thinks they can save money but making all the staff part-time (librarians are all doing this for pin money, of course, and that single mother doesn't really need to support her child on a fulltime job) and firing the head librarian. Probably because she was a boomer and made too much money (HA! have you seen librarian's salaries).

Just saw it happen to a colleague a few weeks ago. Why oh why didn't I stay safely in the academic world where librarians can have a blog and go safely home to a martini or two. Sigh."

All I can say about the last remark is that yes, it's nice. I'm home sipping a delightful martini at this very moment and writing this blog. Life is good.

I'd noted in the Boomers post that a lot of librarians have good job security, and thus it was difficult to get rid of them. Most academic librarians, especially in state universities, have this sort of security, whether through tenure or collective bargaining or both. And I speak from experience when I say tenure is nice. It might be that academic librarians don't make what their counterparts in the corporate world make, but their job security and often their pace of work life is much more humane.

What should we think of this? I expect there are a couple of groups that dislike this job security--those who can't get their library dream job and those non-entrenched twopointopians who think the entrenched librarians are old fuddy-duddy-luddites who are hindering the brave new world we're all about to enter if we just embrace Twitter and Facebook as the ultimate mediums of public service. In other words, the job security is resented by those who don't have that job security.

There's something to be said in defense of this petty resentment. Certainly many tenured, entrenched librarians aren't very enthusiastic for radical changes to the way they or their libraries do business. They've done things a certain way for decades, and they see no good reasons why they should take seriously the twenty-five year-old librarian who claims to have all the solutions to a bunch of problems identified as problems solely by the twenty-five year-old librarians. These are the librarians who scoff when the youngsters come in and tell them they know better. The problem with these librarians is that sometimes the younger or newer librarians do know better, or at least they have refreshing perspectives that might be worth understanding.

Of course, there are also some tenured librarians who are complete layabouts, who are just putting in their time until their pension, taking up spaces those without tenured jobs think will be available for them if the tenured librarians ever retire or just did quietly in their offices. When they do retire or did off, though, they probably won't be replaced solely with other librarians, if they're replaced at all. In the domain of librarianship, just as in some forms of industry, technology makes some of these librarians redundant, and when they retire their positions will be retired with them.

But this is also the case with secure librarians who do make useful contributions to their library, and I'd argue that this group is the majority. Still, times change, budgets contract, technology renders some jobs either unnecessary or unrealistic as full-time librarian jobs. If we acted by the merciless hand of the market, most of these librarians, worthy or not, would probably be fired to cut costs somehow. Fire them and take away their pensions and the institution saves a lot of money over a 30-or-so year period.

For all I know, some of you may resent this job security rather than envy it. You might believe in some sort of librarian social darwinism, where only the fittest deserve to have a job at all. If those boomers would just retire, you say! If these old fogies with their out-dated ways would just make way for me! If you are such a resenter, it's hard for me to take you seriously, because I doubt you'd feel the same way if the positions were reversed. If you were thirty years older and in a secure, tenured librarian job, would you quit just because someone resented you? I doubt it.

The resentment is petty and perhaps dangerous, because it's that job security that makes the jobs more humane. Librarianship isn't a field that can easily withstand the market, because its values are not those of the market. Profit is not the motive. In academic libraries the motive is to aid scholarship and to help students learn, in public libraries to provide access to information ideally to help ensure an educated citizenry. These are noble goals and public goods, but noble goals and public goods aren't easy to justify when profit is your only concern. (Making sure the teens have fun gaming isn't a noble goal or public good, though, so the librarians advocating this probably can be let go without any negative social consequences.)

By resenting the tenured, unionized, or secure librarians, you're resenting the very things that make librarianship a humane, if sometimes impecunious, profession. You're resenting the ability of librarians to criticize ideas they think stupid and changes they think inane, because the strongest criticism can only come with strong job security. Perhaps those ideas they criticize or resist are your cherished theories of how libraries should adapt to the future based upon your three years as a librarian.

Perhaps the inability to just fire the librarians means jobs are harder to find. But if the librarians could just be fired willy-nilly, are these jobs you'd really want to have for the long haul? Oh, I know, some of you un- or underemployed librarians may think you're hot stuff, and some of you undoubtedly are. But are you so sure you'll always be cutting-edge? Are you sure there won't come a time when you've been a librarian twenty or thirty years and are just burned out, but don't have any other options? Or that you've lost your edge, though maybe you're still competent? When that time comes, and believe me it will, what will you think then of the panting, twenty-something librarians who resent your age and your position?

Celebrate the security. It might not be good for you, but it's good for libraries.

Friday Facebook Fun

2008-05-30T09:22:00.002-04:00

The twopointopians are always wetting their knickers over Facebook and other "social networking" sites. They want to stick their smiley librarian faces all over the Internet in the hope that some teen desperate for a "friend" will give them a super poke. The question, though, is how do these smiley librarians measure success? How do they know when their Facebook antics have worked? Maybe the answer is to get more of the kiddies into the library. That would be fun! We're fun people! I think the smiley twopointopian librarians will know they've successfully socially networked when their library ends up looking like this.

Those Darn Boomers

2008-05-19T08:38:00.002-04:00

If you're looking for a reason to feel good about your job, just be grateful you don't work at the Hartford Public Library.

However, today's post is addressed to some of you who don't have jobs, or at least the cushy library jobs you'd like to have.

I think I can claim truthfully that this blog has done a lot to call attention to the lies that the ALA and library schools have propagated about librarian shortages and the ease of getting library jobs. Since I have been drawing attention to this issue for a couple of years, I feel comfortable pointing out some uncomfortable truths to complaining job seekers. The most uncomfortable truth is that nobody owes you a job. If you went to library school because you were told jobs were plentiful, then you were duped. That's too bad, but it wasn't the libraries that aren't hiring you now that duped you. Library schools benefited from your tuition. The ALA probably benefited from some dues money. Libraries seem to benefit by not having to pay much because there are plenty of suckers lined up to take sucky jobs. You're the only one that didn't benefit. Three out of four's not bad.

And so some of you complain and feel entitled to jobs that just aren't there. I've read complaints in the comments that claim academic libraries, for example, are some sort of exclusive fiefdom almost impossible to get jobs in, which isn't true as far as I can tell. There are plenty of academic library jobs, just not many libraries that want to hire someone fresh out of library school when they can just as easily get someone with library experience. Why would they? You wouldn't either if you were making the hiring decision. Some new library school graduates seem to have been under the impression that librarianship was a non-competitive field. I don't know where that impression came from, but it's just not true. It wasn't true back in the day when I was a wee little librarian and got my first library job, either. I know for a fact that dozens of people applied for that job, and understandably so. It was a good job. There might be a conspiracy against you, but probably not. What most people don't want to admit to themselves is that sometimes they don't get jobs because someone else was better for the job. The more people out there applying for the same job, the more chance that someone is better for the job than you.

The most ridiculous complaint I've read came up in comments to last week's post. My faithful reader "Anonymous" left this comment: "Newer library school grads have to take temporary job pool jobs with low pay and no benefits because boomer librarians will not retire." Oh, please. Go file a class action suit against the ALA or your library school for duping you, but stop blaming older librarians. It's not their fault you got a degree in a glutted field. They would probably have told you not to go to library school if you'd asked them.

This comment is obviously motivated by some sort of bitterness, but is problematic in a number of ways. First, the assumption is that if the boomer librarian does retire, the job won't either disappear or change into some other kind of job. That's a bad assumption these days.

But let's take a look at some of the other assumptions. There's the faulty assumption that someone is obligated to retire from a job they're doing just so someone else can fill the job. Are these boomer librarians not people who deserve jobs, too? There's the probably faulty assumption that these boomer librarians that are so mean as to keep doing their jobs can even afford to retire. I think this is probably a faulty assumption because only the boomer librarians in low-level jobs could be replaced by new library school graduates, and they're the ones least likely to be able to afford to retire comfortably.

There's no necessary reason older librarians should retire. Sometimes they're a drain on the library and a barrier to necessary change, but not necessarily. One of the benefits of being a librarian is that one can still do it at an advanced age. Librarians don't do hard physical labor, so as long as they can get around a bit and haven't gone completely insane, they can still work. This benefits the morbidly obese, obviously, but it also benefits older librarians as well as librarians with various physical handicaps.

The commenter is just jealous, of course, but that jealousy is understandable. One of the other perks of a lot of library jobs is their security. A lot of librarians are unionized or tenured, and it's rare for librarians to just be fired without cause. It happens, but it's the exception in public and academic libraries at least. These secure librarians can just keep on working at their physically undemanding jobs for decades, and do.

It's also hard to take the comment seriously as a legitimate complaint because I'd be willing to wager that the commenter wouldn't think like that in reversed circumstances. If the commenter were the one with the job, s/he would be unlikely to be motivated by such an argument. "You need to retire because I need a job" just isn't a much of an argument.

There might be all sorts of legitimate gripes for why people can't find library jobs, but criticizing working librarians for not retiring isn't one of them.

Library Job that Sucks #5

2008-05-12T10:11:00.004-04:00

A kind reader sent this in a couple of weeks ago, but I'm just getting around to it. My more relaxed approach to the AL hasn't slowed down the email any, so I'm even more behind than usual. Still, I wanted to post it before the application deadline so everyone would be able to apply for it.

This was forwarded to me from some ALA listserv, and I just had to post because it had all the requisite elements for a library job that sucks. The ad's also available here.

Requires an MLS? Check.

Temporary? Check.

Part-time? Check.

Not even a real job? Check.

Waste no time in diving into the pool of librarians over at California State University, East Bay. I shudder to think what they'd look like in swimsuits.

"The University Libraries of California State University, East Bay is establishing a pool of librarians (Assistant Librarian rank) for temporary, part-time employment for the 2008/2009 academic year (July 1, 2008 – June 30, 2009)."

So much for that librarian shortage. Wouldn't it be exciting to almost possibly have a temporary part-time library job? The possibly non-existent job might not seem that great, but you'd get to possibly not work for CSU-EB, and that would at least look good on the resume.

They want people to teach courses and provide "quality reference service." You can tell they're really serious about "quality" by the way they go about hiring people, because we all know the way to guarantee "quality" services is to rely upon a shifting group of temporary part-time people who most likely have bad pay and no benefits and no commitment to the organization. That says "quality" like nothing else. It says a lot about the quality of the library as well.

But just because it's a sucky job doesn't mean they don't want good people.

"Qualifications:

Graduate degree from an ALA-accredited institution; familiarity with the principles of information literacy; recent teaching experience and/or education in teaching methods; recent experience and/or education in the provision of academic reference services; excellent oral, written, and interpersonal communication skills; ability to work collegially in a diverse, fast-paced environment; a strong service commitment; a willingness and ability to serve students from diverse educational and cultural backgrounds. Preference will be given to candidates with recent professional experience in reference or instruction in an academic setting. Preference will also be given to candidates able to work regular shifts on nights and week-ends, and who are able to work at our Concord campus if needed."

They don't expect much, do they? Excellent communication skills. Experience. Flexibility. Etc. It makes the librarian shortage lie all the more bold. If there are people with all these qualifications and experience, and they're any good, they should be able to get full-time jobs if they want them. Obviously they have no librarian shortage in East Bay. They're so thronged with librarians out there that they put the extras in pools just in case one of their real librarians doesn't feel like working some day.

You still have a couple of weeks to dive in to the East Bay librarian pool, so don't delay. If you don't apply to be a part of their pool, you know you'll regret missing that great opportunity for the rest of your life.

The ALA Solves Our Educational Problems

2008-05-08T09:38:00.004-04:00

The lovely and talented AL Direct tumbled into my mailbox yesterday chock full of fascinating tidbits, but none more fascinating than this. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar has joined the READ poster campaign. That in itself isn't the exciting part. The exciting part is quoted with apparent approval in AL Direct:

"The Celebrity READ poster campaign is one of the most effective ways to encourage people to get a good education, improve their reading skills, and to read for sheer enjoyment."

Wow! Who knew that these silly posters have such a powerful effect on people. At first, I assumed such a statement was obviously a complete lie concocted by some shameless PR person at ALA. PR people have an arm's length relationship with the truth, so we can expect little from them. But then again, this is the ALA talking here, so we have to take it seriously. Since it's the ALA, and they never lie, I assume a statement as bold as this is backed up by some statistically sound evidence, but nevertheless I wanted to test it for myself.

I ventured from my lair in search of people. Since I work at a university, I figured I could find some students and ask them about it. I cornered three or four of them before they could get away from me, and I asked them why they were here at this university trying to get a good education. They all said the same thing--the celebrity READ poster campaign! They were very enthusiastic. They also volunteered that the poster campaign motivated them to improve their reading skills and read for sheer enjoyment. It was a little spooky the way they all used the same words and stared slack-jawed into space.

At least now we know how to get more people interested in reading and education. We just need to put these posters into every classroom in America, perhaps into every home as well. Then all our problems would be solved.

Thank you, ALA, for being so clever and solving all of our educational problems. Some people talk about class sizes or teacher pay or standardized testing. All we really needed were celebrity READ posters. It makes me feel all warm inside knowing my ALA dues have contributed to so much educational goodness in the world.

The AL Has No Clothes

2008-05-05T20:16:00.003-04:00

The AL has always been something of a controversial blog. Oh, it's so funny! Oh, it's so mean! Oh, it's anonymous! Oh, who cares! Now that I'm slowing down and reflecting a bit and don't really care that much anymore, suddenly the critics are coming out again, the sad, humorless gits who comment or blog about the Annoyed Librarian with serious words in earnest tones. A couple of such things have come to my attention recently. Some commenter left a comment on a several month old post about the anonymity, and some other earnest blogger wrote a whole post about he could agree with most of what I wrote if I just weren't so mean and anonymous, as if I care who agrees with me.

Most of my readers get it already, but I wanted to pass something on to the earnest and humorless in bibliotek blogland. It's no use criticizing the Annoyed Librarian and talking about how the AL shouldn't be anonymous. That makes about as much sense as criticizing Jane Eyre for being anonymous (Charlotte Bronte was certainly pseudonymous). The point is that it's a nonsensical criticism. In case you haven't realized it by now, the Annoyed Librarian doesn't exist, at least not in the sense real people exist. Hasn't the penny dropped yet? The AL is a fictional character. Hellooo! Do you get it now? Isn't it bloody obvious? It's a character. A persona. The Annoyed Librarian isn't anonymous. She has a name: Annoyed Librarian. The writer or writers of the AL is or are anonymous, but that's a different level of anonymity all together.

To complain that the AL is anonymous is to miss the whole point of the blog. There is definitely a writer or writers who write the AL, and some personal characteristics of the author(s) may very well show up in the character, but it's a character. How could it be anything else? How thick do you have to be to see that there's nobody who cares about all the different stuff that the AL blogs about? Is there any coherence at all? The appeal of the AL isn't that everyone cares about or is in agreement with everything the AL writes about. The appeal is that the AL isn't a one trick pony. She's at least a twelve trick pony, and a lot of us have fun and occasionally get something out of the discussions. This is typical of a lot of blogs. People write blogs the way others write novels. Usually, no one notices. The difference is that a lot of people read the AL, for whatever reason, so the earnest librarians take notice and tsk, tsk away.

Oh, I know, there'll be the critics who don't understand things like fiction or fictional characters who'll just say, that AL is just mean and trying to shirk responsibility for what she writes! If that's your response, I don't really care, though I do feel a bit sorry for you for being as thick as two planks. Of course, someone could take responsibility for creating the character of the AL, though I'm not sure that person has anything to be ashamed of. How many of you earnest, humorless critics could create so compelling a character? Yeah, I didn't think so. But what would be the point?

So who's writing this post, the AL or the writer of the AL? Is this self-description or metafiction? You be the judge.

Anyway, I've got some other stuff coming up, but haven't gotten around to doing the work. Someone sent in a great library job that sucks, and another reader sent me a link for something idiotic about video games. I'll get there eventually.

The AL's Passion

2008-04-29T20:36:00.008-04:00

As a rule, I don't do "memes." The AL, as you know, is a free spirit. She doesn't follow rules or trends. She marches to the beat of her own drummer, baby. But now I've been "tagged," as the children say, and by no less than Stephen Abrams, who no doubt gets a perverse pleasure out of the AL. Since I'm in holiday spirits lately, I'll play along.

Here are the rules:

"1. Post a picture from a source like FlickrCC or Flickr Creative Commons or make/take your own that captures what YOU are most passionate about for kids to learn about...and give your picture a short title.
2. Title your blog post "Meme: Passion Quilt" and link back to this blog entry.
3. Include links to 5 folks in your professional learning network or whom you follow on Twitter/Pownce."

Unfortunately, I just couldn't follow the rules. The thought of putting the words "meme" or "passion quilt" in my post title made me cringe, and I don't have a professional learning network, so that was out as well. Other than that, I'm trying to play nice.

I've seen several bloggers do this, and planned to mock it if I ever got around to writing the post. There's lots of heartwarming stuff out there about how we all need to change or connect or share. Yuck. Can't do any of that stuff professionally, even in my relatively content current state. This one was much better, by the way, and gave me the strength to go on. So, here's my entry:

Get a Life Outside the Library

And I don't tag people, since I have no professional learning network. So you're on your own.

Romancing the AL

2008-04-25T09:37:00.002-04:00

I got to work this morning and realized that I haven't posted all week. I did my normal Sunday-before-bedtime piece, and then nothing. I didn't pay attention to what was happening this week. I didn't even read the comments to the last post until this morning. The AL has been far from my mind. I just ranted about a trend I saw as a sign of the end times and then went about my life. Only this morning did I read the comments. I still see microcontent as a sign of the end times, but so be it. The times have to end sometime.

One might very well ask why was the AL so unresponsive to the flux and jive of the library world. Fortunately or unfortunately, the AL has a personal life, and sometimes that personal life interferes with this blog. Most of the AL blogging takes place after work hours, which based on the statistics is not when most AL reading takes place. The thing is, after work hours other things sometimes happen, especially in nice weather. For example, one could blog, or one could go to the park. One could blog, or one could go out with a good friend. These things happen. I was reading in a blog this week (I think Meredith's, but I'm too lazy to check) that many popular library bloggers are very passionate about their work. I'm passionate about many things. Books. Music. Cocktails. But not the AL. So after I did my nighty-nite post on Sunday, I took a break.

To be honest, I've been spending my free time doing more than writing the AL. For example, I have a friend. We're just good friends, you understand. And yet, when I think of my good friend, I find it hard to get annoyed with librarianship or anything else. Librarianship is just a leitmotif in the pageant of experience, or so I once read on a fortune cookie. It's difficult to muster up even fake annoyance when I'm distracted by the good stuff in life. Smile and the world smiles with you; cry and your mascara smears.

During the week I also noticed that I didn't mind not posting. Perhaps I'm getting tired of the AL. She's so demanding, after all. I always find this happens when I take a break, even an unintentional one. The longer I go without posting, the easier it gets not to post. At least I don't have blog addiction. If there's one thing writing the AL has taught me, it's how to quickly write 500 words on just about anything. The downside is I'm getting to the point where I just crank out the posts without giving them much thought, and I think the blog suffers for it. Most of the time I can't even remember what I wrote about two posts ago.

Maybe I'll be able to find something annoying to post about next week. Until then, have a great weekend. I know I will.

Microcontent and Its Discontents

2008-04-21T04:19:00.002-04:00

I'm terribly excited, and I bet you know what about. Yes, that's right. Flickr is now adding video content! Yay!! The site where the self-obsessed post pictures of themselves but also where serious photographers actually post good photographs will now be open to the gits who post their inane antics on Youtube. Yay!! The videos, however, will be limited to 90 seconds, which should be within the attention range of just about everyone. According to some blog I read but can't recall, this is microcontent at its best! I didn't realize microcontent had a best, but I'm willing to believe it.

Let's consider some of the "microcontent" out there right now. For many years we have had the soundbite, which many people think have contributed to the decline of political discourse and the general dumbing down of political information for most people. And we have texting, from which has evolved a semi-literate dialect and discourse slightly less nuanced than pidgin English. Now we have Twittering, where the hopelessly extroverted can broadcast their doings to the voyeurs amongst us. We've got commercials and flashy short content just about everywhere we turn. There's just so much great stuff, we're sometimes told, that it's hard to concentrate on any one thing. Whereas it's possible that really there's an overabundance of complete crap and we've just given up trying to find anything worth concentrating on. It's easier just to let the crap flow over you in 90 second bites.

Some librarians get really excited by all this "microcontent." They like the cute little Youtube videos. They like short little blog posts with their pictures on them. They think books are just too long and old fashioned. They revel in what they mistakenly believe is a "multitasking" society, which is really a society of people monotasking badly in tandem. Is more "microcontent" and more cultural clutter something libraries should be encouraging? Shouldn't libraries fight against the attention-shortening, dumbing down of America, the devolution to Idiocracy?

It seems almost a certainty that if we devolve into a nation of people who can't create or consume content over 90 seconds or 140 characters, then libraries along with every other portion of civilized life will disappear. I understand why people enjoy such "microcontent"; it's because giving in to the rush and flux of flashiness is easier than concentrating or thinking. What I don't understand is why people who seem to be of above average intelligence embrace these trends. But then again, I don't understand a lot of things.

National Library Week

2008-04-16T09:27:00.002-04:00

This week is National Library Week, and I'm sure you've all been bombarded with people coming up to you on the street and saying, "hey, I'm glad you're my librarian!" According to the ALA NLW Fact Sheet, National Library Week "is a time to celebrate the contributions of our nation's libraries and librarians and to promote library use and support." We've taken that seriously at my library, and we've been celebrating like crazy. To be honest, though, I think that all night pub crawl was a bit much, but then I'm not as young as I once was.

To show just how far we libraries have progressed, check out the brief history of the founding of National Library Week:

"In the mid-1950s, research showed that Americans were spending less on books and more on radios, televisions and musical instruments. Concerned that Americans were reading less, the ALA and the American Book Publishers formed a nonprofit citizens organization called the National Book Committee in 1954. The committee's goals were ambitious. They ranged from "encouraging people to read in their increasing leisure time" to "improving incomes and health" and "developing strong and happy family life."

In 1957, the committee developed a plan for National Library Week based on the idea that once people were motivated to read, they would support and use libraries. With the cooperation of ALA and with help from the Advertising Council, the first National Library Week was observed in 1958 with the theme "Wake Up and Read!""

Listen to how quaint all this sounds now. Concern that Americans are reading less. Motivating people to read. "Wake up and read!" The fifties were such an innocent time, at least if you worked for the ALA.

Now, instead of concern that people are spending more on radios, TVs, and musical instruments than books, the ALA and lots of American libraries have decided to throw in the towel. Libraries must, we are told, get away from the "books" brand, because it's too staid and dated. That's like so 1950s, man! Except it turns out that the libraries were in danger then as well. Back then they decided to fight back and say "Reading is good! Don't buy so many televisions!" But now many librarians have decided to join the illiterate barbarians instead of trying to elevate them. Instead of identifying the library with reading and promoting that heavily, we get all the gamey librarians and the twopointopians declaring that the library needs to change, change, change to stay "relevant."

The ALA does still have their READ posters, and plenty of librarians still promote reading, but it seems to me that a big part of the ALA and plenty of folks concerned with libraries don't have the will their predecessors showed in the 1950s. Fifty years ago libraries decided to promote reading to build up library support. Libraries have survived fifty years partially on that effort. Perhaps this is the week where librarians can dismiss the gamey librarians and the twopointopians. Instead of giving the library over to the gamers and the like, maybe we should do more to promote reading instead. Some gamey librarians are disingenuous enough to say they just want to get these kids in the door with gaming so they'll learn to like books and reading, but we all know that's hogwash. The fun and games are ends in themselves. Books are old fashioned. It could be, however, that as go books and reading, so go the libraries, and if that's the case, who'll be celebrating National Library Week in another fifty years?

Library Stress Reduction

2008-04-14T07:54:00.003-04:00

A few days ago I followed a link from LIS News to the School Library Journal article that summarized a session on librarian stress.

The Public Library Association couldn't find any librarians to talk about reducing stress, so they cleverly brought in a consultant. As an aside, the rage for "consultants" cracks me up, since I've yet to meet one who could tell me anything that wasn't completely obvious to just about everyone. However, they're very clever about getting people to pay them for stating the obvious, so they're certainly not stupid. Here are the relevant paragraphs from the SLJ article:

"Who’s stressed? Judging by the jam-packed crowd that attended “Everyone Is Getting Crabbier,” a session presented by Sandra Nelson, the answer appears to be loads of librarians. Nelson, a former librarian who now runs Nelson Consulting, in Nashville, TN, says many librarians are stressed out of their skulls. And since they’re so up tight, in many cases their productivity has plummeted, which—you guessed it—leads to even more stress. The culprit behind this brain drain? Today’s unparalleled rate of change.

Thanks to an armada of technological innovations, the demands of juggling work and family, an unstable economy, and plain old über-demanding bosses, many librarians are ready to scream “Uncle!” But take heart: Nelson offered conference-goers a number of salutary strategies for keeping hysteria at bay, including setting meaningful priorities, learning how to “no,” thoughtful planning, and managing one’s time more efficiently. Ultimately, coping with stress begins at home, says Nelson. “Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself,” she says, quoting Leo Tolstoy."

Librarians are "stressed out of their skulls," huh? Maybe. I haven't seen any evidence of that. I'm not stressed out of my skull, nor are many of the librarians I know, and those that might be considered "stressed out of their skulls" are generally so because of having to supervise a lot of whining nitwits rather than the allegedly "unparalleled rate of change" assaulting us with an "armada of technological innovations" among other things. As for screaming "uncle," my only question is, who writes this crap?

But now let us examine the so-called remedies for this skull-exploding stress, or, in the purple prose of the SLJ writer, the "salutary strategies for keeping hysteria at bay" (is the stuff in SLJ always this awful? This is worse than American Libraries.) : "setting meaningful priorities, learning how to “no,” thoughtful planning, and managing one’s time more efficiently." Wow! I can see why this woman is a consultant! All of this is, as I predicted, bloody obvious to even the halfwits among us. And all this time I've been setting meaningless priorities, never learning to say 'no' (and lordy the trouble that has caused little old me, sigh), thoughtlessly planning, and not even bothering to manage my time after I lost that little paper calendar book of mine back in '91. No wonder I'm not stressed! Be sure to hire this person to come consult at your library. She can show up and say, "Hey, you need to plan things better. That's $5000, please." Maybe I should get in this consulting game.

While all this obvious advice is nice in its bland way, I have other suggestions to reduce stress. This is the regimen I follow, and I feel great.

1) Drugs. This is the first and easiest step to reduce stress. It seems like everyone is taking drugs for stress or anxiety these days. Xanax, Zoloft, Prozac, Effexor, Bisacodyl, Nyquil, etc. Since librarians usually have decent health insurance, this plan makes sense. I have an aversion to prescription drugs myself, but I also take drugs to relieve stress. In fact, I prefer a combination of two different drugs--gin and dry vermouth, at about a 4:1 ratio, served very cold about 6pm most days. Occasionally I vary this with a similar combination of drugs--rye whiskey and sweet vermouth in the same proportion, plus a dash of bitters. It works just the same. I highly recommend this particular drug regimen. One dose of this makes the day fade away and the evening seem much nicer. Three to four doses makes the evening go away as well if you're really desperate. And listen to some good music while taking your dose.

2) Get off your fat butt and move around occasionally. This is another proven stress reducer that is anathema to a lot of librarians and just difficult for others. This could involve going to gyms and working out and all that, or it could just involve walking more often and actually taking the stairs instead of the elevator. You're only going up one floor, tubby, you don't need the elevator. It's not like you're carting books to the top of a skyscraper. You don't have to be a jock to get up out of your chair and take a walk around the building.

3) Realize that those people you work with are just people you work with. Don't take them so seriously, and don't make their little mini-dramas your own problems. Treat work as if the whole thing were happening to someone else in a movie. Nobody will know the difference and you'll feel better.

4) While you're at it, don't take yourself so seriously, either. I certainly don't. The library was there before you were born, and it'll be there after you're dead (well, most libraries, at least). Relax a bit and quit acting like the whole operation depends on you, because it doesn't.

5) You might criticize my martini, but I see the fizzy sugar water you guzzle from the soda machine. Do you really need three liters of Coke every day? Why don't you stop drinking so much of that and have a bottle of water sometimes instead? You'll feel better. And pass the snack machine by as well.

6) And while we're on drinks, why don't you cut down on the coffee. I suppose having your hands shake and your pulse race is fun for a while, but jacking yourself up on caffeine isn't really helping. If you're one of those people who "just can't function without your first cup of coffee," then you're a sad creature who needs to go to bed earlier instead of staying up watching the idiot box all night.

7) Don't stay up all night watching the idiot box. I know you think you need that time to "veg out," but six hours a night watching desperate housewives break out of small town prisons and solve crimes the pseudo-scientific way isn't doing your brain any good. It just makes you stupider, and that will increase your stress. If you're getting stupider while everything else stays the same, even without rapid change you're going to be stressed. I assume being stupid makes life more stressful, so you certainly don't need anything that will make you more stupid than you already are.

8) Why don't you read an improving book, instead. But don't read a book about relieving stress. That self-helpless stuff is almost worse than TV. I prefer a nice cultural history, but I know most people like fiction. There's plenty of good fiction to suit every taste, though some of it will keep you just as stupid as your TV habit.

9) If the pace of technological change is bothering you so much, why don't you sit down in front of a computer and actually learn how to do something new. Oh my, I bet you never thought of that, now did you. All that time you spent staring at the television or complaining to your equally stressed colleagues about how this computer thing keeps changing on you could have been spent learning something. Plus, it could make you famous. There are actually librarians who have become well known merely because they can make a wiki. Isn't that amazing? And trust me, baby, making a wiki ain't that hard.

10) Finally (I could go on all day, but people like lists of ten, so here you are), if one of the stressors is "juggling work and family," throw an extra family ball into the juggling mix. Leave work at work. Do you have a kid? Spend time with the little brat, and not just staring at the idiot box. A boyfriend? Make him some dinner and have a conversation, even if you have to drag the lazy bum away from his videogames. If you don't have any family around, surely you must have friends. If you don't, make some, and spend more time with them without thinking about or mentioning work. For pete's sake, people, we work in libraries. We're not saving lives here. Relax.

Well, there you have it, the Annoyed Librarian's mundane list of stress reducers. Better than you'd get from a consultant, and it didn't cost you a dime.

Old New Hot Things

2008-04-09T07:56:00.003-04:00

As I write the Computers in Libraries Conference is going on. Fortunately, I didn't have to go. My library already has computers and we all know how to use them, so the novelty has worn off. Attending a whole conference to talk about them seems a bit much. (And for that person I talked to at the conference, I was just kidding. I'm not the Annoyed Librarian.)

Some librarians are there talking about exciting hot topics like blogs and wikis. I know because I read a blog post by someone at a preconference there talking about blogs and wikis. This is pretty difficult stuff, after all, and well worth yet more time talking about it. Take my own case, for example. A couple of years ago I got frustrated with the mess the ALA Council sometimes is, so I searched Google for "blog," found Blogger, typed a few keystrokes, and the AL was born. With some good librarian guidance from the bloggers that be, I could have saved myself a lot of time. For example, I could have gone straight to Blogger instead of through Google, thus saving myself 0.12 seconds. Otherwise, it ain't that hard. Even I have a blog, and according to some of my critics, in addition to being a warmongering fascist, I'm also a luddite and a technophobe.

However, knowing that someone was inevitably talking about various twopointopian tools got me thinking about all the hot new trends that have come and gone over the years, some more with a whimper than a bang. A few years ago, it seemed like you couldn't go to ALA without someone dragging you into a session on virtual reference. Before that, I remember a lot of sessions on information literacy. And it just goes back and back. Regardless of the topic, there always seem to be a handful of librarians who have their 15 minutes of fame by explaining simple topics in complex language to groups of librarians distinguished by their vast ignorance, their lack of curiosity, and their complete inability to find out any information for themselves.

I've been a librarian for a long time, but I know plenty of you have been around longer than me or have read up on library history more than I have. What are some of the past trends that were going to remake our library world? In the forties and fifties, I bet librarians were all talking about how exciting microfilm was. I read a blog post recently that mentioned an article about the initial challenges of telephone reference. I bet those were some exciting conference conversations! A friend doing some library related research told me about some ALA discussions in the seventies about the impact of cable television on libraries, including some arguing that libraries should start producing cable TV content, because, after all, this was the revolutionary communication tool of the future. I haven't seen the documents, but I bet the cabletvtopians among the librarians sound a lot like the twopointopians today.

In the past, were there librarians who were so awed by hot new trends that they discussed ways to integrate them into the library? In the late fifties, did some children's librarians suggest holding hula hoop parties in the library, you know, for the kids? Were there impassioned discussions about the 8-track tape? What are we going to do about this electronic calculator thing? Answering machines: reference tools of the future? Pac Man: what library uses does it have? Human cloning: can we use this to solve the "librarian shortage" problem?

All the hot new things, whatever were we going to do with them. How could libraries ever survive without hula hoop parties or cable TV production? I wonder what some of these hot new things were, that are now merely the stuff of history. What did the librarians talk about at conferences in times past that now seem quaint? I would actually do some research to answer this question, but that would require work. Instead, I leave it to my kind readers. What old new things can you remember that were once going to revolutionize our libraries, or that librarians once fretted over?

How Can I Use This?

2008-04-07T07:39:00.002-04:00

Today I'm going to discuss one of my favorite subjects--me, or at least my blog. The AL is something of an exercise in creativity. Consider what many library bloggers blog about: their professional lives or their personal lives. And consider two things I can't blog about: my professional life or my personal life. Sometimes it's not easy being the AL. The worst part is that I can't blog about most everything else, either.

As many of you probably know, over the past 5 days or so, it became public knowledge that the database Popline had made "abortion" a stop word in searches. (If you missed the story, get news articles here and blog posts here.) Popline is a federally funded project, and the federal government doesn't fund abortions. Someone at Popline put the two things together and apparently concluded that that searching Popline was equivalent to getting an abortion. One wonders if working at Popline is the equivalent of getting a lobotomy. It can't just be that the federal government doesn't provide information about abortion, because abortion-related articles weren't removed from the database, they were just made more difficult (but not impossible) to find. This is the sort of confused thinking that many of us expect from both government and every other organization, so it's hardly surprising. However, that Popline is run out of Johns Hopkins makes the move more disappointing.

A kind reader sent me a link to one of the discussions and asked me to address the issue. I get a lot of my ideas from readers either emailing me or commenting on posts, so many ideas that I could make it a full time job to respond to the ideas and also blog about them. Until someone wants to pay me at least six figures to blog full time, I'll have to remain a librarian and keep this as a hobby. Regardless, I like to encourage people to send me stuff. That being said, I'm not sure how to address this, so I'm sort of meta-addressing it, if you get my meaning. Just how is the AL supposed to address an issue like this? The first question I think of whenever someone sends me something is, how can I use this?

One problem is, there's not much I'd have to say that disagrees with anything other library bloggers would have to say. The Popliners were a bunch of boneheads to make "abortion" a stop word in the first place. After their bonehead move was made public, they did the only appropriate thing and reversed themselves. It seems to have been censorship of some sort, especially since this was the federal government partially responsible for suppressing information, so unlike (as my reader noted) the banned books nonsense that the ALA prattles on about. There can't be an AL take on an issue where most librarians are in agreement. The AL is a contrarian. It is the way of things.

Sometimes I can find an unexpected angle. I found a way to blame library closures in Oregon on the spotted owl, after all, but I wouldn't have made that argument if anyone else had. Making fun of the pronouncements of ALA presidents or twopointopians is usually pretty easy, because their comments and blog posts are so often the result of incoherent thinking, and all I do is let the incoherence and absurdity rise to the surface. But for this issue, I couldn't find any way to spin it in an appropriate manner for the AL. The move was indefensible, and so obviously bad that it's almost pointless to mock.

Another problem is that this is a great topic for the Regressive Librarians. They can all prattle on about how evil the government is and feel good about themselves. However, one doesn't want to associate with regressives because of their ridiculous belief that the ALA should be turned into a vanguard of the socialist revolution and their implicit belief that the solution to bad government is more government ("But if it was the right kind, then more government would be better! Really!" they might whine.) If they didn't also think that the American Library Association should take public stances on issues that have nothing to do with libraries, then it might be easier to take them seriously about an issue that actually does have something to do with libraries. Since I don't like to associate with totalitarians who want to politicize every aspect of life, though, I often stay away from topics like this.

As an aside, I notice the regressive librarians have been staying away from the AL for a long time as well, and the world's a better place for it. Newer readers might not realize the incredibly stupid criticisms this blog used to get from the politicos and totalitarians amongst us. The general criticism was that anyone who thought the ALA shouldn't pass resolutions on political issues unconcerned with librarianship was a warmongering fascist. That's a mild version of some of the attacks on me, but a good example of the blindness and stupidity sometimes caused by ideology, and always from people who no doubt would consider themselves critical and intelligent. The only thing I miss about those days is the nicknames, Cranky Marxist Dude and Snipey Fellow Traveling Dude and the like. After a while, sparring with fools is kind of a drag.

This relates to the topic of what to say about issues such as Popline. The AL is known for satire and criticism. Whatever it is, I'm against it. A lot of readers haven't considered all the things I don't write about. I've turned down plenty of topics. As I'm sure other library bloggers do, I get emails from people who want me to blog about their cause or their conference or their book or whatever. They want me to help promote some cause. Sometimes I'm in complete sympathy with whatever they're doing, and if so I write back and say that's great, but that it probably wouldn't be a good idea for me to write about it, because the main function of this blog is criticizing annoying things about librarianship, and if I wrote about it the assumption would be that I think the subject annoying.

That's not always the case, because I've written a handful of posts praising librarians or at least not mocking them. I liked the librarian who aggressively confronted the thieves attempting to steal rare books, and I thought the librarian winning the couch potato contest was pretty funny, and I liked it when the NYT profiled a librarian because he helped writers with their research rather than because he was "hip." I mentioned them in the blog because these were notable happenings, but if more of my posts were about things I liked or librarians I admired, this would be a pretty boring blog. As a handful of you know, I can have conversations about all sorts of library topics without "coming over all Annoyed Librarian" (as I saw a blog recently put it), but what's the point of writing the AL without coming over all Annoyed Librarian?

So back to Popline. I'm writing around it, but I'm not writing about it. I'm mentioning it, but not giving it the typical AL treatment, for reasons which should be obvious by now. It's difficult to know how to consider anything on the AL, which is deliberate, but this should give you an idea about how the AL approaches librarianship, and give you something to think about when you're reading what I am writing about. What am I not writing about? And if I'm not writing about it, is it because I'm neither annoyed about it nor can manufacture some annoyance, or because I just don't have the time, or because everyone else is saying the same thing? It could be any of these, and more. Usually, though, the reason is just because it's boring, and since that constitutes the majority of professional concerns in librarianship, it's no wonder they don't make it into the AL.

Twopointopians, Chant Your Mantra

2008-04-02T07:01:00.003-04:00

The thing that bothers me most about the twopointopians is that they have no idea what they're talking about and yet insist on talking. The goal of language is usually to communicate, but one can't communicate if one uses words with no meaning, or with too many meanings, which in practice amounts to the same thing. "2.0" is such a meaningless catch-all term, and yet some librarians insist on using it as if it contributes anything whatsoever to professional discourse. Perhaps they just can't help themselves, but on the very off chance they're trying to communicate with people rather than chanting their mantras, I offer my criticism.

I've criticized the twopointopians many times, especially their Stuart Smalley gobbledygook as well as their similarity to a cult always looking for the pure faith. Like every other topic on the AL it dies out as I get bored with it, but once in a while I run across a claim about something else being "2.0," and I just can't help but comment on it.

This one also came while I was springbreaking, in my favorite twopointopian blog David Lee King. You can read the post, but the basic scenario is that the library director lets some old folks use the CD-ROM drive on her work computer to view some slides because none of the public workstations had CD drives. Okay. That's great. It seems hardly earthshattering to me, just librarians making up for the inadequacy of their public machines and being helpful. King calls this "above-and-beyond customer service." Well, okay, maybe. It was definitely an appropriate and helpful thing to do, but it's not like it put the librarian out that much. She didn't spend hours working to solve some research problem or stay for a long time after a desk shift because she was in the middle of reference transaction. Still, I'll be happy to note that it's excellent "customer service," and based on the post it would seem this sort of help hasn't usually been available in their library.

All in all, it was a dull but perfectly respectable affirmational post providing a specific example of good "customer service." But then it had to be ruined by this little "2.0" exchange.

"When they were done, I walked back to Gina. She looked at me, pointed a finger at me, and said 'that’s 2.0, David.'

And I’d agree. No, it’s not really about technology. It’s not about using RSS feeds. But it DOES display the type of above-and-beyond customer focus that my library is developing. For us, that’s a 2.0 change for the better."

What? Does this make any sense at all? I'll save you the trouble of answering. No, it doesn't. This is just another example of twopointopians having a phrase they like and using it to describe anything they like. Librarians helping patrons. Wow, this certainly never happened in a library before the twopointopians started their cult. We've discovered a totally new thing called "customer service," and have acknowledged the shocking truth that before something called "2.0" came along no librarians ever went out of their way to help patrons. It sure is nice of these twopointopians to show us the light and the error of our past ways, when all librarians everywhere went out of their way not to help patrons.

I don't know how they do it out in Kansas, but in plenty of other libraries librarians have been perfectly happy to help patrons for a very long time, not only before the twopointopian technocult evolved, but even before there were computers in libraries. Just because your own librarians have never been very helpful for patrons (which is the implication of the quote above) doesn't mean that librarians elsewhere haven't been trying. Saying this has anything to do with some inchoate verbiage called "2.0" shows ignorance of and disrespect toward the many librarians over the past few decades who have done exactly this sort of thing, and probably without thinking they were some sort of heroic vanguard of a library cult for doing it. From the time of Dewey on, we've even had an entire field within the profession dedicated to helping patrons. It's called reference, in case you've never heard of it. Sometimes it might have been badly done, as everything involving humans often is, but to say that before the cult of twopointopia arose there were no reference librarians working hard to help patrons is just ridiculous.

This episode does show cultic tendencies, especially the tendency to interpret everything you like as part of your little movement to the point where to any disinterested observer it becomes clear that there's nothing coherent about your interpretations. If "2.0" is something new and means anything at all, then it has something to do with Web 2.0 technology. If it's not about the technology, then there's nothing new about it. If it's about the technology, but not really about the technology, then it's just gibberish. This shows that "2.0" has either no meaning at all or too many meanings (some contradictory), and thus should be abandoned by anyone with any interest in communicating with other people. But, as we all know, people using the term "2.0" don't necessarily want to use language to communicate, but instead to use language for another of its purposes. Faiths and cults need ritual chants, and the cult of twopointopia is no different from any other cult. Communicating with the heretics outside the cult is difficult if one insists on using meaningless terms, but chanting the ritual terms is a great way to ensure a sense of belonging in the cult members.

"2.0, 2.0, 2.0, 2.0...." Keep chanting until your mind is cleared of all rational thought and you join the happy cult. As with any other word, if you chant it long enough, it seems to lose all meaning. The great thing about this term is that based on what the twopointopians say themselves, it doesn't have any meaning to begin with. That just makes the whole thing easier.

Librarians and "Librarians"

2008-03-31T07:26:00.004-04:00

Take a week or so off and the bibliotek blogosphere just keeps on rolling. On the AL, commenters were wondering why so many library bloggers don't actually work in libraries. On Twitter, Steven Cohen irritated a gamey librarian by implying he played videogames to pick up teenage girls, or something like that. It was a fun week. Glad I missed it. The key question last week for a lot of librarians was, who exactly has the right to the title librarian? The Liminal Librarian asks the question, and got as many responses and arguments in the comments section as a hot AL post does, so we know she's on to something. (I hope she's not the Annoyed Librarian, though, because that would be weird.)

Apparently there are insufferable folks out there in libraryland who disdain or mistreat those people in libraries who do the work of librarians but don't have an MLS. (On the question of what to call those people--para, sub, etc.--I suggest "librarians" for concision.) One of my favorite comments began, "'In the olden days, whenever I expressed an opinion in front of a 'librarian,' I would be asked, 'Where did you get your MLS?' This was code for, 'Do you have permission to speak?'" (The full comment is great; go read it.) I have to say this is about the rudest and stupidest response that any librarian could give to someone expressing an opinion.

So there are people out there who think they are somehow special merely because they have an MLS? I just find this sad. You all know how I dislike being uncharitable toward my fellow librarians and the profession of librarianship in general, but believing that the MLS is anything special or difficult just shows how thick you probably are, and publicly declaring your belief how desperate and insecure you are.

I say this having a genuine ALA-accredited MLS, which I earned by performing large amounts of busywork totally devoid of intellectual content at a highly ranked library school. And please don't comment that library school is what you make of it, and if I'd wanted to I could have turned it into a difficult intellectual endeavor and powerful learning experience. No, I couldn't. I tried. It was still easy. I found it easy. All my friends found it easy. Just about every librarian I've ever talked to found it easy. Rather than using IQ as a measure of intelligence, librarians have an even better measure--did you think library school was difficult? If so, I'll write slowly using short words so you can understand me. And if you're offended, that's just tough. I don't write this blog for dullards, because they already have plenty of library blogs to choose among.

Some of these insecure librarians seem to know instinctively that library school is an intellectual joke, and yet still think the MLS should be required to call someone a librarian because they went to the trouble of getting the degree, so why not everyone else. As the Liminal Librarian characterizes this argument: "I spent a heck of a lot of time and money earning this degree, so everyone else should too, dammit." She responds to this, but I'd like to as well. My response to this argument is, this isn't even an argument and you're a pathetic git for even bringing it up.

I know librarians working in libraries with no MLS. They have PhDs and subject and language experience appropriate for their very professional jobs. To be honest, some of them don't particularly like being called librarians, but that's because they don't think much of the library degree or most of the profession. It doesn't bother me because I'm the same way. They know, as all of us brighter librarians know, that the MLS is a hoop set up for some people to jump through. It's job protectionism, pure and simple, and it should be clear that this protectionism is starting to break down, especially at some public libraries. But to think that someone with a PhD and no MLS who is doing collection development in, for example, area studies, is somehow too lowly to be called a librarian is ridiculous.

Let's look at the other group, the "librarians." I know people working in libraries who are highly educated, often with several degrees. They work in a library, and I wouldn't necessarily call them librarians. Some of them are doing surprisingly low-level work, and I can't quite figure that out. Some of them trail academic spouses, some of them have spouses who make enough money it doesn't matter what they do. Some of them, however, do fairly high level cataloging or reference work, for example, and the only difference between them and some of their colleagues is the MLS. Thus, it's only the artificial hierarchy that makes them less than "professional," and I'd be willing to bet that what they do is much more "professional" than what a lot of people calling themselves librarians do. Based just on what some bloggers seem to think is work worthy of a professional librarian, I can only say, don't be so impressed with yourself, because the rest of us aren't.

These days I notice a lot of ads for professional librarians that ask for an "MLS or equivalent degree or experience" or words to that effect. I hate to break it to you sad, insecure librarians who think holding an MLS makes you special somehow, but advanced degrees, appropriate subject knowledge, relevant languages, superior technical skills, and a few years library experience qualify people for some of these "professional" library jobs, and you'll have a difficult time arguing that you are somehow more prepared or intellectually qualified just because you managed to slog through a year or two of library school.

A lot of this argument is really about professionalism and deprofessionalization and lots of other Latinate words. The insecure librarians so desperate to keep their professionalism by tying it to the MLS don't have very pretty futures to behold, it seems to me. It should be obvious to everyone that nobody outside of libraries cares who is a librarian or a "librarian." Library school has always been something of an intellectual joke, and the twopointopians and the gamey librarians are doing their best to make the whole field an intellectual joke, that is, if it isn't already.

Tie your professionalism to what you can do related to libraries that others can't do very well. Since just about anyone can get an MLS if they apply to the right school and spend a little money, then that can't be the measure of professionalism. The MLS is a joke, and if that's your criterion for being a professional librarian, then being a professional librarian is a joke as well. If that makes you feel better about yourself because otherwise it would be difficult to consider playing videogames or pointing the way to the bathroom professional behavior, then so be it, but don't drag the rest of us down with you.

The AL Breaks for Spring

2008-03-24T07:20:00.003-04:00

Typically on Sunday afternoons I turn to the Annoyed Librarian and try to find something to say. Why do I do this? It's because I love you more than your mother does®. Also, it's because of my publication policy as it has evolved over the past couple of years. I doubt any of you have noticed, but I try at a minimum to publish on Mondays and Wednesdays, on the belief that the few but dedicated readers of the AL need something to jumpstart their week and another little pick-me-up come mid-week, because lord knows I do.

However, this week you will be disappointed, because I'm breaking for spring, or springbreaking, or something like that. Why not, everyone else is? It's not a perk of the librarians of academe, but it certainly seems plausible. If all the real business of the university shuts down--i.e., the teaching--then why shouldn't the library? I rest my case.

See you next week.

Or will I?

The Future of Cataloging?

2008-03-19T11:05:00.002-04:00

That Thomas Mann, he's indefatigable. First, Buddenbrooks. Then Library Research Models. And now “On the Record” but Off the Track: A Review of the Report of The Library of Congress Working Group on The Future of Bibliographic Control, With a Further Examination of Library of Congress Cataloging Tendencies. It's always interesting to follow the path of an author's thought. A reader sent this in wondering what the AL thinks about the future of cataloging. The AL loves the future of cataloging as long as someone else does it. She thought that someone else was the Library of Congress, but according to Mann, their new working group has decided to scrap cataloging and LCSH so they can digitize the diaries of Frank Wigglesworth Clarke, or something like that.

There's some other stuff in there that'll probably rub the twopointopians and the gamey librarians the wrong way. You know how they're always prattling on against the "culture of perfect," or at least you would know if you subjected yourself to their blogs. (Fortunately, you don't have to because I make that sacrifice for you.) According to Mann, "The real enemy of “the good” is not the perfect, but rather the slipshod, the partial, the unsystematic, the haphazard, the superficial, and the shoddy. No one maintains the “straw man” position that “the perfect” is attainable to begin with. Is it not desirable, however, to have professionals striving to do their best rather than striving to achieve mediocrity?" The obvious twopointopian response to this is, "Whatever, Mann."

He quotes some blogger who "chuckles" whenever anyone talks about controlling information. Then, "What is present in this remark is a superficial, shot-from-the hip, emotional expression of personal distaste; what is conspicuously lacking is any argumentation, evidence, examples, or concrete experience to back it up. "Preaching to the choir" may be a common practice in blogland; but such intellectual vacuity is no substitute for an actual understanding of what LCSH and LCC accomplish that tags, folksonomies, and relevance-ranking do not. (Indeed, it is likely that the present review itself will be vacuously dismissed as a “rant,” an “amusing” paper, or a mere call to “maintain the status quo,” by those in LibraryLand who are incapable of writing a substantive response to it." Dude, lighten up. Why not look at some pictures of library signage on Flikr or play some Dance Dance Revolution. That would relax you.

So there's all this stuff about how LCSH benefit everyone while digitizing the diaries of Frank Wigglesworth Clarke probably wouldn't benefit anyone, so the Library of Congress should keep up their good cataloging work. To be honest, I can't say I read the whole thing, because anything to do with cataloging is inherently boring as I'm sure we'll all agree (more on that point below), so let's skip to the end where we find a call for ALA action (!):

"The need for the American Library Association to act

I would add, finally, one additional point; and obviously I am speaking here only as an individual citizen and librarian: the American Library Association and its Washington Office need seriously to mount a lobbying effort targeted specifically on:

a) insisting, contrary to the Working Group’s recommendation, that maintenance of LC’s cataloging operations must be regarded as a much higher priority for all of the nation’s libraries than is the digitization of LC’s special collections, and

b) reversing LC’s proposed plan to re-write the Position Descriptions of its professional catalogers, and to reorganize their entire department, in such a way as to minimize (or even eliminate) their need for subject expertise, as well as to burden them with acquisition responsibilities that properly belong to other professionals. More, rather than less, subject (and language) expertise is required across the board at the Library of Congress. The drain of professionalism from the Cataloging department, caused by increasing retirements that management does not see fit to remedy through more hiring, has already become very serious."

I think we can all agree that the proper response is, Get with the times, Mann! This is going nowhere, and let me explain why.

First, the ALA doesn't act. Often it doesn't even react. It just sort of sits there making gurgling noises and raking in member dues.

Second, cataloging is booorring, as I noted above. Digitization is seeexxy, unless you're actually doing some. From what I've seen of the inside operations, digitization looks pretty boring as well, but the end results are flashy and that's what counts. So, given these priorities, boring versus sexy, which should we choose? Imagine you're choosing a date for the weekend. You could go out with boring old Cataloging or sexy young Digitization. This obsession about cataloging seems to be related to subject headings. Who cares about subject headings anymore? As we all know, libraries are designed to appeal to children these days, and children don't like subject headings and all that old boring stuff. And in case you haven't forgotten, Mister Mann, the children are our future! Subject headings are boring and they take too long to understand. Twopointopians and gamey librarians don't like subject headings, either! You don't need subject headings to search Google or write a blog or play Guitar Hero or sit in a pod listening to music, now do you? No, you don't. Let's get with the program.

What about proposition B: "More, rather than less, subject (and language) expertise is required across the board at the Library of Congress." Oh, come on, are we really supposed to believe this? More language expertise? This is America, after all. Nobody knows any languages other than English and maybe Spanish. Even Asian immigrants step off the plane knowing Spanish from what I hear. And as the Library of Congress folks occasionally say to us out in the hinterlands, this is the Library of Congress, not a national library. Do we think anyone in Congress speaks anything but English or Spanish? I bet they don't care about subject headings either, unless the subject is "Public Opinion Polls."

Cataloging, subject headings, subject expertise--Boring. Digital stuff--Sexy. Do all the good, careful, thoughtful work you like down in your little cataloging lairs. Unless it shows up on the Web in flashy images, that work isn't important. Nobody wants the boring stuff, right? In addition to cutting back on the cataloging and getting rid of their boring excess of subject and language expertise, perhaps the Library of Congress could also put on some gaming nights and things like that to get the younger Congresspersons interested in coming to the library again. If that happened, maybe they'd find enough support to justify the boring expenditure on things that are relevant only for research, which nobody really does anyway.

Is This or Is This Not a Library Job that Sucks?

2008-03-17T07:02:00.001-04:00

A reader sent in this job ad to me for an "Evening Librarian, Part-Time." That's the title of the job. One can actually be a Librarian of the Evening down in Smyrna, GA for the tidy sum of $10-12/hour. Pretty exciting stuff! The job is available today, so apply now.

Ordinarily, this job would meet all the qualifications of a library job that sucks. It's a librarian position. It's part time. And the pay is pathetic. The question for this one is: is this really a librarian position? It doesn't require an MLS, but only "Enrollment in MLS program." Traditionally, librarian positions require an MLS, so according to that definition this can't be a librarian position. We all know the general public thinks everyone who works in a library is a "librarian," but one would expect people in libraries to know the difference, even in Georgia. Of course there's the library in Wisconsin that reclassified and cut the pay of its librarians because their work wasn't professional enough to warrant needing an MLS, but then kept the MLS as a requirement of the reclassified, less professional positions. However, it seems pretty clear that nobody running that library is capable of coherent thought, so we shouldn't make too much of that.

There are other oddities about this ad as well. It claims to be looking for a librarian (though not one with an MLS), but doesn't have a library, only a Learning Resource Center. That might explain why the ad doesn't know what the term "librarian" applies to in the profession. Why isn't it just looking for a Evening Learning Resource Centerian, Part-time? It's also listed as an "academic" library position. They have some academic libraries down in Georgia. There's Emory, the U. of Georgia, Georgia Tech, etc. I've heard of them. I hadn't heard of the Medix School, but it turns out to be a medical and dental assistant training school, though they also teach the "cosmetology arts and sciences" and have a new program in "welding technology." Does this count as academic? I don't think so, but we all know what an elitist I am.

This fraudulent ad might not be for a library job that sucks per se, but it does seem to represent one more step in the deprofessionalization of librarians. In olden days a librarian position required an MLS, but now heaven knows, anything goes.

California Librarians Like Child Porn

2008-03-14T09:17:00.003-04:00

Update: Someone else sent on an article from the local newspaper on the incident. I wonder if the supervisor actually did respond this way when told about the child porn.

Sent in by a reader. Is this for real? According to this news story, Librarian Fired for Reporting Man Viewing Child Porn, a librarian (or perhaps "library worker") in Lindsay, CA was fired because she reported to the police that a man was viewing child porn on a library computer. Turns out he was, and the police arrested him. A couple of days later the librarian was fired, apparently because she didn't follow the proper procedure for dealing with kiddie porn perverts in the library. Instead of reporting this illegal behavior (or is kiddie porn now "constitutionally protected speech" according to the ALA), she was supposed to inform her supervisor (I guess so the supervisor could get a good look at the kiddie porn, too), make a note on the man's library record, and tell him not to do it anymore. That's how they're supposed to shush perverts in California, I guess.

The best the director can say is that they'll take a close look at their policies and make sure everyone knows what to do in emergencies. I think he should have taken the standard ALA line that porn is information just like everything else, and the perverts of Lindsay have a first amendment right to use the library to download all the pornography they want, and if everyone else in the town doesn't like that policy they can just avoid coming to the library. After all, who are we, mere librarians, to judge what anyone views on library computers? News, government information, child porn, it's all just information.

I got an email that the new "library week" campaign from the ALA is "Join the Ring of Knowledge." I guess that sounds better than "Join the Ring of Porn."

WikiAnswers

2008-03-12T07:31:00.003-04:00

Someone forwarded an email to me from some listserv by a librarian who had entered the WikiAnswers Answerthon and gotten soundly thrashed. (I think it was that Slam the Boards guy I've written about before.) I was going to poke fun at the librarian getting beaten out by people named Yarnlady, just to keep up my reputation for meanness, but then I checked out Wikianswers and got distracted by some of the most idiotic questions and answers I have ever seen.

I was unfamiliar with WikiAnswers, but apparently it's the place where really stupid people go to ask questions that other people answer off the top of their heads. For example: "Can you have sex with your cousin?" What a stupid question. And here's answer one:

"If you aren't in love with your cousin then don't do it. The jury is in from genetic scientists that say cousins can be married and have healthy children. I still feel this is a risk. I do know people that have married a cousin and it can happen if you haven't seen that person for a very long time and then when you get older it and see them you can fall in love. It's not unheard of. If you are out for adventure and experimenting I would say it's best not to have a sexual experience with your cousin."

As the kids say these days, WTF? What kind of an answer is this supposed to be? The answer of the babbling moron in the supermarket line? I was sipping coffee as I read the line about falling in love with the cousin you haven't seen for years and laughed so hard I almost splattered my monitor. Ah yes, there's the well known experience of meeting a cousin you haven't seen since childhood and falling in love with him. It helps, of course, if that cousin is really hot. And it would seem to me that if you were out for adventure and experimentation, having sex with your cousin would be something you might well want to do.

But then there's answer two, because no question has just one answer:
"Are you talking about your 14 year old cousin when the adults are upstairs or are you talking about your adult cousin? If we're talking about the former, your cousin is still a person. Would you have sex with your brother or sister? Having sex with him or her in that kind of situation may scar him or her for life. If we're talking about the latter, only you know what's best.

A lot of people do it so if you really want to then by all means do it. "

This answerer felt the need for a reference interview. Which cousin are we talking about? Yes, let's clarify this. It's a pity librarians can't answer questions with the last line. Can I use use large portions of this article as my own work and not cite any of it? A lot of people do it so if you really want to then by all means do it.

Changing this answer slightly is the sort of thing that counted toward the so-called answers of the Answerthon. At a later date, the Answerthon winner (552 "answers" in 48 hours) merged the question "Is it eleagal to have sex with your cosiun?" with "Can you have sex with your cousin?," which to me are separate questions, even if we assume the first moron meant "illegal" and "cousin." Neither question is answered as far as I'm concerned. If I'm reading the wiki right, the answerer then eliminated the phrase "go for it dude" at the end of the answer. Nice.

This question leads to the next obvious question, "Can you get pregnant by your cousin?" This person is crying out for some hard knocks, if you ask me. How could one answer this? Well, maybe, but only if you have sex, and you're a woman, and you're both fertile, and you're not using any sort of birth control. Otherwise, probably not, and definitely not if you don't have sex. Something tells me that the person asking this question might be unfamiliar with the concepts of fertility and birth control. What are the schools teaching these days?

Fortunately for this moron, the question has not one, not two, but three different answers.
First, we are told: "Yes you can get pregnant by your cousin, just like anyone else, but despite what others think and believe there is NO scientific evidence supporting the idea that the child will have birth defects." But then we are told: "Yes you can. But there is a great chance of a birth defect." Hmmm, something seems wrong here. What do we do with this contradictory information? How is this person to know whether she should shag her cousin?

Fortunately, a third answerer comes to the rescue: "There is a greater chance of having a healthy baby than an unhealthy one especially if your other parents come from a long way away. But if you live in a small community and there is a possibility that your other parents are related in any way then the chances of a sick baby are raised as it is more likely that any dangerous recessive genes will be present in both of you and they may come together in your baby." I think that's a tedious way of agreeing with the second answerer that if you and your cousin make babies those babies might have birth defects. Since truth is established by democracy, and the scholarly consensus on WikiAnswers is 2:1 in favor of the birth defect theory, then we'll have to go with that answer. It still doesn't address the original question, though.

As I understand it from rereading my own post about Slam the Boards, the Boardslammer wants librarians to go out and answer questions on services like this and let those folks know that real honest-to-goodness librarians are taking time away from the work they are paid with tax dollars to do to answer random questions on question websites for free. I'm paraphrasing a bit. Not my kind of thing, but if you're feeling generous with your time, as the Boardslammer obviously is from time to time, you can answer some of these unanswered questions (at the time of writing) posted by morons at WikiAnswers.

"Why aids can not be remove?"

Huh?

"Bobert94 is the best?"

Probably not.

"Is travel a requirement for being a chef?"

It is if you're a chef on a cruise ship.

"Does US Airlines limit the size of the suitcase carried onto the plane?"

Absolutely not. Bring on that steamer trunk and just keep shoving. It'll fit into the overhead compartment.

"Places with the word green in it?"

You know how they say there are no stupid questions. Well, they're wrong.

"What did the ipod replace?"

Conversation and interest in the world outside our own minds.

"Has there been a blck prezident?"

Yes. Harry Truman was blck.

"A reason for being late thats starts with the letter E?"

Echinococcosis.

"Is sean waltman dead you heard he comitted suicide?"

I heard no such thing.

"Why is tunis important and why?"

Obviously the second "why" is just misplaced, and the question is really, "Why, oh why is Tunis important?" It's not.

The Boardslammer thinks librarians should go out on sites like this to attract more people to libraries. I'm not so sure that's a good idea. I don't do public reference anymore, but if I did I think I would be grateful to WikiAnswers for giving these morons a place to ask their questions other than my reference desk.

Subliterate Rube Criticizes the Library

2008-03-10T07:31:00.003-04:00

There was some chatter in various library venues last week about a guest column in a Florida paper called Pull the Plug on the Library. The Library Journal and a couple of blog places were critical of the column. I missed these, but fortunately a kind reader sent it on to me. I'm always grateful for the kindness of strangers. The Floridian respondents were mostly critical, and the only intelligent response showing any support for the Library Plugpuller was a letter to the editor a few days later pointing out some problems with library financing, which very well might be the case.

If I hadn't done some research and was pretty sure that the Plugpuller runs a company that paves stuff rather than being an undercover librarian himself , I would swear that he was a plant by the ALA. I still think he might be. This is definitely the sort of critic that the ALA and libraries in general should love. Some of the respondents did a good job of trying to defend the public libraries down there in Florida in serious terms, but they hardly need defense from this guy. Consider some of his attacks on the library.

"With the advent of the Internet and Google, virtually no serious research is carried on in the library stacks."

One commenter on the original article noted that public libraries were never places for serious research. That's no doubt true down in Florida, but I do know of a few public libraries more than capable of supporting serious research. The real question is, does the Plugpuller think any serious research is done on Google? I like Google as much as the next librarian, but I've yet to do any "serious research" there. I'd be willing to wager (and I only bet on sure things) that the Plugpuller doesn't know really know what serious research entails.

He doesn't know much about books, either. "Books to take home? They are almost free at Hospice, Goodwill, Pet Rescue and other charitable outlets. At garage sales on any Saturday, $5 will buy anybody a year's worth of recreational, if not educational, reading."

Apparently the Plugpuller is one of those types who think the main purpose of books is to furnish a room, and, if the books at Goodwill and garage sales are anything like I imagine, a room in a house trailer at that, which, according to this "serious research" I did on "the Internet and Google" represent a pretty high proportion of the housing down there in Florida. I can understand a guy not wanting to pay for the public library because he's cheap, but it's hard to take an opinion on books seriously from someone who obviously doesn't read them. Subliterate rubes have their place in a free country--apparently, paving roads and such--but we certainly should be skeptical of their political opinions.

He has some other equally strange notions, like just providing free laptops for those on the other end of the digital divide and letting them go to Starbucks to connect to the Internet. I suppose he would advocate the taxpayers picking up the T-mobile bill as well.

His knowledge of academic libraries is possibly less than of public libraries. Consider, for example, this quote. "Of course, I am not talking about the libraries in the schools or university. They would still be available, and, as you know, the massive university libraries are available to any Florida resident." This is another sign that we are dealing with someone with absolutely no knowledge of books, education, or research, for the simple truth is that there are no massive university libraries in Florida.

Obviously the Plugpuller is one of the subliterate citizens the public library was originally designed to help by allowing them the opportunity to educate themselves at public expense. Unfortunately, he hasn't availed himself of either the educational or recreational offerings of his public library, and in his case it seems clear that he hasn't used the Internet and Google for educational purposes, either. If the commonwealth requires the education of the people as the safeguard of order and liberty, then I certainly wouldn't want to live in Gainesville, Florida. Actually, I wouldn't want to live there under any circumstances, but that's just me.

I know, I know, the public library's not just about education anymore and promoting the educational mission is so boring and they have to reach out to everyone and make themselves all things to all people. It appears those Florida librarians need to do a better job of reaching out to the subliterate rube demographic, which I assume is pretty big down there. Perhaps the subliterate rubes like to play Guitar Hero.

Not Twittering Away

2008-03-07T15:52:00.002-05:00

Since several commenters have mentioned it, I thought I should at least state for the record that I have nothing to do with the new Twitter account allegedly by the Annoyed Librarian. I have no idea who is doing it, and whether that person is some kind of pathetic person sadly trying to gain notoriety by impersonating the AL or whether it's just some sad person pathetically trying to attack the AL. Either way, I don't care, but whoever it is, it isn't me.

But then again, that's what you'd expect me to say, isn't it.

Enjoy the weekend.

Marathon County Library Leaders Strike Back!

2008-03-05T07:22:00.005-05:00

LISNews had a couple of posts yesterday pointing out responses from the president of the Marathon County Public Library Board of Trustees and the director of the Marathon County Public Library to criticism of their move to demote, reclassify, and/or fire and rehire at a lower salary some librarians in Wisconsin. The Marathon County Public Library seems destined for a movie-of-the-week treatment, if you ask me.

The president of the board of trustees responded to the Wassau Herald (itself!). According to her, the articles about demoting the librarians "seem to reflect a lack of information and, in some cases, outright misinformation." In other words, they are the work of ignorant liars. Strong words! Fortunately, the trustee board president sets us all straight:

"In your articles, which were published on the front page last month, it was reported that certain positions at the Marathon County Public Library would be reclassified into newer, lower paid positions. In actuality, the existing master of library science, or MLS, librarian positions were eliminated, and four new MLS positions were created."

Oh, well, that's completely different, isn't it. Those newspaper articles were just complete bollocks, obviously. They weren't reclassifying any positions into newer, lower paid positions. No, they were recreating those positions into new, lower paid positions. Something tells me that subtle difference is lost on the librarians in that library. Of course, from what I've gathered, everyone who could leave left before this happened, so the remaining librarians must have seen something like this coming.

The basic problem, according to this trustee board president, is that the librarians just aren't doing much professional work anymore. "For example, the reduced amount of work requiring a master's degree is a direct result of increased electronic access to information they previously provided. In 2007, only about 57 percent of the reference (complex) questions from the past year were handled at the Adult Reference Desk." I'm not quite sure what the significance is of the 57% of questions being handled at the adult reference desk, but obviously this trustee board president hasn't heard that "professional" library work is no longer defined by anything so elitist as answering complex questions. Did she consider whether the librarians were writing blogs? Or playing videogames? Or making wikis? Or posting pictures of their library signs to Flikr? These are the things the hot new librarians are all doing. They even teach them in library school. Aren't those professional activities?

She just doesn't mention things like this, so we can't know for sure what she thinks of them. However, something tells me that the twopointopian rhetoric about what librarians should all be doing wouldn't fly with many library board members around the country. The twopointopians say we need more librarians who are passionate about technology and change and radical trust and all that stuff. What libraries need are more librarians who can defend libraries to the general public and to library boards. But which do you think is easiest to blog about or give HOT talks about at conferences?

The library director herself hasn't been silent on this issue. Another Wisconsin public library director had the nerve to criticize the Marathon County director on the Wisconsin library listserv (or whatever it is):

"I understand tough budget decisions and the difficult times libraries are facing. However, I don't understand devaluing library staff in this way. Sending this message to library staff that their work is not complicated, not worth the money they have been earning, and not worth their library degree is harsh. It has to impact the service that library offers the public. And loss of these veteran professional librarians will definitely make the service there suffer."

But the Marathon County director pooh-poohed all this namby-pamby, touchy-feely nonsense. She doesn't think she's victimizing anyone. Victimizers never think that, just for the record.

"The reduction in reference questions does NOT necessarily mean less work at public service desks. Public service takes place at all points of contact with the people who enter our buildings or visit us on the web, be it the Reference Desk, the Circulation Desk, the Information Desk as you enter the building, or in the stacks as books are being shelved."

This sort of makes it irrelevant whether only 57% of the questions are answered at the adult reference desk. But wait!

"The real question is 'How much of that public service work requires a Masters Degree?' If the answer is that a declining amount requires that advanced degree, then how can we justify maintaining the same staff to do less work?"

That's just mean! But let's engage this poor deluded director for a moment. How much of that public service does actually require a master's degree? How many of us in our heart of hearts can answer truthfully, all of it!

Let's take a look at this objectively. (As faithful readers of the AL know, I'm nothing if not objective.) The objective view would have to be that no one but librarians seems to give a damn about what librarians can do or should be doing.

The ALA certainly doesn't care. They prattle on about so-called "banned" books and promote videogaming in libraries, but they don't address any professional concerns of librarians. As long as you pay your dues and tout the ALA ideology, they don't care what happens to you.

Library schools don't care. Take a look at the course offerings and faculty research interests at the better "library" schools. How much of any of that has to do with libraries? Not much. Library school professors (or "library scientists" as they sometimes call themselves) train other library school professors. They don't work in libraries and sometimes they've never worked in libraries, and they are usually more concerned with "information" than libraries, especially in those schools which have dropped "library" from their name.

But wait, what about the prominent library bloggers? No, they don't care, either. The Shifted Librarian and the Webtamer aren't even librarians, and no one's writing about how to justify public libraries to an indifferent public or to library boards, as far as I know. It's much easier to promote videogames and library blogs than do anything useful. Play more games and use more social software and they will come!

Recently, a faithful reader emailed me. Among the comments were the following:

"This reader is not sure if your intention is to harm the public library to reduce your property taxes or some such nonsense. A few people who think this way post comments on your blog.

You have power, use it wisely."

I've yet to respond. (As an aside, I've been getting a LOT of email recently, and I'm falling behind in my responses. Please keep sending fan mail and stuff to get annoyed about. If I don't respond promptly, it's not that I don't love you more than your mother does, it's just that I'm so busy.)

Personally, I don't think I have any power at all, but let me be blunt. My intention is NOT to harm the public library. However, I can't help but point out lunacy when I see it.

The problem with public libraries isn't that they don't provide useful and necessary services; it's that they can't figure out how to justify their existence to the public and the powers that be. The ALA does nothing. Their idea of advocacy for libraries is their Washington Office, which as far as I can tell backs the losing side in any legislative battle they enter. They have nothing to say at a local level. The library schools aren't doing anything. They've long been accused of not teaching anything practical about libraries, and increasingly they seemed to be focused on anything BUT libraries and their struggle for existence. The twopointopians and the gamey librarians are doing worse than nothing. They're dressing up amateurish nonsense in the guise of professionalism and they think they're doing libraries a favor.

Some of you may be overjoyed at what's happening in Wassau, WI, and some of you may be outraged. Some of you might not care one way or another. But don't make the mistake of thinking this will be an isolated incident. Until public librarians can justify themselves to people who don't care about twopointopia or gaming or informatics or "banned" books, this is the sort of thing that will happen. Some of you reading this hate libraries and want to change them into some techno-funland. What you'll end up doing is getting rid of public librarians and eroding public libraries. I hope you're enjoying yourselves.

And for all you library school students looking forward to being public librarians (rather than gamey "librarians" or twopointopians), good luck. You'll need it.

Gamey Librarian

2008-03-03T11:03:00.002-05:00

For all you gamey librarians out there, your dream has come true! Take a look at this job ad!

You can go to River Someplace, IL and be the Gamey Librarian. Check out this description:

"Under the direction of the library Director, the successful candidate will be responsible for conceiving, designing, implementing, operating, and evaluating innovative interactive environments relevant to the library gaming community."

Doesn't that sound exciting?

Here are the minimum qualifications:

"• You are a Gamer"
That makes sense. It might help to be gamey as well.

"• Strong public service commitment and positive attitude"
Because that's really the essence of the gamey librarian. I assume "positive attitude" means that no matter how ridiculous something is you have to pretend you're excited about it. That's probably why I would make a bad gamey librarian.

"• Ability to generate buzz and excitement while maintaining order"
How exactly would one prove this qualification? Perhaps the candidate would have to generate buzz and excitement among the search committee, while still maintaining order, of course. I find my juggling act usually does the trick.

"• Higher level technology skills"
What could this mean? Programming? Disassembling a carburetor? Take a look at the job requirements. What exactly would call for any high level tech skills? Or perhaps that means you have to be able to get to the higher levels of some of the games.

"• Ability to bend, reach move and lift up to 40 pounds"
Of course, because bending and lifting 40 pounds is at the heart of any good videogame.

Pay special attention to one of the preferred qualifications:

"• You are a librarian"
One would think this is a minimum qualification for a job as a Gamey Librarian, but not anymore. Anyone who play videogames, generate buzz, and lift 40 pounds can be a "librarian." You should have saved your money and skipped library school.

It's only the fact that an MLS isn't required that this doesn't go on my Library Jobs that Suck list, since it's only a very part-time position. Jobs open for only 10-12 hours per week that require a library degree are definitely library jobs that suck. I know, I'm just being cynical. 10 hour per week "librarian jobs are great for those librarians who just need to make a little pocket money because their spouse makes the real income, plus it saves the library from having to pay benefits. A win-win scenario.

I know some librarians out there would be thrilled at the prospect of being the gamey librarian in your library, all those librarians who find traditional libraries so boring, what with all their books and information and that dull educational mission. Traditional libraries just aren't FUN, and these days if something isn't FUN then there's no reason for it exist. The library has a new mission to entertain us all to death. Education=boring. Gamey librarian=FUN. It's that simple.

Others of you might pay more attention to the fact that this is a crappy part-time job being advertised as a "librarian" position that requires no knowledge at all about libraries. You don't need to know anything about libraries if the library is just a rec center, so hire enough gamey librarians and the place will be filled to the brim with teenagers. There'll be so many teenagers playing games that the library will have to get rid of the books to make room for them.

Crappy job. Part time. For a "librarian." Requires no degree and no knowledge of libraries. No benefits and probably little pay. It's certainly easier to hire librarians like this than demote the ones you already have. All of you who promote gamey librarianship for the future of libraries can rest easy. The future is now, and this is what it looks like. Have FUN!

Job Interviewee Questions

2008-02-28T08:17:00.002-05:00

A commenter on yesterday's post related a story about a job interview that sent up so many red flags that the person withdrew from consideration on the spot. It sounded like a terrible place, but it set me to wondering what sorts of red flags people might see in a job interview and what questions they might ask to elicit evasive responses from interviewers desperate to bring anyone in to their awful library.

Of course if you know about the library, you could ask questions like, "Are you planning to further demote any librarians?" or "If I start at this salary, will my salary be going up over the years, or down?"

I've been on interviews where I've wanted to ask whether things were always this dusty or when they were planning to replace the lights or why was everyone I met during the interview so surly, but I didn't, and look at me now. I heard about an interview once where the interviewee at some point decided she didn't want the job and just started swearing like a sailor at every meeting after lunch.

Those questions and that behavior are so direct and aggressive, though, and designed to make the interviewers not like you. It seems like a bad idea to be aggressive and hostile to interviewers, even if they're trying to trick you into coming there. One never knows what the situation will be ten years down the line.

But I put the question to you. What sort of problematic signals should librarians, especially perhaps new librarians, be looking for on job interviews, and what sort of polite questions should they ask to find out what problems they will be facing?

Library Jobs That Suck #4

2008-02-27T08:30:00.003-05:00

There's an exciting opportunity in Wisconsin for anyone who wants to work in a library with a demoralized staff and a director who likes to demote or drive off librarians.

Wouldn't you just love to apply to be the new Customer Services Lead Librarian at the Marathon County Public Library in lovely Wausau, Wisconsin? I knew you would. Doesn't this sound like a fantastic job:

"The Marathon County Public Library is seeking a highly qualified individual for the position of Customer Services Lead Librarian. This is a leadership position focusing on constantly improving the customer-library experience throughout the Library system. The ideal candidate advocates for [sic], researches, creates, develops, and executes innovative approaches, services, and products to meet diverse community and diverse customer needs using creativity and entrepreneurial leadership for the Library’s system. This position works directly with library staff to improve their customer service and responsiveness skills."

I only had to read through that advertisement once to say, "Wow! This job is HOT!" They're looking for highly qualified people. I'm highly qualified. They want people to service some customers. I'm great at servicing customers. That's how I paid my way through library school! And they have that great long sentence explaining everything the lucky candidate would get to do. The lucky candidate could advocate innovative approaches or execute innovative products, really just anything, as long as its "innovative." And all of us would probably like to work with that persnickety staff to improve their responsiveness skills. That staff must really suck if the library is advertising how unresponsive they are. Someone needs to go in and light a fire under their bottoms! Also, who wouldn't want to work for a library with a mission"to attract customers to discovery and fun through exploration and entertainment." Ooohh, ahhh, discovery and fun through exploration and entertainment! That sure beats this mission: "The Commonwealth requires the education of the people as the safeguard of order and liberty." Because it's fun! And entertaining! And about servicing customers! Yay!!!

And it would also be fun to work in such a well known library. Oh sure, I know plenty of you work in well known libraries such as the New York Public or Widener or something. But how often do you get to opportunity to work in an increasingly nationally recognized public library in a small place in Wisconsin? Not often. But this library is famous, or at least it should be among librarians. See the news stories here, here, and of course here. Perhaps not everyone reads the Wausau Daily Herald (and why would you?), but everyone reads the AL, at least everyone who's reading this right now.

So if you want to work in a "customer service"-oriented job (and from what I hear every librarian should want to do that because that's what we're all about!), then go ahead and apply to the Marathon County Public Library. There you can work in an "innovative" environment where the director demotes librarians and cuts their pay and where whatever formerly professional staff are left will resent you until they can find other jobs. And when the last of them go, you can hire some even lower-paid and less competent people to take their place. Yay! And you can improve their "responsiveness skills." Yay!

This is like a dream job, isn't it? The deadline is March 24, so hurry up with that application! Tell 'em the AL sent you and your application goes to the top of the pile.

Demoting Librarians

2008-02-25T07:53:00.001-05:00

By now many of you have read about the poor little Marathon County Public Library in Wisconsin. That's the library where three of their librarians are being demoted and having their pay cut. The library is eliminating its professional librarian positions "in favor of creating three customer service librarian positions and one lead customer service librarian spot." It turns out that a "customer service librarian position" pays $10,000 per year less than a regular old "librarian position." Customer service isn't all gravy, I guess. The more librarians start to sound like they have an MBA instead of an MLS, the more suspicious I become, but I seem to be in the minority. Customer service, here we come!

According to the board, they have some financial problems there in Marathon County, and the choice was to cut some pay or fire some librarians. Who knows what the real story is, though. Eleven staff members have left in the past year, and a couple of the librarians accuse management of trying to drive out older librarians. All in all, it doesn't seem a pleasant place to work.

Except for the pay cut, this would seem to be the sort of thing that the twopointopians and the frustrated trendsetters and the gaming librarians all want, but there are probably some crusty librarians who'll be upset by this.

From the article: "The reorganization also aims to meet the ever-changing needs of customers, she said. Librarians today do less complex work, she said -- calling for pay adjustments and more technological assistance. [What does this mean?]

'We're really becoming a community center,' she said. 'Our public has different requirements of us.,"

That's a lot of "she saids" in three sentences, but let's ignore the sloppy writing and instead focus on the "ever-changing needs of customers." Isn't this the kind of thing we always hear from the twopointopians any time they try to deny they're not a cult of technology? "No, we're about focusing on the customers!" It turns out that focusing on customers isn't really anything you need librarians for. Clerks at Walmart focus on customers, just like clerks in a library. If you try to be all things to all people and have no idea what a library is for (except to bring in "customers"), what do you really think will happen? You'll be treated like a retail clerk, of course, or perhaps a program planner or something else, but certainly not a professional librarian. Librarians have to focus on building expertise and promoting that, not on bending over the reference desk with a big "kick me" sign on their bottoms saying they'll do absolutely anything to get people through the doors.

Let's examine the library director's public rationalization for cutting salaries. "Librarians today do less complex work." Is this true? I'm not sure about that, but it's certainly possible. I'm not even sure what librarians do these days. My job has become almost too complex to describe. But I can be sure that the more generalized libraries become, the less likely they need librarians. Librarians used to have special functions that they learned in library school. When library school students can spend their time in "graduate" seminars playing videogames, then they're not really learning any special skills. Teenage boys play videogames, and we all know they're the stupidest people on earth. And if these librarians don't have any special skills, then what makes them any different from mere ordinary mortals without MLS degrees? You don't need a graduate degree to play videogames or use Twitter or schedule community space.

"We're really becoming a community center." Isn't that what so many librarians want? They don't want to be book warehouses or perceived as places for quiet study or reading or justify their existence because the commonwealth needs educated citizens to survive. That's so stuffy and old fashioned! No, they want to be fun and vibrant and happening, where people come and drink coffee and play videogames and dance. Those librarians get excited about stuff like this (which has to be one of the most annoying and insipid blogs not written by a librarian I've ever seen. Anyone who uses creative as a noun is a moron). Libraries want to be cool. Here's a description of what one Wisconsin public librarian does: "I plan and promote library programs for a living." This is from a post called "The library as community center," and the author makes it sound exciting and important and, what's more, beneficial to the library. The library should be perceived as a community center, and the more people come the better it is. That's all great, but it doesn't take professional librarians to plan and promote library programs, and there's nothing peculiarly librarianesque about program planning. Librarians need a public service mission beyond that.

Many librarians want to turn libraries into community centers, but there's one interesting thing about community centers that a lot of excitable librarians haven't noticed. Community centers don't need librarians. They don't need people with "advanced" degrees in libraries or information or whatnot. They just need people to staff the cafes and plan stuff. Librarians pandering to the public trying to be all things to all people just succeed in making themselves look ridiculous. This might be good for the "customers," but it's not good for libraries or librarians. It's very nice of these selfless librarians to sacrifice their profession for the needs of the "customer."

Several readers sent this story on to me, wanting me to unleash the wrath of the AL on the library board of Wausau, WI. "Let's give them some bad publicity," one wrote. I don't know the full story of what's going on in that library, so I'm not going to unleash my wrath on anyone. But I do see this as possibly the beginning of a trend, the trend to deprofessionalize public librarians by turning libraries into recreational infotainment centers instead of focusing on the traditional mission of libraries to provide books and information. We need libraries because we need an educated citizenry. We need libraries because there are people who can't afford books and magazines and computers, and they need help, too. We need libraries because children need to learn the joys of reading. Libraries provide most of this now, at least any libraries worthy of the name, but that's not enough for some librarians. They don't like the educational mission. They want to be all things to all people. They want to play videogames and have dance parties and reduce the dissimilarity between libraries and malls. Libraries must change! They've got to move with the times!

Well, they're moving with the times, all right, and the people paying the price are librarians. I sure hope the "customers" are benefiting. The twopointopians and the frustrated trendsetters and the videogamers have made the bed, and now the Marathon County librarians have to lie in it. God help us all.

How to Library Blog

2008-02-20T06:54:00.003-05:00

When you're a famous library blogger people are always asking for your advice. Sometimes people even ask library bloggers like me for advice. Fledgling bloggers will come up to me in the virtual street and say, "AL, how do you do it? What's your secret?" Because I want all of you fledgling library bloggers to be successful and desirable, I decided it would be sweet of me to let you in on a few secrets. Here are the secrets of successful library blogging, mostly based not upon my own humble effort but upon some of the popular library bloggers in our midst. Follow these rules and you can have a library blog every bit as exciting as some of those you see linked everywhere.

1) Don't have anything to say.

Walt Crawford wrote a book on writing for the library profession entitled First Have Something to Say. (I read the entire thing via the Google Books version, thanks to some creative booksearching.) Perhaps that's the case if you're writing scholarly articles or how-I-done-it-good books, but we're talking blogs here. You don't need anything to say. If you had anything to say, you'd probably write it up in an article and publish it. Instead, you just want to express yourself and let everybody know that you, too, exist, and so it doesn't matter if you have nothing to say. You might think I'm joking, but just take a look at most library blogs. There seem to be hundreds of them, and almost none of them have anything to say. That's the beauty of blogs. Take a look at the popular ones, even. When was the last time you saw anything of substance or any even remotely new idea on any of the really high profile blogs? I rest my case. So if you don't have anything to say, consider writing a library blog.

2) You might have only one thing to say. If so, just say it over and over in different ways.

Take a look at some of the high-profile library blogs. A lot of them have one thing to say, which they said at length on the first post, and they try to figure out how to say it differently twice a week after that. When they go really stale, that becomes once a week. It's natural. How often and in how many different ways can one say, "Hey, I like library blogging! It's neato!" The twopointopian blogs answer that question. Flogging the hell out of a horse that's not only dead but wasn't that interesting when alive has led to many a successful library blog. So if you have only one good post in you, start a library blog and see how many different ways you can rewrite that post.

3) If you have nothing to say, don't worry. You don't even need words.

Even though you don't have anything to say, you at least need words, right? Wrong. You can just post a picture or embed a Youtube video and bob's your uncle, you have a library blog and you haven't written anything. Your library blog can be a colorful spectacle completely devoid of substance and meaning. Posting pictures of library signs with witty sayings like "Turn Off Your Cell Phone" seems to be popular, I suppose because there's no one who doesn't want to see yet another picture of a library sign. That one's a natural, but you can probably think of others. Pictures of yourself at a conference. Pictures of other people at conferences. The list is really endless, and that's a good thing for you, you wordless library blogger.

4) Don't stay on topic if you don't want to.

Some people think library blogs should be about libraries, especially if the title has the word librarian or library in it. Poppycock. If you're writing a library blog, that doesn't mean you can't also give your readers delightful new recipes and tips on how to pack a suitcase and the latest brain-dead marketing jargon and anything else that suits your fancy. Remember, this is your blog. You write about what you want to write about. Don't worry about readers. Most library bloggers aren't interested in readers, obviously; they just want to express themselves. Well, express yourself, baby! Remember: if you build it, and it's boring, they won't come, but to hell with them!

To be completely honest, I can't guarantee that by following these rules you will develop a popular library blog. I'm only saying that glancing around at some of the library blogs with the most subscribers or the highest Technorati rankings, following these rules certainly won't hurt you, and that's more than we can say about most things these days.

Why Am I a Librarian?

2008-02-18T07:20:00.006-05:00

Why are you a librarian? People want to know! Specifically, Webtamer guest contributer Lee wants to know, or at least he claims he does. And being a librarian, or some sort of professionally informational person, Lee has of course decided to approach the problem in the rigorous manner typical of all top level library science research. That's right, he went to Surveymonkey. Take the survey! It's great fun. [Update: the survey seems to have moved here. Very tricky.]

The survey has three questions, if you can call them questions. It seems designed to be even less useful professionally than the comments section of the AL, and that's saying something. Still, we want this survey to be statistically valid, even if it doesn't tell us anything interesting, because it's possible he'll be able to get an article out of this and he might be on the tenure track or something. That means you all have to click through and take the survey, filling in the answers in the straightforward and thoughtful way that we approach everything at the AL. If everyone reading this takes the survey, then that should be plenty to make it valid. And if he gets an article out of it, we'll all have fun reading it later.

I took the survey, and am sharing my answers with you below. Feel free to do the same for me.

"1. Why am I a librarian (or insert your favorite information professional title here)?"

You seem to be having some existential angst here. Hence your question. I have to say, I give up. I don't know why you are a librarian, and I don't particularly care. Nothing personal. I'm just not naturally curious. If you want to tell me, I'll listen politely, but I don't see how I can possibly answer this question. I thought this survey was supposed to be about me, but I guess not. Still, why don't I tell you why I'm a librarian, and then later you can answer your actual question for me once you've sorted out your emotions. I'm a librarian because it's an easy job with decent pay, light work, and low stress that required almost no effort to get. I assume that's why everyone is a librarian. Oh, and I get a lot of vacation. All the interesting and challenging jobs required too much effort and ambition, and I'm lazy and almost completely lacking in ambition.

"2. How I became a a [sic] librarian (or insert your favorite information professional title here)?"

This isn't even a question. You may have heard this before, but sentences need complete verbs, even interrogative sentences. "How I became a a librarian" might be a good title for a blog post if you left out the second a, but it's not a very good question. Still, I think I understand what you're getting at. You meant to ask the question, "How did I become a librarian?" didn't you? Well, I don't know how you became a librarian. Perhaps it was just fate. Perhaps you failed at everything else in life. No, wait, those are more why answers than how answers, aren't they? How did you become a librarian? That's more of a process, isn't it? I have a feeling that going to library school was a step. Then perhaps applying for a librarian job. Am I getting warm here? Why don't I tell you how I became a a librarian, and maybe that'll help you formulate an answer to your question. I became a librarian by getting an MLS (very easy to do, by the way) and then getting a job as a librarian (also pretty easy to do). It was really that simple.

3. Do we need librarians (or insert your favorite information professional title here)?

Who's this "we"? Is that you and me? Just between us, I don't think we need any librarians. We could go out, have a martini, and discuss your survey without any librarians around. Probably better that way, actually. And I personally don't need any librarians. If any are around, they're just competition for me, and I don't like competition. That's why I became a librarian. Competition just means more work for me, and I'm naturally lazy. (Please see above.)

On a final note, I'd be happy to tell you where you can insert your favorite information professional title, but this is a family blog.

Friday Lite

2008-02-15T07:32:00.002-05:00

From the Well Dressed Librarian, who has an on-again, off-again relationship with the AL:

"Why not start a thread on holiday sweaters, and how they are taking away the 'professionalism' in our system by making fat ladies look like bedazzled clowns'?"

And now it's up to you, dear readers.

Oh, and have a great weekend. I know I will.

Just What is a Guybrarian?

2008-02-13T07:32:00.001-05:00

We have a terminology problem that needs to be solved. This term "guybrarian" is thrown around a lot by annoying people. I think it's a stupid term loaded with sexist connotations. If there's a guybrarian, that must be because librarian is inherently female. If English were gendered like some other languages, the word itself might be gendered, at least by now. But weren't there any male librarians in the past? What were they called? I think we all know that, and if we don't we should look to one of my commenters.

A commenter on the guybrarian post last week wrote:

"wait a minute - just what makes a guybrarian a guybrarian? i think it's a little more subtle than penis + mls = guybrarian.

for example, take your comment on jackets. don't most guybrarians enter the profession so they can avoid ever having to wear a jacket and tie until they are embalmed in a casket? if they were willing to wear jackets and ties, wouldn't they be 'library directors' instead of 'guybrarians'?"

That was certainly what male librarians used to be called--library director. That hasn't necessarily been the case for a while, but it certainly was for a long time.

But since male librarians are slightly more plentiful than they used to be, at least in the lower echelons of librarianship, we can't just call them library directors anymore. It would look pretty silly calling that scruffy 25-year-old male reference librarian who'll probably never move up or on anywhere a "library director." But apparently we still need a term for a male librarian, so we have "guybrarian." Dropping librarian entirely and calling that person an "information scientist" or something even more ludicrous just won't do.

Let's consider the comment, though. Is a male library director a "guybrarian"? Apparently not. One might even ask if a library director is a librarian at all. Or is a "guybrarian" just a slovenly dressed male non-director librarian, as the commenter implies? In that case, what do we do with male librarians who wear jackets and ties but are not library directors? Do we just assume that they are either a) over 50, or b) gay? Well, we can probably assume that, but we still need something to call them. If the gender stereotypes are right, they can't be called librarians, and if the commenter's right, they can't be called guybrarians, and they certainly can't be called library directors. Apparently, some people are still so mired in their outdated gender ideology that they can't think of librarians as other than women, and that includes the folks who think they're being witty and unstereotypical by using the term "guybrarian."

I don't think there's any solution to this terminology problem for another generation or two. By that time, I expect it's more likely not that gender stereotypes will be gone, but that libraries will be. Either way, the problem will be solved.

Best Careers of 2008

2008-02-11T10:19:00.000-05:00

You may have heard by now that Librarian made the U.S. News list of "Best Careers 2008." The summary of Librarian begins where you would expect it to: "Forget about that image of librarian as a mousy bookworm." Ahh, yes, the mousy bookworm. Where are all the mousy bookworms of yore? They might be less annoying than the "high-tech information sleuths" we all must be who "may also go on shopping sprees" and "put on performances, like children's puppet shows." Ugh. The main attraction, though, is that "on top of it all, librarians' work hours are reasonable." That's why I'm a librarian. They say the national median pay is $51,400. I'm always on the lookout for another career, so I took a look through the list.

There's Hairstylist. Does that count as a career? Seems like it's just more of a job, but that's probably because of where I get my hair cut. The benefits of being a hairstylist are that "there's a lot of time to chat" and the "career is a fashionista's dream." That's exciting. Certainly attracts a different demographic than being a librarian. The national media pay is only $33,700, though, so I think I have to keep looking if I want to try something different. Plus you have to go to school for 9-24 months. If I'm going to do that, I might as well be a librarian.

But then there's Investment Banker., with a national median salary of $258,000. That's more like it! Can I get that with reasonable hours? Alas, no. The "first few years usually require 70-to-100-hour workweeks." Definitely not for me.

Professor is a good one. I like that one. The summary begins: "If you can land a tenure-track position at a four-year institution, you'll enjoy many advantages." I certainly can't argue with that. "The downside? It's tough to land a tenure-track job." Really? Darn it. That career's out, I guess.

At first glance, Ghostwriter seemed perfect, and in some ways I'm already a ghostwriter. I write for a little blog called the Annoyed Librarian. "You do need to forgo the glory of seeing your name in print." Consider that glory forgone! "Consider any writing career only if you like the process of writing, whether or not your name appears on the product." This might be the career for me. "Of course, to be a professional writer, you must write powerfully and quickly—those with writer's block need not apply." Well, I think I write powerfully and quickly, and if you have any different opinion go post it on some other blog. But then there's the national median pay: $61,000. Better than the median librarian, but I'm not the median librarian. Maybe I wouldn't be the median ghostwriter, either. I just don't know, but I bet my benefits are better.

How about Government Manager? Check this out: "Unless you're a superstar, a government job is often a terrific deal. If a company doesn't control costs, it will go out of business. Government won't, so it can continue to offer full-time, well-paying positions with generous benefits, including ample holidays, sick days, and vacation days. You're less likely to have to work beyond 9 to 5 and more likely to enjoy lifetime job security because firing is most difficult." And a national media pay of $97,900! What a great deal, and if I took that job it would be your tax dollars at work instead of mine. That sounds like a winning scenario all around, except for you, but that can't be helped. The problem is I am a superstar, so I'm not sure a government job would be a terrific deal.

Oh well, I guess I'll stay a librarian. The hours are reasonable, and I get to put on puppet shows.

The lesson we all need to learn is that some people, like the non-librarians who make up these "best career" lists, think Librarian is a fine career, but all you frustrated librarians should also remember that there are plenty of other "best careers" besides that of Librarian. You can always go be a locksmith, a firefighter, or a genetic counselor. Opportunity awaits.

Don't Mess with the Librarians

2008-02-08T10:13:00.001-05:00

I wasn't going to post today, but this one was too juicy to ignore. A loyal reader sent this court appeal to me. I'm not usually a fan of legal documents, but this one is worth a read.

When librarians go bad and steal from special collections, it's a tragedy. When morons go bad and steal from special collections, it can definitely be a comedy.

Here's the beginning of the story:
"The defendants were college buddies (19-20 years old) who hatched a plan to steal rare books from the special collections library at Transylvania University (Lexington, KY) and sell them at auction in New York City. Their earliest musings began in January 2004, but the actual robbery did not occur until December 17, 2004. They were apprehended February 11, 2005, pleaded guilty on April 21, 2005, were sentenced to prison on ecember 15, 2005, and appealed December 23,2005."

It goes on to describe how they told Christie's they had a "first addition" of the Origin of Species, dressed up in ridiculous clothing to rob the library, and used a "stun pen" on the Special Collections Librarian, "which caused a tingling sensation and left a small bruise, but did not cause any significant pain or lasting harm." On their way out they left some rare items on a table, and dropped others as they were fleeing. It's like the Keystone Robbers.

The best part is the action of the library director at Transylvania University, Susan Brown. I'll let the text speak for itself:

The slightly stunned Special Collections Librarian "yelled to Susan Brown that they were being robbed, and Ms. Brown wheeled around to pursue the robbers. She caught up to them in a stairwell where they were attempting to open the emergency exit and, surprised by her arrival and aggressive confrontation, they dropped several objects — specifically, the two remaining volumes of the Birds of North America four-volume set (they had left two volumes atop the pink bed sheet in the Special Collections Department) and the two volumes of the Quadrupeds three-volume set (one of the three volumes had been left behind, stuck in its drawer in the Special Collections Department). Lipka and Borsuk fled through the emergency door carrying five objects . . . with Ms. Brown and other librarians in hot pursuit. Lipka and Borsuk scrambled into the waiting van and Allen sped away, though not before Ms. Brown had scratched the van with a key in an attempt to mark it for later identification. Once the robbers had escaped, the police were called, but before the police could document the crime scene, some librarians collected the discarded objects and returned them to their proper places."

Now that's how you protect your library collections. Why hasn't the ALA given Susan Brown an award for being the most ass-kicking librarian in the country? (Pardon the language, but it's obviously true.) Or has it, and I just didn't notice? Maybe the Annoyed Librarian Association will give her the award.

Enjoy the weekend.

For Your Guybrarian Fix

2008-02-06T18:28:00.000-05:00

Pity I had to drop the martini blog, "Relaxin' with the AL." (I've considered putting the best posts on a static website, for the dozen of you who were regulars.) I'm now at home, relaxin' with an excellent martini and listening to Ella Fitzgerald sing "Blues in the Night." There are few things in life as fine and soothing as a well made martini, and I mix them with the best, if I do say so myself. This weekend I mixed some for guests that got involuntary "ooohs" and "ahhhs." I could be a great bartender if I didn't make more as a librarian, and if I knew how to mix other drinks as well as I mix martinis. If I still had the Relaxin' blog I could share that with you. Since I don't, I'll move on to library related stuff.

They sure are colorful down there in Dixie. From South Carolina comes The Mildly Attractive Men of SLIS at the University of South Carolina 2008 Calendar. A reader sent this to me with the with the comment, "this is f'ed up."

I'm not quite sure what to think about it. My first thought was that "mildly attractive" exaggerated a bit. A couple of the "guybrarians," as they called themselves, looked okay (the ones with the jackets; note to you male librarians: there's nothing wrong with dressing up just a bit. Oh, and facial hair is fine, but there's facial hair and then there's scraggly. Learn the difference.), but the others . . . well, I'm not so sure. I have no idea what that guy in the superhero suit is doing to that woman in the alley, and I'm not sure I want to know. The ad says there's a guybrarian to suit every taste; every taste, I suppose, except the taste of those who think "guybrarian" is a stupid word. I'm on record as wanting more hot, straight guys in libraries, since as far as I can tell they are the largest unrepresented minority in librarianship. This calendar isn't doing it for me.

Perhaps they got the idea from the Desperate Librarians Calendar that came out a couple of years ago, which seems not to be updated. You might remember that one, where the female middle-aged librarians posed naked for calendar photos to try to make money for libraries or some charitable thing. This guybrarian calendar is certainly an improvement, because in general I think we can all agree that pictures of naked librarians are not what we want to decorate our walls with. Not that all of you librarians out there reading this aren't very attractive naked, but I'm talking about as a general rule. Imagine the ALA exhibit floor with all nude librarians. On second thought, don't imagine it. I'm sorry I brought it up.

They're trying to sell calendars to make money to send students to the World Library and Information Congress "Libraries without Borders: Navigating towards Global Understanding." I wonder if the title for this conference was at all inspired by the stupid nautical theme of the last ACRL. Why anyone, especially a library school student, would want to go to anything with that title is beyond me, but it's going to be in Quebec in August, so that might be an attraction. Quebec during August has got to be more pleasant than South Carolina during, well, during all times most likely. I'm sure the south is fine if you like pickup trucks and Confederate flags and lynchings and such, but the South Carolina heat in August must be unbearable to civilized people. I remember Florida in June during ALA when I wilted like the delicate flower I am, and I think those two states are pretty close to each other.

It does seem a little strange, though, that these librarians are selling print calendars. Does anyone use print calendars anymore? I know the point is to make money to send the kids to a conference, but how many trees do they have to kill to do it? Couldn't they just put the calendar up on a fee-based website and charge a buck to view it? They'd probably make more money. Or maybe sell tee shirts. Everyone likes tee shirts, except the Annoyed Librarian.

Maybe calendars are the way to go, though. Calendering 1.0. Very retro. If so, I think it would be a good idea if other library groups started putting out calendars as well. They could organize so that only one appeared per year. We could have one of shelvers doing crazy things with shelving carts. Wouldn't that be wild. Or one of things found in returned books. I hear some people use wacky items for bookmarks that then get returned to the library. Or one with 12 pictures of the same librarian taken 12 years in a row, so we can watch how the job ages her. She'd start out fresh and eager, and end up like the rest of us. It'd take 12 years to make that one, but the result would be worth it.

On Birthdays and Cubicles

2008-02-04T07:29:00.000-05:00

It's the AL's birthday this week. She turns two, and I'm surprised she's made it this far. The AL started in a fit of annoyance at the idiocies of the ALA Council passing unheeded and irrelevant political resolutions instead of its more usual unheeded library-related resolutions. Then the AL languished for three months while I tried, unsuccessfully, to start a very different blog under an even odder (in some ways) identity. No one read the other blog. A handful of people read the AL. So I dropped the other blog to concentrate on this one, and the rest is library blogging history. That statement may seem immodest, but at this point I feel certain that if any unbiased history of library blogging is ever written (and what boring history that would be!), then the Annoyed Librarian would at least warrant a footnote, if not a paragraph of her own in the chapter on librarian blogs nobody quite knows what to make of.

Two years isn't that long for a blog, but it seems like a long time to me, and this past year has been particularly strange and yet rewarding, what with readership increasing substantially and people voting for me in all those polls of "library blogs to read." After the LIS News thing, I ran across a blog by an LIS student who was just shocked that any librarians would read this blog. After all, I'm so mean and unconstructive and apparently she didn't like the responses she got to a comment she made on one of my posts. (I say "ran across," when actually the post came to me via the self-obsessed Google alert I get every week on "annoyed librarian.") What can I say? There are enough Pollyanna library blogs out there. Who needs another one? Then again, I know a lot of you read specifically to disagree with me, so what's a gal to do? But enough from me. What do you think about me?

But seriously, folks. This reminiscing isn't worthy of a post of its own, so lets turn to something that also isn't worth a post of its own, and maybe the two together will be enough. Today, I would like to address the subject of cubicles. I know, I know, exciting stuff. Stop, AL, you'll say! Remember my blood pressure!

As we know from the title of his blog, the Ubiquitous Librarian likes to be everywhere, but everywhere should never include a cubicle. Out sick for a week and forced to move into a cubicle. Use up too many sick days and they know how to discipline you at whatever library he works at. He thinks his stay might be temporary because of some HVAC problem. Well, possibly.

But in my experience, it's rare for anyone to move from a cubicle back to an office. A cubicle is sort of like a hospice--you might leave, but usually not back to somewhere more pleasant or independent.

Personally, I think cubicles are great . . . for other people. They help herd a lot of people into a small space, which is important to make more room for my office. And what's more fun for the librarians than overhearing loud conversations from their neighbor's cube and engaging in a little innocent prairie-dogging when contretemps erupt in the librarian corral. They're delightfully interchangeable, which is just how you want your staff to think of themselves. There's nothing more troublesome than uppity staff, and there's no better way simultaneously to lower your librarians' morale and show them how unimportant they are to the organization than to put them all in cubicles.

Have you ever noticed that those making the decision to put people in cubicles somehow never think their own work would be improved by a cubicle? Of course not. Some people are all ambitious to move up into the library adminisphere so they can control things and make a bit more money. But the biggest incentive to move into the adminisphere is to make sure that when the cubicles are being doled out to the lowly staff you're the one making the decision and not the one being made a decision upon. The most important factor in my last job move was the improved office. Do I get a roomy office with a corner view? Okay, then. Throw in a relatively high salary and a staff that'll get things done while leaving me alone (err, I mean an independent and empowered staff) and I'm the librarian for you.

The two topics of this post do have a connection, in case you were wondering. Does anyone think the AL could be written in a cubicle, with the constant possibility of exposure? Most likely, not. (Actually, most of these posts are written on my sofa at home, but you get the point.) So by all means do yourselves a favor and put all your disgruntled librarians in cubicles, where they can be watched closely at all times and where they'll never know privacy or blessed silence. After all, if the librarians are in a cubicle farm, the modern office equivalent of the panopticon, they'll be far less likely to write annoying blogs. Keep that in mind.

Small ILL Question

2008-02-01T10:05:00.000-05:00

Unfortunately I have nothing to entertain you with today. I have a couple of hot topics in mind, but not enough time to write them up, so they'll have to wait until next week, but they'll be worth the wait. Trust me. Have I ever let you down before? Don't answer that. The important question for today is, have you ever let me down?

I was reading back through the lifelong learning comments and had a question for all you librarians and library users out there. In public libraries, is ILL typically free? I don't mean borrowing books from libraries within a particular system, since some systems are better than others. If you're in Ohio you'll have better luck than you might in other places. I mean borrowing books that might not even be in your state, especially scholarly books that might not be in many public libraries. Is that normal and free now (at least to the patrons) the way it usually is in academic libraries these days? Or do patrons usually have to pay special fees for harder to get items?

I'm trying to clarify my thinking both on lifelong learning and access to certain types of information for library patrons, and this would help. The comments on distance learners depending more heavily on public libraries didn't surprise me, but I hadn't thought much about it. If the books necessary to support all sorts of scholars, from the distance learner to the independent scholar, really are available for free through public libraries if you can wait for ILL, then I might have to revise some of my opinions.

Thanks in advance for any answers I get, and have a great weekend.

Courses I Wish I'd Had in Library School

2008-01-30T06:42:00.001-05:00

A commenter in the last post noted that she was "getting really tired of the 'We never learned that in library school' quotes," because she had "yet to see one regarding a topic that [she] did NOT hear about in library school," and she "went to a low-ranked school!" Is this a common quote? I really don't know. The quote I hear the most, and occasionally utter myself, is, "I didn't go to library school to do X," X being some extremely unprofessional work that could be handled by an uneducated high school student. You know, things like clearing printer jams, mopping floors, playing video games. That kind of thing. But my word, the things I didn't learn in library school, and I went to a high-ranked one! Here are some classes I could have used:

LIS 501: Library Politics
In this class you will learn how to navigate the tricky world of library politics. The most important lessons will be how to avoid and/or thwart the complete bastards who will try to make your worklife miserable and how to make other librarians and staff members into your allies and/or minions. When the revolution, reorganization, or power struggle comes, you DO NOT want to be the first one against the wall. You will also learn how to stand on the backs of others to achieve what you want while leaving minimal footprints on their clothing.

LIS 502: Appearance and Deception
In LIS 502 you will learn just how importance appearances are, both physical and professional. A stroll through a library may leave the impression that physical appearance isn't important for librarians. However, you might have a different opinion if you saw the high-powered library administrators and consultants around the country. They typically have a reverse fat to fashion ratio compared to most librarians--less fat, more fashion. They have learned that looking good is as important as being good, more important in many cases. This same lesson applies to one's professional accomplishments and reputation. Splashy but ineffectual initiatives, publications, and presentations will be rewarded where substantive work will not. There are professions where you are judged by your intellectual achievements. Librarianship isn't one of those professions.

LIS 503: Doing the Work
Someone has to do the real work of the library while everyone else is flying around the country and the world attending conferences and mingling with the beautiful people and planning initiatives that other people will have to enact. Make sure this worker person isn't you. You want to mingle with the beautiful people sipping martinis (or perhaps champagne) while your colleagues Mr. Drudge and Ms. Grind sit quietly in their cubicles processing stuff. This class will teach you the seven highly secret secrets of effective and profitable work-avoidance.

LIS 504: Library Organization
You might think you had a class like this, but you didn't. In this class you will learn that libraries have very little useful organization, and the bigger the library the more likely you are to wonder how anything gets done at all. It may seem like the library is a rigid structure, but rigid structures are useless and easy to avoid. Think Maginot Line. LIS 504 will teach you how to dodge playfully around the sometimes archaic organizational structures of the typical library and make the connections that matter, either to get things done (if getting things done is your metier) or to not get things done and yet still look superior to those who do.

They always say that whatever you learn in library school will date quickly, and why would they lie. That may be true. But some of the lessons you learn after library school, such as library politics, never date. The lack of these courses may also explain the poor social and fashion skills of so many librarians.

For the benefit of the students and new librarians among us, feel free to suggest your own courses that you wish you'd had in library school.

My Library is So Boring

2008-01-28T12:41:00.000-05:00

I don't talk about the library where I work, because if I did my many fans and enemies would be storming the building for autographs and retribution. But I can say this about the library--it's boring. I mean, really boring. Nothing exciting ever happens other than the free play of intellect over the human record, but we know most people find that pretty boring. We don't have any prostitutes hanging around outside the library. There aren't any drug pushers openly peddling their wares in the lobby. There might be some sex going on in the stacks, but if there is no librarians are involved. (That thought just caused a shudder to run down my spine.) We don't have any fistfights or violence. No one ever gets mugged in the parking lot. And, unlike the Mahopac Public Library, we don't have patrons arrested for viewing child pornography on our computers. For some reason, college students aren't big consumers of child pornography, and I for one am glad about that.

It must be nice to work in an exciting library where police confiscate a computer "after the arrest of a 53-year-old man from Brewster who the police said was caught downloading images of child pornography while at the library."

I assume they had a warrant, because there's nothing in the Times story to indicate that any brave librarian threw her body across the computer to protect the privacy of the child porn pervert. It's been a busy month at Mahopac, too. "Alice Walsh, the board president, said it was the second of two incidents this month involving computers that had the library staff scrambling to put measures in place that will help mitigate further incidents, while putting the public’s mind at ease that intellectual freedom — “the right to seek information” as protected under the First Amendment — remains a cornerstone of library use." For some reason I can never find that "right to seek information" clause in the first amendment, but to be honest the old eyes aren't what they once were.

The bizarre thing is that the library board will actually be meeting to discuss ways to solve this problem. Obviously, the librarians and library board members at Mahopac Public Library are unaware that as far as the ALA is concerned, there is no problem. Child porn is fine as long as the patrons don't get caught.

"'Grappling with what constitutes the rights of citizens in their pursuit of knowledge versus the protection of those same citizens from the use of obscenity is “a delicate balance,”' Ms. Walsh said.

'This is something we never thought we’d have to address in library school,' she said."

Of course she never thought she'd have to address the issue, because according to the dominant library ideology there's no justification for protecting citizens from obscenity, child pornography, or anything else. This crazy person actually believes that people have any right to walk through a public library without feeling like they've stumbled into a porn theater. With radical attitudes like that, it's no wonder such exciting things go on in the library.

If only things got that crazy around my library. Then I could start an anonymous blog and tell you all about them. Alas, such is not to be. As I go back to work in my very boring library, I can only gaze longingly from a distance at the exciting things that happen in places like Mahopac Public.

Public Libraries and Lifelong Learning

2008-01-25T07:27:00.000-05:00

It's been an exciting and action-packed week. Not here on the AL, of course, but just in general, so I haven't been as responsive as I'd hoped to my faithful commenters. I guess I was just so excited to find that the ALA Council passed a resolution calling for an end to violence in Kenya that I couldn't focus much after that. Now that the ALA has spoken, those Kenyans must be relieved to know that peace and freedom are just around the corner.

So now I'll be responsive. As you might guess, I'm all for debate and dissent in the comments section of this blog, as long as no one starts using foul language like two commenters whose comments I had to delete this week. (That's typically the case when it says a comment has been removed by a blog administrator.) This is a family blog, after all. I like to respond to the comments, but sometimes they come faster than I can handle, which explains this post.

In the comments of this week's twopointopian post, a brief debate broke out only tangentially related to the cult of twopointopia, namely, whether public libraries support lifelong learning. Here are the relevant comments that appeared one after another near the witching hour Monday.

Anonymous @ 11:15pm wrote:
"The issue is that public libraries do not support lifelong learners. Many public libraries are now buying items that will get them high circulation such as bestsellers, romances, etc. They are not buying circulating works that cost more than $30 or so dollars. They are buying DVD's and may eventually move almost wholly to video downloads to keep theft down.

Many people who need to fulfill a research need therefore have to do it by using electronic resources since there are no books on their topic. In the future, they will be able to access cheap portable ebooks (as in Kindle) or electronic databases.

I personally have found that if I need a book to fulfill a need,especially an academic or career need, I have to buy it since my public library system either doesn't carry it or has outdated copies.

I think Anonymous 1:02 is correct in that cheap books will continue to be sold, but they will be old books - the new ones will all be electronic."

Nate responded:
"Public Libraries DO support lifelong learners. They provide a human starting point for ANY question. Also, lifelong learning is not limited to reading books, if it were we’d live in a terribly boring society. Fools would just sit around and read all day. What a drag, learning is about a lot more than just reading. Lifelong learning is about EXPERIENCE, and if libraries can provide media or inspiration in ANY manner to enrich experiences then they are doing their job. I feel pretty good about where we are at with that; I think public libraries have a bright future.

I’ll add that I use bookstores regularly too, and I’m a public librarian. It is foolish to think that your public library is going to be a one-stop media shop. I have Netflix too. Or actually I did, I canceled it a while ago cause their delivery system slowed down. I pick and choose where I get books and videos just like I pick and choose where I buy meat, light bulbs, and loose leaf paper.

I’ll tell you what though, I had the flip side of this last anonymous (hey why is EVERYONE on this blog anonymous?) persons experience recently. I was after this obscure book and looked it up on Amazon, Half, AddAll… it was crazy expensive. I talked to my buddy in the interlibrary loan department and whaddya know- I’m reading the book right now. Well not right now, I’m typing right now, but… you know…."

It's no secret that I support the educational mission of public libraries rather than the rec center mission of public libraries. "The Commonwealth requires the education of the people as the safeguard of order and liberty." It does not require the entertainment of the people, and I see no reason I should pay any taxes so that people who can't afford Dance Dance Revolution can dance their lives away at the public library. As far as I'm concerned, if the kids can't afford their own video games, what they need is great education and training so that they can improve their lot in life. This is a right and proper mission of the public library. But I'll also have to note that most public libraries are incapable of sustaining lifelong education at a very high level. I suppose there is always ILL, as Nate suggests, but that's not the same as having the books or articles on the shelves or easily accessible. Even small college libraries are superior to most public libraries in this way, unless those libraries are in big cities.

But let us consider Nate, the educational radical, for whom reading isn't absolutely necessary to education, and in fact can be rather boring. What a dull world it would be if "fools would just sit around and read all day." Lifelong learning is about experience, he tells us, and that's certainly a plausible claim. I would stretch it further than he does in his comment to say that experience might be gained through some media retrieved from the library, or from travel or conversation, and I'm sure he would agree with me. I do cavil at the claim that "if libraries can provide media or inspiration in ANY manner to enrich experiences then they are doing their job [of providing lifelong learning]." This is the intellectual relativism typical of the librarian tendency to reduce everything to "information," and thus argue that access to any information is just as good as access to any other information. Any experience certainly can be educational, and thus within the scope of lifelong learning, but can we make any distinctions at all?

Educated people certainly do make distinctions. The more you know about a subject, the more you realize both how much there is to know, and how little most people know. And the more you know about a lot of subjects, the more you realize how empty of intellectual content most people's learning is. If we're talking about the good of the commonwealth, we're talking about forming educated and critical citizens. Video games don't form educated and critical citizens, at least no more educated and critical than one would be from watching old episodes of School House Rock. To have "any experience at all" is not the same as being educated except in the most banal way. So for me the critical question is whether public libraries can support the lifelong education of the critical and engaged citizens a liberal democracy needs to thrive. Except for web resources, which are hardly localized to the library, how often is this done? How often do public libraries have collections in history, politics, economics, or sociology to sustain study beyond about a 10th grade level?

To say that these can all be obtained through ILL is to say that they're not important enough to provide for public library patrons. After all, the public library patrons just want bestsellers and videos. To buy books on history or economics that none of these people would read anyway is to be judgmental about their taste, and we wouldn't want that, now would we? To provide these books would be a waste of money and shelf space, and it certainly wouldn't be worth that to provide ready access for the handful of eggheads or politics junkies that might stagger through the stacks.

Ultimately, if we say many or perhaps most public libraries support lifelong learning, we have to be clear what lifelong learning is, and what lifelong learning is relevant. It seems the easy way out just to say that any experience the library can "enrich" counts as the relevant lifelong learning. Is all lifelong "learning" equally good? More specifically, is all lifelong "learning" equally good for the commonwealth? Is it justified to spend public money on private goods, assuming of course that playing more video games even counts as a private good? The tougher way is to actually have some standards for what education is good for the people either in their capacity as citizens or in their desire to improve themselves. Then, it seems to me, for many if not most public libraries, the case for lifelong learning is much harder to prove, and that's a shame.

Politics and Literature

2008-01-23T11:29:00.001-05:00

Just a quickie today, since it's all I have time for, but I wanted to write something about this.

YALSA gave out an award to Orson Scott Card for his books Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow, and a lot of people are upset because they seem to have based the award on the quality and influence of the works themselves instead of vetting Card's political and social views with the PC Police. It turns out that Card believes that homosexual acts are sinful and same-sex marriage is an oxymoron, views that most likely put him squarely in the majority of everyone ever born on earth, but naturally put him outside the pale of enlightened thought on this issue. Though based on his own writing, it seems to me his ideas are pretty mainstream Christian, especially for a Mormon. Love the sinner, hate the sin seems to be his mantra, but he definitely draws a line between tolerance and acceptance that many would prefer to erase, and he definitely does support the criminalizing of homosexual acts.

Since it's de rigeur when discussing such controversial issues, I'll state some of my own positions, because a lot of people prefer to judge writing on the views of the author rather than the arguments in the work. So, for the record: I don't read science fiction. I never have nor ever will read Card. I don't care what authors YALSA awards. I don't care who marries whom in state marriages or what consenting adults do as long as they don't do it in the street and scare the horses. Keep your laws off my body and everything else of mine.

The question comes down to this: should an award honoring an author's work instead be based on the author's politics? That's what YALSA's critics seem to think. Ignore the actual works and instead judge authors by what they do and say outside their fiction. Thus, we can be assured that we don't give awards for great literature and then find out that the authors have any opinions that anyone might dislike. Is that the idea?

The YALSA committee was faulted for not researching Card's political views more thoroughly. If they had, would they have chosen any differently? If so, that doesn't say much for the integrity of the award or the committee. The committee has mildly defended itself, but it's still an open question of why this decision needs any defense. Does anyone think these Card works don't deserve the award based on their content? They've certainly received science fiction awards. Are the works themselves politically problematic? And if they were, would that be a problem? After all, ALA awards committees are usually happy to give awards to politically charged books, which doesn't seem to bother the critics. But for critics of this particular award, it seems that politics is more important than literature, and possibly more important than everything. If politics trumps literature for a literary award, maybe it's time to get rid of the award.

Twopointopians and the Pure Faith

2008-01-21T07:18:00.000-05:00

Librarians can be such sheep, always flocking together around the same fads. The only difference is the early sheep and the late sheep. The twopointopians are just the latest in a long series of early sheep. They see some fad and they just jump all over it. It's not the content of the fad that's important. It's just the fact that it's new. Newness is all. Then the newness passes and the sheep come slightly to their senses.

And then again sometimes they don't. A blog post at blyberg.net has been getting a lot of twopointopian blogger press. I don't read blyberg.net, but I would know that he is a twopointopian based only on clues in this post. (I'm sure he doesn't care if I read, but I will say that if he wants me to read he'll let the whole post through on the feed instead of just the first few lines. Almost no blogger is worth clicking through to.) The post is called Library 2.0 Debased, which implies that he thinks Library 2.0 was ever anything important as a concept. And near the end there's a line about the "true spirit of Library 2.0." Talk of the "true spirit" of something and how it has been debased always reminds me of the cultic aspects of the twopointopians. There's a true spirit that's been debased, you see, so we have to get back to the pure faith somehow. Library 2.0 has something to it, even if we don't know what it is. We have to keep the stupid term and keep searching for the true revelation, which will undoubtedly come some day. Too bad the twopointopians don't have more respect for the book. Religions of the Book--notably Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--can always return to their founding documents. The twopointopians don't have any founding documents worth returning to, so they wander in the desert trying to make sense of what they feel must be a worthwhile cult. Ugh.

The fact that this post has been picked up by so many other blogs helps me identify the dissatisfied twopointopians, those hoping to renew the faith. The twopointopians only listen to their own. I've been saying for a year and a half that Library 2.0 is a stupid term and a silly fad, but that just gets me attacks for not being user-centered or being technophobic or whatever it is the twopointopians say about their critics. Quite happily, I'm despised by the Pollyannas out there in libraryland, the ones who think we should all band together singing "Kumbaya" while thoughtlessly sacrificing ourselves for the greater good of humanity. (I always crack up at the responses to the AL that don't understand why anyone would even read this blog because I'm so mean and allegedly self-loathing.) And now some of the early sheep--the high priests and priestesses of twopointopia--are growing uneasy at the perversion of their faith by the hapless masses.

And now to you, hapless masses, also known as the late sheep. You think none of this is your fault, don't you? You think it's all the early sheep thrusting themselves upon you. To some extent that's true. It's difficult to resist the propaganda when you hear it chanted from every blog and article and conference session, but you can resist. Some of us manage to. But not you, late sheep. You're all the ones who go to any talk or workshop with "2.0" in the title, the ones who get all excited by workshops where you set up a blog that you will never post to, a wiki that you will never update, or a feed reader you will never visit again. The ones who are more puzzled than inspired by the insipid rhetoric of the twopointopians and other faddists but nevertheless don't have the fortitude to resist the fads. You have only yourselves to blame. The cult members are happy chattering away to themselves and having no impact whatsoever on the outer world, but you're so enticed by the appeal of being in the know that you listen to their empty messages. The priests and priestesses themselves might know the cult is void of ideas, but the major appeal of a cult is being an insider. But you late sheep want to be insiders, too. You want to know what all the excitement is about.

They're both part of the problem, but the early sheep don't like the late sheep very much. Without the late sheep, the early sheep wouldn't have anybody to feel superior to, but the late sheep have this bad habit of "debasing" the pure faith. The late sheep don't make much of the supposed ideas behind the fad, and they just focus on alleged incidentals like the technology. There aren't any coherent ideas behind the 2.0 fad, so it's no wonder the late sheep have debased the faith. And now the early sheep are upset, and insist upon a return to fundamentals.

The rest of us, perhaps the vast majority, can watch from the heights while the early sheep flock toward their new fads in search of hope and belonging, and the late sheep come along and spoil the celebration for everyone by focusing too much upon the rituals and not enough on the purity of the faith.

The high priests and priestesses of the Cult of Twopointopia insist that their flocks return to fundamentals, that they don't just mutter in darkened corners counting feed subscriptions like so many rosary beads and thinking they know something about Library 2.0. The great thing about this racket for the cultists themselves is the way they can always feel superior, if only because they know that the faith has a fundamental purity and they can spend a couple more years pretending that they're on to something while they give talks and workshops and laughingly survey the late sheep mucking about with execrable blogs and barren wikis. A couple of years ago Blyberg wrote: "If you’ve been reading my blog, you’ll know I believe L2 is a vital and very real movement. You’ll also know that I think it is an ever-changing amalgam of ideas, dreams, and visions." It's vital and real, but fortunately ever changing so the twopointopians always have a new dream or vision to chase.

So the call has gone out to renew the pure faith of this tiresome fad, but there is one consolation. If it wasn't for Library 2.0 and the twopointopians, it would just be some other fad, one that might actually have consequences outside the fevered minds and blogs of the cultists, and that might be much worse for us all.

Don't Share What You Know

2008-01-18T07:32:00.000-05:00

Librarians tend to be nice people. I know some patrons who fear the withering glance of the bun-wearing spinster might disagree, but in general it's true. Librarians want to help people, and usually they don't mind getting little reward for all that help. Money's not that important. A piece of chocolate and a kind word every few weeks keeps the librarians happy.

As the etymologically inclined among you undoubtedly know, "nice" didn't always have the bland but generally positive connotations it does today. When the word appeared in English in the fourteenth century, it meant, according to the OED, "foolish; simple; silly; ignorant." Now how do we feel about being nice?

Librarians are nice in all sorts of ways, but mostly because they want to help. They want to help people by sharing what they know, and sometimes they do know things. If we believe Francis Bacon that knowledge is power, it's a wonder librarians don't have more power. These days the pundits are apt to opine that information is power, or the control of information is power, or some such thing. Those who have more and more timely information have an edge over others. If this is true, then librarians should have more power, it would seem, and yet they don't. Why? Because they're too nice, in every sense of the term.

So do you want more power? Then don't share what you know. It's that simple. Don't tell your patrons everything you know. Make them come back to you. Hold them captive to their own ignorance. If patrons were so smart, they wouldn't have to come to the librarians for answers, now would they? No, they wouldn't. Don't teach them to fish. Don't tell them how you found that information they were looking for. If they want the secrets of information mastery, they can damn well go to library school and be bored to death like the rest of us. Is that too much to ask? I didn't think so.

Some librarians are even nice enough to share what they know with their colleagues. This just shows how selfless, and, dare I say it, nice librarians can be. Let's be honest. What incentive do I have for sharing my knowledge with my colleagues? I keep my knowledge to myself and use it to my advantage. If I'm at a meeting and some backwards librarian isn't hep to the latest library jive, I'm happy to hint at how much I know, and thus how superior I am, but I'm hardly likely to start giving workshops entitled, "Things I Know But You Don't Because You're Too Lazy to Learn Stuff on Your Own." If my colleagues want to know about the latest twopointopian gobbledygook, they can slog through the blogs like I do. So what if I'm younger than them. It's not like I graduated from library school yesterday. Things change. Keep up, but don't expect me to help drag you into the new millennium.

And for the younger colleagues, my only incentive to share what I know with you is to make you my minions in case a power struggle ever breaks out in the library. You might think you know a lot, like those Library Student Journal folks who think they know more about libraries than I do, but there's plenty you never learn about in library school. For example, I never had a class about power struggles in the library, but I learned everything I needed to know from Machiavelli, who would have made a fine assistant library director.

So if you want to look for advantages instead of like suckers, remember: knowledge is power. Don't share what you know.

Failure to Report

2008-01-16T20:12:00.000-05:00

As longtime readers know, I usually like to give a report on my ALA experiences, primarily consisting of the best places I've eaten and drunk during the conference, the best place to get a martini, that sort of thing. Unfortunately, I can't do that this time, and not because I didn't have at least one very fine martini and some excellent food along the way. No, it turns out I was a bit more public than I normally am. That might not quite be it. I'm always out in public. Only this time I was at more librarian events where the right people might be able to put two and two together and get the Annoyed Librarian. I wined around a lot of other librarians and met some nice newer librarians who made me feel jaded. These fresh librarians and library school students are just so hopeful. Also, sadly, I'm getting to the point where the neophytes look at me with hungry eyes wondering either how they can displace me or how they can use me to further their careers. It'll never happen. Entrenched privileges are only for the few, and I'll fight for mine like a wild cat. I can say that the booze in Philadelphia seemed very expensive for what I got. My hotel bar, which was exquisite, had very expensive drinks. Keep that in mind whenever you stay in that hotel!

One would like to think that while one is away the rest of the library world would stop. After all, it seems like everyone involved in the greater library blogland area goes to conferences. Maybe it's academic librarians, mostly, though. Consider the comment one of my favorite readers, Anonymous, left this weekend on my last post:

"Just remember, not matter what track you take, if you want to make an impact on libraries you had better go into academia.

They are the only ones who ever get published, the only ones who attend conferences regularly (the rest of us are working), and they are the ones who get appointed to committees.

Just remember the real world of librarianship is an ivory tower that has no relationship to the real world.

Don't believe me, take a look at the blogs and listservs and notice that most are not being updated and there are sparse postings because all the real movers and shakers are at midwinter conferences, sucking down martinis."

Anonymous, you might have something there. There sure do seem to be a lot of academic librarians at these conferences. On my committees I'm surrounded by nothing but academic librarians. It's spooky.

But of course the world didn't stop, not even in library blogland. I got back to find the AL had been voted one of the LIS News 10 Blogs to Read in 2008. Among LIS News voters, I was apparently "this year's most popular blogger, by a wide margin." What can I say? Once again, I'd like to thank all the little people whose backs I had to step on during my tumultuous rise to the top. Thank you, little people. But seriously, folks, that was nice. It still surprises me to have so many readers. The only downside, if there is one, is that it's harder to pose as the alternative library blogger when stuff like this happens. I'll pay that price if you keep reading. And then there's the danger that I'm "getting soft," as one of my readers accused me of last week. Perhaps it's my personal life right now that's making me mellow, because I don't feel like I'm getting soft. If that were the case, this would have been a good time to quit the AL. Instead I hope to come out swinging this year. Maybe I just need some new stuff to be annoyed about.

While the Cat Was Away

2008-01-07T07:15:00.000-05:00

Happy new year to you all. My vacation was so peaceful and relaxing that to be honest I almost didn't start writing again. There are those people who go into withdrawal symptoms whenever they're away from their blogs or an Internet connection for a few days or even hours. I'm not one of those people. But what would life be like without the AL, I asked myself? Occasionally one must sacrifice oneself for the greater good.

Three weeks have passed without any AL commentary on the happenings in the library world. I have a lot of catching up to do, and plan to do some of it in this post. While this cat was away, all sorts of librarians came out to play.

Since it's the new year, it's time to make new year's resolutions. Some people resolve to get to their target weight or quit smoking or stop beating their children, etc. I made those resolutions first thing, and since my weight's just fine, I don't smoke, and I don't have children, they are easy ones for me to keep. I've also made a resolution to be a much nicer person this year and not so cranky all the time. So here goes.

To start off the survey of the past three weeks, I should say that if David Lee King didn't exist, the Annoyed Librarian would have to invent him, and I mean that in the nicest way possible. He's so enthusiastic about libraries; sometimes I wish I could be that enthusiastic about anything without my meds. Let's consider his response to a question about what might draw people to physical library buildings in the future. He quotes from some other source:

“Imagine a future when you go to the library with a 5 minute video you’ve just made about last night’s Presidential debates and that librarian says to you:

‘You should upload it to YouTube and tag it with these four tags - two broad and two more specific to existing communities of interest on YouTube and the topic of your video. Then you should embed that video in a blog post along with some text introducing it and linking to some of your favorite posts by other people who have also written today about the Presidential debates. Make sure to send trackbacks to those posts!’

‘Now, I think this is a particularly good video on the topic, so if you’re interested I will vote for it on StumbleUpon (as a sexy librarian I have a very powerful account there) and give it a good summary explanation. Any of those are steps you can take that will make your work all the easier for people to discover.’ “"

Then he asks what we think. My thought is, yuck! Helping upload the video if asked isn't so bad, but all the nonsense about telling people to upload it and saying how great it is and how we'll help people discover that alleged greatness by promoting it in some way is ridiculous. I consider it service enough if a librarian helps upload the video without gagging at the content. I didn't click through to the other source, but it has a nice twopointopian ring to it. Notice the librarian is telling patrons to upload yet another boring video to Youtube. The librarian doesn't even wait to see why you're in the library before trying to force a twopointopian agenda on you. Typical.

Moving on to another perennial favorite, the Webtamer, who, as we all know, loves posting pictures of himself online. Finally, he's posted a photo even I can like, entitled Martini, Lychee and Stephens, Michael. Of course a real martini never has any fruit in it, but it still looks nice in the picture.

Now let's take a look at a couple of librarians from New York. You've probably all seen the story of the librarian who won the 29-hour couch potato contest. The article says he's a research librarian in Manhattan. It doesn't name his employer, but I'd bet it's the senior research librarian at Conde Nast, who has the same name. If it's the same person, he looks like an ordinary enough guy. I think we should all thank him for reveling in a stereotype of the librarian instead of trying to fight the stereotypes like those hipster librarians from last summer.

We've also got this guy, the "librarian to the stars," a librarian at the NYPL celebrated by all sorts of authors for helping them with crucial research for their books. Congratulations to the librarian of the stars for getting some great publicity for excellent library work. He's not a hipster, though he might be a couch potato. For both off these, it's refreshing not to hear how some silly group of librarians supposedly break out of some stereotype.

Via the Ubiquitous Librarian, I discovered that library school students can be as pretentious as they are ill prepared for library work. He points to a promotional page for a Library Student Journal "emerging leaders" special issue which says: “Library Student Journal believes that in many ways the average LIS student today understands the average user better than does the average LIS professional.” Ahh, the arrogance of youth. That's certainly a bold claim, though they fail to back it up with any evidence. People believe all sorts of silly things, so this is hardly surprising. They go on: "We have new and exciting ideas. We see information needs in new places (and new worlds)." Do they really have new and exciting ideas? Somehow I doubt that, but if on the off chance they do those ideas will be beaten out of them by some actual library work. I'm curious about the "new worlds" where they see information needs. Sounds like a Trekkie has been writing their promo.

One of the new and exciting ideas the new librarians always want to promote is turning libraries into video arcades, their guiding philosophy being that libraries should be all things to all people and that any sort of overriding educational mission for the library is just elitist. Those videogaming librarians should take a look at this essay in the Wall Street Journal on Teenage Zombies, subtitled "Video Games Have Sucked the Life out of My Kids." If the tales in this story are indicative of the relationship between teenage boys and their videogames, then the gaming librarians are definitely doing their part to turn boys into zombies. Turning teenagers into zombies is a terrible thing, and must be stopped in our lifetime, but obviously some librarians haven't heeded that important public service message.

One boy was so absorbed by his video game that he wouldn't take a bathroom break, choosing instead to just wet himself right there in the gaming seat. Remember that the next time you sit down at a library computer station. I can't comment on the accuracy of this anecdotal evidence, since I haven't spent much time around teenage boys since I was a teenager myself, and I didn't like most of them then. The urination story does seem relevant to a lot of teenage boys, though, since I recall a large percentage of them having an arm's length relationship with good hygiene or basic grooming skills.

I'm sure lots of other exciting things happened in the greater libraryland area while I was away, but that's about all I can stand for now. Besides, if I covered everything, I wouldn't have anything to blog about later in the week, since I haven't heard about any good nonsense in the works for the ALA Midwinter Meeting in the City of Brotherly Love.

Welcome back, everyone. I'm looking forward to a third year of being annoyed together.

Five Things I Like about Being a Librarian

2007-12-14T09:13:00.000-05:00

Today I'll write happy things, and you'll know why by the end. I'll try to come up with some things I like about being a librarian.

First, it's very peaceful and low stress. Sure, it gets hectic occasionally, and sometimes I feel that if I have to attend another meeting and read the news while pretending to take notes I'll go insane, but in general it's a peaceful life with little stress. I don't have to bill every hour. If I make a bad decision, nobody dies. I won't get sued for librarian malpractice. If I let my attention wander for a while, I don't have to worry about some piece of machinery taking my hand off or anything like that.

Second, the standards are low. This sounds like it would be a bad thing, but it means that I don't have to work as hard to excel. I like to stand out, and if I was in a tougher profession, I'd have to work a lot harder, and I don't like to work hard. Now I just have to work a little bit harder than my colleagues, and they don't like to work hard either.

Third, it's not busy, busy, busy all the time. If librarians were busy all the time, there wouldn't be so many librarian blogs, now would there? Busy librarians don't have time to blog so much. You can tell those librarians without much to do by the frequency of their blog posts. Show me a librarian who posts every day to two or three blogs, and I'll show you a librarian who's mastered the art of looking busy without working very hard. I'm not making fun; these librarians are to be imitated. Master that art, and your work life will be much improved.

Fourth, it's increasingly a very flexible job. With modern communication technology, I can be just about anywhere most of the time. Right now, in fact, I'm sitting in bed with a cup of tea and taking a break from some actual work I was doing to write this. How could I be annoyed about that?

And finally, I get a lot of vacation. That's one of the things that makes me happiest, and it's making me happy because I'm about to use it. I'm taking three weeks off, returning to the ancestral manse, and relaxing with some good books, some old friends, and perhaps a martini or two. Thus, you might not see much of me until the new year, because this afternoon I might turn off the computer for three weeks. Even if I'm on, I probably wont' be reading library blogs and websites, and if I didn't do that I wouldn't have anything to be annoyed about. I might post, but I need a break from the AL as much as you probably do.

So if I'm not back until January, have a Merry Christmas or Happy Winter Solstice or whatever it is you celebrate about this time of year. Rest assured, I'll be thinking about you all constantly until my return, as well as wishing peace upon earth toward people of good will.

Pax Vobiscum.

The Thin End of Nonsense

2007-12-12T07:24:00.000-05:00

Inevitably, when I write about banned books, someone leaves a comment exemplifying the ALA propaganda hinting at how endangered our intellectual freedom would be if the ALA OIF weren't here to raise a stink whenever some hillbilly school somewhere removes some questionable book from their library shelves. One of the typical responses is that if this hillbilly school removes the book, then it's the beginning of the end, the thin end of the wedge, though a commenter last week called it the camel's nose under the tent. I wasn't familiar with that phrase, but then there aren't any camels where I live. Perhaps the commenter was a Bedouin or something. Regardless of the vehicle of the metaphor, the tenor is completely wrong. Some hillbillies in Kentucky removing a book from their school library isn't the thin end of the wedge. Saying it is such is the thin end of nonsense.

I almost called it the thin end of desperation, because that's the sense I get every time the ALA OIF releases some of more of this "banned" book propaganda. Since we live in perhaps the most intellectually free country on earth, it just gets harder for a group dedicated to protecting our intellectual freedom to find something to complain about. I feel the same way myself sometimes. When book publishing is going strong, self-publishing is easier than ever, and online publishing is ubiquitous, there's no shortage of information around putting forward any ideas you may care to entertain.

When you can write or say just about anything you want at any time, when many people seem much more concerned about the rights of the vulgar to be loud and obnoxious than the rights of the rest of us to be saved from their vulgarity, where porn merchants have more protection than kids who want to pray at a football game, then we're not living with many threats to intellectual freedom. (Except for the intellectual freedom of religious people, but we all know how terrible they are, so they don't count.) Throw in free internet connections, which our public libraries so generously provide so that people can trade child porn without getting tracked, and you can get to just about anything worth getting to, unless it's a scholarly article or a copyrighted book. Most of those are harder to get.

Aha! the thin-ended camel might say! Most of these "banned" books are just that! You've admitted that they can't just be found everywhere! Well, yeah, okay, but that's a silly argument, too. Some of the "banned" books are in fact available on the Internet. If any benighted souls were desperate enough for reading material to try out Tom Sawyer, they can get it online. But even the copyrighted books are widely available. Take this Golden Compass that everyone is so enthusiastic about defending. You can get that book along with the other two in the trilogy for $13.50 on Amazon. Where's the threat to anyone's intellectual freedom? And the little hillbilly kids who can't get it at the school library can just go to the public library, if they have one. It's probably there, too. Where's the threat to anyone's intellectual freedom?

Comparisons with actual threats to intellectual freedom should make it clear how much of a joke this is. Unless government censorship or control of information is involved, there is no threat. If some legislature decides that their public schools aren't going to teach evolution because it's contrary to some hillbilly's third-grade level literal interpretation of the Bible, then we have a threat to intellectual freedom. If some government starts blocking Internet sites favorable to democracy or critical of the current political regime, then we have a threat to intellectual freedom. Or if some dictator starts imprisoning people for having books in their house that the dictator doesn't agree with, then we have a threat to intellectual freedom.

The problem is, some hillbillies banning The Golden Compass doesn't lead to any of these things, and to say so is just foolish. Removing that book from a Catholic school isn't the thin end of the wedge, though it might be the thin end of nonsense. I'm as pleased as anyone about the freedoms of America, probably more pleased about some freedoms than some of the OIF folks, but this doesn't mean I have to invent fake threats to make myself seem relevant.

Some people say that removing this particular book does threaten the intellectual freedom of the particular students at the particular schools who for some bizarre reason don't have $13 or a public library with the book. Just for argument's sake, let's say there are a handful of these kids. Saying that not having easy access to the Golden Compass or Tom Sawyer or My Daddy Swings Both Ways threatens anyone's freedom is ridiculous. Most libraries don't have most books, so making the argument that being without a particular book means that someone is a victim of censorship means that we're all victims of censorship, even though there aren't any censors.

If getting rid of questionable books were the thin end of the wedge, then we'd get rid of all books, but that never happens. It's only the tiniest handful of politically charged books that are ever challenged. Compare the number of books challenged with the number of books published, and I bet that even under the nightmarish scenario of every challenged book being permanently censored we wouldn't feel much pain. And I mean really censored, not that censored-lite stuff the ALA gets so drunk on. I mean remove the books from society completely. What percentage would be gone? Enough that we couldn't get by okay? I'm not so sure.

This extreme case would definitely be bad, but of course it's inconceivable in our society except among those who dream of totalitarianism, and who pays attention to them. When we narrow down the argument to any particular book, the threat-to-intellectual-freedom argument becomes as weak as water. What particular educational value does the Golden Compass have? Why should this be in school libraries at all? Why should any particular novel be in libraries? Can anyone name any particular novel that's so important for school libraries that its absence is an intellectual disgrace? Can you even name a non-fiction book like that?

Some wonder why I get so annoyed by this "banned" book propaganda. I get annoyed because it's a bunch of lies designed to get us all worried about a threat that doesn't exist so that the ALA can then take a boldly irrelevant stand and provide a solution that's not necessary. What's not to get annoyed about?

The ALA Calls the AL a Spammer

2007-12-10T07:51:00.000-05:00

The ALA sure doesn't like the Annoyed Librarian. Then again, lots of people don't like the AL, so I suppose I'll just have to accept it. Friday's post linked to the ALA Office of Intellectual Freedom's website, which had the ALA President's response to the Golden Compass flap.

The link didn't go to the site itself, however. Instead, it went (and may still go) to an intermediary page that said the following:

"403 Forbidden
Please stop referer spam.

We have identified that you have been refered here by a known or supposed spammer.

If you feel this is an error, please bypass this message and leave us a comment about the error. We are sorry for the inconvenience.

If you are actually doing referer spam, please note that this website/b2evolution no longer records and publishes referers. Not even legitimate ones! While we understand it was fun for you guys while it lasted, please understand our servers cannot take the load of all this cumulated spam any longer... Thank you.

Also, please note that comment/trackback submitted URLs will be tagged with rel="nofollow" in order to be ignored by search engines."

I think this is hilarious. I'm not sure how or why this blog was identified as spam by the ALA, but it might just show the ALA's attitude toward criticism. "Hey," I can imagine some nitwit in the ALA office saying, "why don't we consider any blogs or websites critical of us to be spam? Obviously no sane or thoughtful person could ever be critical of our drivel, so it must be some evil spammer!"

You can still click through to the website, because despite the warning that this blog is spam, they still don't want anyone to miss out on all the thoughtful things the ALA President might have to say about "banned" books.

When you do get to their website, you see "Office for Intellectual Freedom" in large font at the top of the page, and underneath what must be the slogan of the OIF: "Free People Read Freely." That's right, they're happy to defend your intellectual freedom as long as you don't say something they disagree with. Free people should read freely, as long as they don't read the AL. This spamming accusation could mean that for some folks in the ALA, intellectual freedom means the freedom to think like them.

Of course, it could just be a technical glitch, in which case they should just fix it. Since the AL is the #1 library blog in the whole world, surely someone at ALA reads it, and if they're reading this, they can fix this problem. And if nobody there fixes it, then we can be sure that the people in charge are either technically incompetent or just too dumb to tell the difference between this blog and "referer spam" or that they want to deflect any criticism by pretending the critic is a spammer. It could be that they're all of the above. Only time will tell.

Update: Darn it, less than a day and they fixed the problem. With that kind of rapid response, just what am I supposed to be annoyed about now?

More Stupid Banned Book Stuff

2007-12-07T08:13:00.000-05:00

Once again the forces of good and decency that exist to protect the rest of us from the nightmare of totalitarianism have taken up their cudgels against the forces of badness. That's right, there's another "banned" book controversy that has brought out all sorts of silly drivel from various library types.

You might have heard the story of some kid's book called the Golden Compass written by some guy who claims his books kill God or something like that, as if God is in any danger from some kiddie writer. My opinion is, if God can't handle some kiddie fantasy writer, then he doesn't deserve to exist. A Catholic School Board in Canada is reviewing a complaint about the book to decide whether to remove it from their school libraries. Keep this in mind. Catholic schools. Canada. Reviewing the book. That seemed to be the start of it, but no subject is too remote to bring out the high minded drivel of the "banned" books folks.

The Glorious President of ALA of course had something to say, though I'm not sure why anyone in Canada would care what she says. Most people in this country don't even care what she has to say. Nevertheless, she made sure to tell us about how bad "censorship" is, not that any censorship is going on here, of course, since the Golden Compass seems to be widely available. I understand there's even a movie now, which will probably make the book more popular than ever. Unless it goes out of print soon, which is unlikely, it should be around for anyone who wants to read it. If the thought police come to your door to take your copy, please leave a comment on the blog so I can revise my story.

Of course she also mentioned that this same insidious "censorship" is occurring in America, since some Catholic hillbillies in Kentucky have also removed the book from the open stacks of their Catholic schools. Oooh, how frightening. Some Catholic school kids in Kentucky won't be able to check out this book from their school library. They might have to go to their public library for the book. Horror of horrors!

You might have noticed a theme here. Some Catholic schools in Canada and the United States have questioned the appropriateness of this book for their own school systems. The book is widely available in public libraries and bookstores. Nothing has been banned. Nothing has been censored. Some Catholics have decided it's not appropriate for their Catholic students. How is this of any concern to the ALA?

By far the silliest response to this has been by the blogger at Library Juice. His response was to give us a self-righteous paragraph about how we're all free to criticize religion and if anyone was aware that it was illegal to criticize Catholicism would they please let him know, because if it is he'll have to change his plans to emigrate there someday. Yep, emigrate to Canada, we're dealing with one of those. This is the silliest response because it's by far the most irrelevant. What does this pseudo-controversy have to do with citizens of either the US or Canada publicly criticizing religion? A totally ridiculous response.

Since when can't private, Catholic schools decide what is appropriate for their libraries or curricula? This has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech or censorship or anything else. These are private and Catholic school systems. Besides the book not really being banned or censored, since you can get it anywhere, I just don't see how this concerns anyone at all but the parents and students of these schools. How about taking a poll to see if any parents sending their children to these Catholic schools want this book on the shelves? Whatever their answer, it'll certainly be more relevant than the drivel about free speech and censorship coming from librarians in America.

The ALA Astounds Me

2007-12-05T07:21:00.000-05:00

Everyone knows that the average librarian and the ALA are more politically left than the average American. Not that this means much in practice, since no one in Washington pays the slightest attention to the political ramblings of librarians or the ALA, at least as evidenced by the ALA's defeat on just about every political issue it as supported.

Also, the ALA does not usually represent or defend librarians in any way designed to help them find employment. One only has to think of the "librarian shortage" canard to see what I mean. You just have to read the mission statement and see the issues to see that librarians as such aren't very important to the ALA. It's the American Library Association, not librarian association.

But now the ALA has surprised me by reversing both of these tendencies with their position on the "No Child Left Behind" act, which, as we know, is one of President Bush's favorite acts. As you're probably aware, the "No Child Left Behind" act has been opposed for various reasons by many people. Public school teachers and their nefarious unions tend not to like it because they don't like the idea of pay raises being tied to student performance on standardized tests. Of course public school teachers and their unions don't seem to like pay raises being tied to anything other than them marking time in their jobs or moving up into a bloated bureaucracy or getting an "advanced" degree that if possible is even more ridiculous than the MLS, so intelligent and thoughtful people can dismiss their concerns as self-serving.

Plenty of Democrats oppose "No Child Left Behind," too. Coincidence? According to this article, Obama recently said he'd end NCLB if he is elected. According to this, Bill Richardson said to the DNC: "Look at the last twelve months. Not only are we still in Iraq, we still have the failure called No Child Left Behind." Many other Democrats think it needs an "overhaul," which seems to mean spending a lot more money on it without making it accountable in any way, and certainly without giving merit pay to teachers who improve student achievement. (Even if some Democrats secretly did like NCLB, they certainly wouldn't want to oppose any teacher's unions, because as we all know the teacher's unions just want the best for us and our children and to oppose them is to oppose education itself.)

The ALA seems to think the NCLB act is perfect, though, except for one crucial gap--that it doesn't include librarians. This just astounds me, because something the ALA might ordinarily be opposing they support, and they are doing so in a way designed to get librarians jobs. I'm not conversant with the details, and since I have absolutely no personal interest in school libraries or public schools I'm not going to bother to make myself conversant, but as I understand it there's some rule about requiring teachers of various kinds, and since librarians aren't teachers, some schools get rid of their librarians so they can keep the teachers when the budget gets tight. Don't quote me on that. Someone at ALA was telling me about it in earnest tones, but I was distracted because it was almost 6pm and martinis beckoned. Regardless, we can count this as another instance where there isn't a librarian shortage at all. Usually the ALA lies to everyone about that. Why not now?

The ALA wants something called the "Strengthening Kids’ Interest in Learning and Libraries (SKILLs) Act" to be included in an overhaul of NCLB. It's important to have the informal "kids" rather than the proper "children," because otherwise the acronym doesn't work. Among other things, the SKILLs Act:

"* Requires school districts, to the extent feasible, to ensure that every school within the district employs at least one state-certified school library media specialist in each school library;

* Establishes as a state goal that there be at least one state-certified school library media specialist in every public school no later than the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year;"

In other words, for whatever reason, it wants to get school librarians employed. This is absolutely astonishing. The ALA is not only implicitly admitting there's no shortage of school librarians, but they're saying there's a shortage of school librarian jobs and they want a law to fix it. There are some "talking points" about how children don't learn anything without librarians , but I'm not sure many people believe that. Besides, there's a difference between having a library with people working in it, and having a "state-certified school library media specialist in each school library." The whole "state-certified" thing doesn't impress me at all, and I can't help but notice that many of the best schools in the country (i.e., the posh private ones) don't require all this state certification and educrat baloney for their teachers or librarians. But if you can't provide a great education, at least provide some state-certified people. It makes everything look official.

So there we are. Nothing to get me particularly annoyed. This is just my expression of astonishment that the ALA is working on behalf of the school librarians to get more of their noses in the public trough by act of law . . . I mean get more of them employed, and all but approving an act that the Republicans and President Bush support. If Laura Bush could just use her librarian mojo on her husband and and get him to support this SKILLs thing, the ALA might have to endorse a Republican for President.

At least one thing doesn't surprise me. The ALA is supporting a political issue that seems destined to fail, since if this article in the Washington Post is accurate, it looks like Congress may not reauthorize NCLB. No reauthorization, no SKILLs. And once more the ALA spends our dues for nothing.

Library Technologists of the Future

2007-12-03T07:00:00.000-05:00

This was sent in by a fan. Supposedly, these are summaries of student presentations to be given at the end of a library school's required technology course, or perhaps I should say "technology" course. I'm not sure if these are supposed to be individual or group presentations, but I hope group. That would make them much more entertaining as the students vied to demonstrate the intricate workings of an iPod. ("No, wait! Let me show them how to play Brick!") By the way, I don't know any more about these than you do, since I wasn't given the full information. Maybe I'm being hoaxed. The wonderful thing about that possibility is that I don't care.

If not a hoax, this definitely shows that library school is even easier now than it was in my day, whenever that was. As ridiculously easy as I found library school, I can honestly say that I wasn't allowed to stand up in front of a class showing how to use an iPod and call it graduate work. If I recall correctly, I had to stand up and show how to operate a boombox and call it graduate work. "Watch closely, class. You push this little button to play the cassette. And this little knob lets you tune the stereo." I am, of course, joking. My library school wouldn't have let me get away with that, and yet that's exactly the sort of thing library schools are doing today while getting applause from the twopointopians.

So let's take a look at what the library school students of today get to call graduate work. Is it as easy as sitting in class playing videogames?

"*Presentation 1: Jing is a tool for creating and sharing still and video captures of a computer screen. The presenters plan to demonstrate how a librarian could use Jing to create short database or catalog tutorials that can be shared from the library's website or on-the-fly tutorials for chat reference. The presentation will be in the lab (not available for web viewing or archiving)."

I can see where this would be useful for various librarian purposes, tutorials and such. It hardly seems like something worth giving a grade to, though, and I'm assuming these presentations are graded. When I was in school, this was the sort of thing that would have been handled by some extracurricular student presentation just for fun. Still, I suppose I sat through sillier presentations in library school.

"*Presentation 2: Operations of an iPod will be presented to an audience of new users. The intention is to demonstrate the creation of learning modules for library instruction. A 5th generation iPod will be used for this demonstration."

A 5th generation iPod for a 5th grade presentation. Seems appropriate.

"*Presentation 3: The presenters will give a demonstration of how to play the game Guitar Hero. Presentation will include how this device can be used to help a person's hand-eye coordination, and also be a fun activity for older children, young adults, and older adults. Content will include discussion on how this can be used within a public library setting."

Yay! More sitting in class playing videogames. What a great way to turn your puerile hobby into an exercise for "graduate" school! Isn't this the game where you pretend to play guitar even though you don't really need to know how? That seems perfect for library school, where people pretend to be graduate students while spending their time in class playing videogames.

"*Presentation 4: This module will demonstrate the basic features of the Magellen Explorist line of GPS units. The objective is to show how a GPS system can be incorporated into a library setting or library use. A geocaching element is also included in the training module. (Portions of this module will be held outside, weather permitting.)"

Now this one is new to me, not GPS units, but claiming they can be "incorporated into a library setting or library use." Good luck meeting that objective. I'm still trying to figure out what demonstrating anything outside has to do with being in the library. Is it just me, or does it seem like some geocaching library student needed to present on something "technological" and grabbed the first thing handy? A GPS system for a library? I suppose this is information technology of a sort, but it seems unlikely that any libraries would need this. Even the bookmobile probably takes the same route all the time. Oh, wait, maybe if you worked in a really big library and were stupid enough to get lost all the time, this could be useful. The "geocaching element" is a clue, I think, that this is another way to turn a hobby into a "graduate" school presentation. I should have been allowed to demonstrate a little technology called the cocktail shaker with the objective of incorporating it into a library setting.

If possible, library school is easier than ever if this is what passes for technology education. Or perhaps we're starting to see a decline into the library version of the future envisioned by H.G. Wells in The Time Machine. If you've ever read that book, you know the future population is divided into the brutal but capable Morlocks and the harmless and helpless Eloi. In Wells's socialist vision, the Morlocks are the descendants of the working classes, who were forced to work underground until they became pale and stunted but at least are able to do things. The Eloi are the descendants of the bourgeoisie who no longer know how to do anything, but are just around to giggle and look at pretty flowers and provide food for the Morlocks.

Consider this vision as we look at library technology education. There are those library school students who learn to program computers and build systems and create useful technological stuff for their libraries. And then there are those students who learn to demonstrate iPods and play videogames. We all know that systems librarians and programmers and such like to sit in the dark and are just mean and have all the power and want to use the rest of us for food. Obviously they're the Morlocks. When we see students getting graduate credit for playing videogames in class, I think we know who the Eloi are going to be.

Libraries Need to Deliver the MOM Factor

2007-11-28T07:01:00.000-05:00

Over at LIS News I read about some blogger saying we need to deliver the "Wow factor" in libraries. LIS News seemed excited, but you know me well enough by now to tell that I wasn't. I didn't click through to see if there were any exclamation points used, but obviously there should be. The WOW! Factor! Etc.

Here's the excerpt from LIS News: "As in so many other areas of our profession that need change, another critically important one is to change our own ways of thinking about how to do business. We absolutely must pay more attention to how we can impress our user communities, and what must be done to leverage that to increase our visibility, community buzz and word of mouth about the library."

Whenever I hear words like "business" or "leverage" in a discussion of libraries I usually lose interest. Next thing you know we're talking about "customers," "selling," "synergy," "marketing," "availability floats," "margin accounts" and all the other things that sensitive, cerebral, non-commercial types like myself got into librarianship to escape. I know some librarians get all excited when they think about the latest insipid management fad or marketing technique, but I do wish they would just go work for the Man out in the business world and save the rest of us from this drivel. Apparently they haven't realized that this stuff doesn't work in libraries, because libraries lack things found out in the business world such as profit margins and financial incentives. Perhaps you've heard of them. We can all work ourselves to death delivering the WOW Factor! and we still won't get rewarded for it. Oh, I know, there's the reward of a job well done. Try telling that to a sales manager or an investment banker and see what kind of laugh you'll get. Besides, I don't want to work myself to death. That's why I became a librarian.

No, we'll have to do better than silly phrases like "WOW Factor!," and I think we can. Librarians need to turn such silly phrases on their head, and if you turn WOW on its head, you know what you get? MOM. Isn't that sweet. It's true, too. Just try it and see. What libraries can deliver is the MOM Factor.

And what is the MOM Factor? It's all the stuff good moms should be. Let's explore this for a moment. First, good moms are boring. By that I don't mean they have no interests and have nothing to say. I mean they don't disrupt things too much. Good moms don't get thrown in jail for peddling drugs, nor do they suddenly run off to Acapulco with the gardener. They don't get so obsessed with their latest hobby (tennis, golf, whatever) that they can speak of nothing else, and they don't throw out all your old books and stuff to make room for Dance Dance Revolution parties. They keep your stuff because they know it'll be important to you someday, and that just because something isn't used every day doesn't mean it's not important.

Good moms are there for you, always ready with a cup of tea and a cheering word. They help you when you need help, and that knowledge is like a warm throw on a winter evening. However, they know to let you have your privacy. They aren't always invading your life to tell you how great they are and how much they could do for you if you'd just recognize that greatness. They also don't spend all their time fretting about whether the rise of Google means that moms aren't necessary anymore. Moms don't market or sell themselves. Why should they? They're your mom. Moms are there when you need them and happy to help. They want you to succeed on your own, but they want you to know that you can always come to them if you're having trouble. And when you're grown up and not around all the time, they go about their business because they have lives, too.

Doesn't this sound more cozy and comfortable and useful than that silly old "WOW Factor"? Most of us don't want to be wowed. We want the MOM Factor, and libraries can provide that. Librarians should be welcoming but not too pushy, helpful but not too invasive. Librarians should say, come on in, sit down, have a cuppa, and tell mom what you're looking for.

Are Librarians Happy?

2007-11-26T07:01:00.000-05:00

I hope everyone had a lovely Thanksgiving, gobbling too much turkey and pie and spending endless amounts of time with your tedious relatives. That's the sort of thing that makes this country great.

Now that I've dispensed with the pleasantries, we can get to this week's question, a question that always burns brightly in the librarian sky, a question that inevitably calls forth the profound intellectual speculation that librarians are known for: are you happy?

According to Time Magazine, you're not. They don't think you're necessarily unhappy, but you're definitely not happy. A kind reader brought to my attention the November 26th issue of Time and its report of happiness on the job. Finally, I tracked down a copy. This is the issue that tells us what the "average American" is like, that tries to answer for us the supposed "key question" of whether Giuliani's loyalties are misplaced, that gives us an in-depth interview with John Bolton consisting of questions sent in by readers even more annoying than he is, and that concludes with an essay by some woman in love with her gizmos. In other words, it's the same stupid crap that caused me to stop reading Time when I was in high school.

Nevertheless, when a magazine like Time mentions librarians, we should all take notice, if only for entertainment's sake. Somewhere near the center of the magazine is a chart of how happy people are with their jobs, from gas station attendants (least happy) to clergy (most happy). (I would tell you the exact page, but as usual with these popular magazines the editors think putting a number on every page would be a waste of time, because who would ever want to cite this garbage anyway.) On the chart of job happiness, librarians are right in the middle, and I do mean middle. The chart takes up two pages, and the L in librarians is lost in the fold. Unhappy people are in red, happy in blue (do I detect some political commentary here?), and the vast middle is in brown. When we talk about vast middles, we know we're talking about librarians, which may be why they're in the exact center, in between waiters/waitresses (slightly less happy) and mechanical engineers and electricians (slightly more happy).

But could this be? Could librarians be less happy than truck drivers, hairdressers, and dental assistants? Or less happy that some jobs comparable to librarian, such as preschool teachers, secretaries, and purchasing agents? And these folks are all still brown. Librarians on average are considerably less happy than reservation and ticket agents, butlers, and school administrators, though considerably more happy than such comparable jobs as welfare service aids, amusement park attendants, and maids.

The problem with this analysis is that it defies public verification. Try getting this impression from the greater bibliotek blogland, where the eternal pose of pant-wetting excitement is de rigueur among most bloggers, where they all have to put on a show for us demonstrating how passionate and concerned and thoughtful they all are. No, these people are obviously always ecstatic, so they must be at the high end of the scale. Of course there are those anonymous bibliotek bloggers who complain all the time. I suppose they must be on the low end of the scale. This doesn't leave much room in the middle, where the majority would seem to be.

Thus I wonder if this Time calculation is really true, that most of us, the average librarians, plod through our jobs, neither happy nor unhappy, bored automatons selecting books, checking out DVDs, and playing videogames. Maybe this Time Magazine is on to something for once.

Another Granite State Opportunity

2007-11-21T07:23:00.000-05:00

Before I say anything else, I just want to say that I love my readers, cranky critics and all. For those of you who read the AL through a feed reader and never check the comments, I can only say you don't know what you're missing. A blog post is a small, frail thing, but the vigorous discussion it might provoke can change or enlighten a mind.

Okay, now it's time to stop being so sappy and talk about library jobs that suck.

I haven't posted an official Library Job that Sucks in a long time, and I haven't even mentioned a sucky job in almost a year. I went back and checked, and the last one was December of last year, and it was in New Hampshire of all places. Now I'm returning to the scene of the crime. You'd think a state with no income tax wouldn't be so annoying.

The official Library Jobs that Suck category is restricted to jobs that REALLY suck, that suck way more than most library jobs. The library jobs that suck the most are the ones that are temporary and that don't really exist. If you're advertising to build a "pool" of candidates that might get some temporary "professional" library work, then you're advertising for a library job that sucks and you should be ashamed of yourself. And there are sucky library jobs that won't make the list, like the one in the ad a kind reader sent in for this library in upstate New York looking for a public library director for $18-20,000 a year. Maybe the cost of living is cheap, but considering they want an MLS and expect the person to work for a living, it sucks.

This ad seems like it's for a library job that sucks, once more in the Granite State. The Lane Memorial Library in Hampton, NH is looking for a library director. No, that's not quite accurate. They're looking for a temporary library director, to serve for 2-6 months (without benefits, of course). Who the hell looks for a temporary library director? What is the problem here? Is the library director off on maternity leave or something? Can't they get by for a brief period without a director, or with an interim director? Presumably they don't have a director now, because the job starts immediately. Isn't that motivation enough to hire a permanent director? This is advertised nationally, but something tells me it's for an internal candidate. Who else would apply for this position?

Though this might be temporary, the duties aren't light. Here are some of the duties:

"o Develop and maintain the library’s strategic plan, outlining immediate and long range goals, together with the Library’s Board of Trustees."

And how exactly is someone there for 2-6 months going to set any long range goals?

"o Responsible for recommending and writing needed policies and procedures, which incorporate library best practice. Implement adopted policies."

How many policies and procedures to they hope to get out of this temporary person? Don't they think the permanent person, if they ever stoop to hiring one, will just change them anyway?

"o Responsible for all staff supervision and supervision of department heads. Will oversee Interviewing, recommending for hire, training, scheduling, and evaluating all library staff."

Oh, yeah, lots of interviewing and training will be going on, I'm sure. With this sort of temporary commitment to the library, why would anyone else apply? And I bet a temp director could put off those evaluations indefinitely.

"o Prepare and propose to Trustees the annual operating budget for the Library. Administer the accepted budget."

And be quick about it, because you don't have long.

"o Prepare financial and narrative reports for distribution at monthly Board meetings."

Fortunately you'll only have to do this 2-6 times.

"o Write grant proposals and pursue other fundraising opportunities to actualize library goals."

Sure, write the proposal, but you won't be around to get the grant. And it's a good thing fundraising doesn't take any time and you don't have to cultivate donors or anything. Two months should do it.

"o Determine community interests and develop responsive new programs and services, incorporating new technologies to enhance service delivery whenever possible."

You'll be expected to determine community interests the first day, then develop some programs the next.

"o Oversee library public relations, including writing press releases, outreach, and marketing services."

If the library is only interested in hiring temp directors, maybe they shouldn't relate to the public very much.

"o Participate in daily library functions (circulation, reference, etc.), as needed."

When you're not working with donors or servicing the library board.

And for a very short temp position, they sure don't want much. The only qualifications are "a Master’s Degree in Library Science from an ALA accredited college or university and five to seven years of professional library experience, with three years in an administrative capacity, ... a thorough knowledge of municipal government and applicable RSA’s, modern library principles and best practices; experience with teambuilding and human resource management; the ability to recruit, train, and motivate staff for optimal public service delivery; a strong understanding of information technology and its application in public libraries; the ability to demonstrate courtesy and tact in all interactions with community members; the ability to develop and manage budgets; the ability to work effectively with town employees, the Friends, the Board of Trustees, and other elected town officials; and have good communication, public relations, and presentation skills."

That doesn't seem like much to ask for a 2-6 month temporary position with no benefits. Sign me up, baby! I bet librarians with those qualifications are just lining up outside this library begging for interviews.

They claim to offer a "Competitive Salary, commensurate with Experience." I just bet it'll be competitive-- with all the other temporary library director positions in New Hampshire. The ad says "Starting as soon as possible." They don't want you for long, but they want you to start soon, so it seems obvious that consideration of their employees isn't something you'll find there. Good luck on the application. If you tell them the AL sent you, your application moves to the top of the queue. Based on this ad, if anyone at all worthwhile applies, their application just might be the queue.

Oh, and have a happy Thanksgiving. I'll be giving thanks and gobbling turkey and all that sort of stuff, and I hope you will be, too.

The AL Advice Column

2007-11-19T07:14:00.000-05:00

Reading back through the comments to last Friday's post, I noticed one from a library school student seeking advice, the query being more or less, is it really as bad as it seems after reading the AL. I have some sympathy for library school students; after all, I was one once myself. To be honest, when I started the AL I didn't consider that any students would be reading. It was more one professional griping to other professionals for fun. This sounds a bit inappropriate considering that a lot of library school students are probably even older than I am now, but when students first started reading and responding to the AL, it felt a little like the children were eavesdropping on the adult's conversation. I don't mean to sound patronizing, it's just that the discussions here usually tend to revolve around issues of relevance only for those who have left the cozy library school world of group work and tedious assignments for the harsh professional world of group work and tedious assignments.

For example, I rarely address the plight of the non-professional library worker, though more through ignorance than negligence. I work with many non-professional staff, but I don't tend to think of them any differently than the professional staff. In the immortal words of Depeche Mode, people are people. I know in some libraries there is a more rigid class structure than I'm used to, and a lot of ill treatment by both the library patrons and the so-called professional librarians, but I'm not the one to address that. There should be a blog called Annoyed Library Worker for that, and I'd be happy to add it to the blogroll.

Once I began addressing library school and folks began commenting one way or another on the experience, I should have expected some library school students to read, and, as you all know, I'm happy to dispense advice as if it were water, murky and bilious water perhaps, but still water. My previous advice still stands: get out now and save yourselves! Despite my advice, people keep entering library school, no doubt attracted by the ALA's Top Ten Reasons to Be a Librarian.

So here's the query, to which I'll respond in parts. Please feel free to advise this student as well. Some of you seem to think I'm too harsh and bitter and not perky or constructive enough. Here's your chance to set the record straight for this student. I'm going try to be perkier and more constructive than usual as well. We have to be gentle with the students, because we need them to graduate and get jobs so they can support us in our dotage at the old librarians' home.

"Over the past week I've been reading the AL's blog and have been horrified of what I've read! I'm currently in the process of wrapping up my first quarter in an MLS program and am feeling very doubtful about my career decision after having read all of your comments."

That's understandable. I've been a librarian for years and am still feeling doubtful about my career decision. Remember, if you're able to get a job, you won't have to work very hard. The expectations are low in every area, from performance to fashion. You won't get paid much, but you'll have the satisfaction of knowing you're saving the world one library card at a time. No amount of money in the world could replace that feeling.

"Of course, I'm not founding my fears on the comments of strangers alone, as I've been working a VERY part-time student assistant position at my local public library and have, on more than one occasion, referred to our fine institution as nothing more than a glorified Blockbuster. The attitude of patrons can only be described as demanding and cruel, as they treat us library workers as if we were sub-human scum."

Your institution probably is a glorified Blockbuster, but in this you are not alone. That's how the librarians of the future prefer it, so get used to it. As for being treated as sub-human scum by the patrons, this should change after you become a genuine professional librarian. Then you'll be treated as ordinary human scum, which is much better. No, I shouldn't say that. It must depend on the library, because I've never been treated as scum by library patrons, only by some of my colleagues.

"I realize that no career is going to be a picnic, and this is, after all, a public service position, but I'm beginning to feel that I am truly squandering my money on a degree that will leave me working for a mere $6 an hour, which is what all non-salaried staff at my library currently makes. It's very discouraging to hear employees that have been with the library for 4-5+ years complain about not even having the money for routine car repairs or clothes. How will I pay back these student loans if I can't even afford an oil change?"

Hmmm, the $6/hour does sound low, but surely the professional librarians get paid much more, perhaps even as much as $12/hour! How will you pay back the student loans? That's a different question. My advice is, don't take out any more loans, because you'll probably still be paying them back out of your Social Security. Don't borrow money for library school. Don't pay any outlandish tuition for library school. If you can't go cheaply in-state or get some sort of assistantship or get your employer to pay for it, think about doing something else. On the plus side, you might not even be able to afford a car, so worrying about an oil change is a sign that you're a hopeful person. Hopefulness goes a long way, except in a car with no oil.

"In my heart I'm clinging to the idea of working in the libraries because of my love for books (I know, I know ...it's stupid) and sharing that love with others. However, even the patrons that DO use the library for reading resources are checking out "light romances" and popular fiction ...basically, GARBAGE."

This warms the cockles of my heart, and there's nothing I like more than hot cockles. If you love books and reading and think most pop fiction is garbage, it definitely sounds like you're in the wrong place. The public library is the place to get pop fiction garbage and DVDs. Add Internet porn and video games, and you have the raison d'etre of the library. You should set your sights on an academic library, where there still are people who love books and reading and where one rarely finds the atmosphere of an Internet arcade cum rec center. It's not all as bad as your library. The grass really can be greener. Not much greener, certainly, but what do you expect.

"Advice ...? :( You're all scaring me!"

I'm all out of advice. It's up to you, kind readers, to share your wisdom.

National Librarian Strike?

2007-11-16T07:47:00.000-05:00

We're well into the second week of the Hollywood writer's strike. I haven't noticed much difference, since I don't watch a lot of TV. I just don't seem to have the time to sit down in front of the television, even if I did have cable. Besides, if I want to watch a TV show, I can catch a lot of them online, which for some reason seems to bother the writers. They want to get paid when people watch their TV show episodes online. Apparently they haven't accepted the obvious point the studios make that this online content is just "promotional." That's why I watch the shows online, so they can promote themselves to me. Somehow I never seem to get past the promotional materials, though. Actually, I usually don't even get to the "promotional" materials. Thus, the writer's strike has almost no effect on my life.

As many of you know, there was also a librarian strike recently--no, a library worker strike, since the libraries shut down completely. The Vancouver libraries shut down for about three months because everyone was striking. The library workers were determined, too, since they stayed out longer than the rest of the city workers. Apparently they still didn't get their demands met, though, which brings me to the subject of this post.

People seem to care that the Hollywood writers are on strike. If there were a national librarian strike--and I mean just the glorified "professional" librarians, not those mere support staff who do most of the dirty work--would anyone care? How long would it take for anyone to notice?

Some of the regressive librarians want everyone in the world to unionize, presumably so they can strike and make everyone else's lives miserable until they get their way. Consider the current transport workers strike in France. The transport workers have cushier early retirement benefits than many other French workers, Sarkozy wants to trim them back, save taxpayer's money, and bring the benefits in line with most French workers. The transport workers want none of this, of course, since they naturally like the special privileges they get. So to keep their special tax-subsidized privileges they shut down most of the public transportation in France, making life more difficult for everyone else, not in the interest of the common good, but merely for their own special interest. People in cities notice it when trains and buses stop running.

But what about the librarians? If libraries shut down completely, sure some people would notice. They wouldn't have the easy access to their Internet arcade cum rec center that they do now. But if just the librarians struck, this wouldn't be the case, as long as someone else had the key to the library and the computers were running. I think it might be a long time before anyone would notice if the librarians struck.

The excitable amongst you are probably saying, no, don't listen, that's just the AL being mean again! She just doesn't like libraries! Well, that might be true, but I doubt it. It's more the case that the rhetoric coming from a lot of librarians doesn't match the reality. Some excited and desperate librarians want the library to be all things to all people, but if the library is all things to all people, then it is a library for only a few people. Instead of showing that librarians are necessary, some librarians want to show that they can also be social workers and party planners and such.

Consider, though, this assertion from a recent LJ article: "We have a lot of work to do to help our users become more critically aware of the difference between a vague information want, superficially met, and a more focused information need that is deeply satisfied. So far, we seem to have focused more on marketing our image than actually providing indispensable service." I would add that many librarians are also promoting an incoherent universality for libraries rather than providing indispensable library service. Either way, when the librarians strike, it might be that no one will notice.

Meredith Farkas Has Gone Too Far!

2007-11-14T07:01:00.000-05:00

Just when I thought we'd settled once and for all that Meredith Farkas isn't the Annoyed Librarian, she has to go and write like an annoyed librarian. She's complaining about the ALA again, this time about how damned expensive it is and how the conferences cost a bundle and don't do anything worthwhile and asking why we can't have "virtual" participation and stuff like that. Ahh, these kids today. You can read the whole post, but here's the concluding paragraph:

"So my generation is alternatively skeptical of what the ALA can offer us and passionate about working to improve the profession. If participation continues to mean making the kind of sacrifices it does now, the ALA is going to lose my generation, save those whose libraries fund their participation in ALA or who have to participate in ALA to get tenure. Not that they won’t still do great things for the profession; they’ll just do it outside of ALA. There need to be more ways that people can come together and create something like the BIGWIG Social Software Showcase or Five Weeks to a Social Library within the confines of the ALA. While we can talk about revenue streams until the cows come home, if we don’t attract new members with benefits that speak to their needs/wants, you will lose untold money in the long run. We can’t pretend that things haven’t changed."

As far as I'm concerned, Meredith Farkas has gone too far! This is just crazy talk, and I think it should stop right now, Miss Missy. Though I might criticize the ALA as an organization, I stand firmly behind the need for conferences every year, and I applaud the steadily rising expenses of participation in ALA.

First, let's deal with the expenses. My ALA dues this year were enormous. Fortunately, I don't have to pay them out of my own pocket, because if I did, it would depress me. Do you know how many martinis I could buy for $200 or so? At least a dozen where I come from, and a lot more if I make them at home. A dozen martinis or a dozen issues of American Libraries going unread into my recycling bin--not exactly a hard choice, is it? And the conferences! I don't know how much I blow each year on ALA conferences. I don't really keep track. It's only money, and not my money anyway. Still, I think the high cost is absolutely necessary to keep out the riff-raff.

Yes, you heard me right. These things are so expensive because we don't want every librarian out there joining, now do we? If every librarian joined, then it wouldn't be the nice exclusive club that the ALA is now. And you can imagine if the riff-raff came out in force to the conferences. I shudder to think. Admittedly, there are some riff-raff now, but they're easily spotted. They're the librarians stuffing their tote bags with piles of free pens and pads and posters and every sparkly thing they can grab by the chubby fistful as they waddle along the conference aisles. We see them. We avoid them. But if ALA were cheap, we'd have more of them, and they would be harder to avoid.

As for the conferences, of course we need the conferences. If we started allowing a lot of "virtual" participation, then we wouldn't have anywhere to go, and if we didn't have anywhere to go, then we couldn't eat and drink on the library's tab, now could we. My library sure isn't going to shell out $1000 for me to take my laptop to bars and restaurants and socialize "virtually." I need to be there, baby, and besides, I don't want to spill my martini on my computer. As long as my library administration is under the impression that we all get some professional benefit out of ALA, so much the better. I encourage this delusion in all libraries.

Also, if we didn't have conferences, then the ALA couldn't get all that booth money from vendors who then sit around complaining about how no librarians ever stop at their booths. The only librarians they ever see are the ones trying to grab fistfuls of pens. The clever vendors just put out one pen at a time, and then remove it when they see old Cat Sweater Person hoving into view for the fourth time. See, it's not just librarians who pay a lot to go to ALA; it's the vendors, too. The ALA needs that money, and it's not just the ALA. Without the vendors there, who would pay for all the free receptions? Who would take all the librarians out for free dinners? No one, that's who. It's all a delightful perpetuating cycle designed to get librarians free food and drink. I don't know about you, Meredith, but I think that's a good thing.

I suppose there must be some professional benefit to attending ALA. I can't think of any, but I cant believe all the people who claim to get some benefit from ALA are lying. Many of them are very nice people, and I just don't think they'd lie. But professional benefits pale in comparison to free booze and free dinners. I think we can all agree on that, at least.

And it's not like ALA doesn't do a lot of great stuff for all the money they get. There's a whole Washington office they have to fund, which spends its time lobbying unsuccessfully on all sorts of political issues. Oh, and there's the impressive ALA website, what we all know to be a model of its kind. That kind of work doesn't come cheap. And of course there's the free bar every day at the ALA headquarters in Chicago. This might seem extravagant, but it's the only way any intelligent people can stand to work there. And don't forget about how the ALA protects our intellectual freedom from worried mothers in Bumflap, GA who ask to have "I Married a Dead Gay Penguin" removed from the shelves of their local grade school library. Without the ALA, we would have no intellectual freedom, and you should just pay your dues and thank God there's an ALA around to protect yours, you little ingrate.

So you can complain all you like about how your generation needs this or wants that, about how everything has changed, about how you're all passionate and whatnot about the profession. I've heard it all before. All those old, jaded, slack-eyed lumps you see around the ALA conference were once that way as well. But with age comes wisdom, and eventually you'll realize that there are far more important things than doing great deeds for the profession (which hasn't ever been much of a practical concern for the ALA). Instead of complaining that ALA is for the haves and those on the tenure track, you need to make yourself a have on the tenure track and bask in the glory. That way you can take advantage of what ALA has to offer--free food and booze. The entire machinery of ALA revolves around making sure I can get away from work for two weeks a year and eat and drink at the library's expense. I can't think of any greater good than that.

The AL as Therapeutic and Diagnostic Library Blog

2007-11-12T08:22:00.000-05:00

Now that it's settled who I'm not, I can get on to the exciting business of telling you who I am. I can get on to that exciting business, but of course I won't. Instead, I want to talk about one of my favorite subjects, me, or at least my blog.

This is nothing earth-shattering. I've just been ruminating as I sometimes do on why I bother writing this darned blog. After a couple of martinis of a Saturday evening, I sometimes think I should just give it up and do something good for my career. So I've been trying to justify the time spent writing this thing to myself.

Personally, about the best thing I can come up with is that the AL is therapeutic. Writing this is a good way to let off steam and have a little fun. When I began that's pretty much all it was, letting off steam and having a little fun, mostly for the entertainment of myself and the handful of cranky readers I gathered early on. I still write the blog mostly for those reasons, even though I now know more people read, and certainly a lot more people respond to the posts. The readers and comments certainly help keep me going, but the therapeutic value is also worthwhile. Better write a blog than take pills, though my critics might disagree.

It may be the case that others read the AL for therapy as well. I get comments and emails along the lines of, "I thought I was the only one until I found the AL" or "Reading the AL got me through the morning." It's nice to hear, and I only wish my little team of assistants and I could crank this stuff out more quickly, just in case some poor librarian goes crazy one morning waiting for an AL fix that never comes. Thus, the AL is possibly therapeutic for more librarians than just me, especially some of the more, er, disturbed readers of the AL. I think it's obvious based on the comments that I've got a handful of readers who are very unhappy or angry. Some librarians are dismayed by some of the comments, but the comments offer people a way to vent without going crazy at work. They provide a service not available or allowed elsewhere. Fortunately for us all, the existence of the AL means that we'll never have to hear people use phrases like "go librarian" the way we now have "go postal." All part of my public service.

But it also seems to serve a diagnostic function for the readers as well. I'm sure you'd love to diagnose me sometime (the AL: narcissistic personality disorder and megalomania, combined with a large portion of irony and apathy, sung to the tune of "Ebony and Ivory"). But it's clear that how you respond to the AL says as much about you as it does about the blog.

Early on there were the regressive librarians, who used to fume like crazy that there was someone reasonably articulate who made fun of their silly attempts to politicize the ALA with their totalitarian stylings. Lots of librarians of many different political persuasions don't want to politicize the ALA, and say so in comments and emails. The regressives sputtered, as one prominent regressive once said of himself, and just came off looking ridiculous. Since their ass-kicking at ALA last midwinter, I haven't heard much from the regressives. You've been diagnosed as a regressive librarian if you get angry that someone makes fun of attempts to politicize the ALA.

Then there are the twopointopians. You've been diagnosed as a twopointopian if you get irritated by the term rather than think it's amusing. If it makes you mad that someone is criticizing something called the cult of twopointopia, then you're probably part of that cult. If it doesn't bother you, then you're not part of the cult, no matter how "2.0" you might be professionally. The AL's just a Rorschach Test. You see what you want to see in it.

Oh, and of course there's the handful of pseudonym-haters, the ones who get so upset both that the AL is pseudonymous and that I allow anonymous comments and rarely delete any (though I do delete the ones that are nothing but ad hominem attacks or that use language inappropriate for this family blog). Some people just get so bothered. But since most people don't seem to be bothered, I think that says a lot about the people being bothered. Is it a lack of control that they'd like to have but don't? They don't have to read, of course, but they don't want anyone else to read either. They just get so frustrated. I'm sure there's something in the DSM-IV-TR that would cover their condition, but their attitude says as much about them as about the AL.

We shouldn't leave out the ones who just really don't want to know who writes the AL. I suppose for them the AL is more therapy than diagnosis, though. They think they'd be disappointed if they found out who the real author was. They very well might be. One of the things I found amusing about the speculations that Meredith Farkas writes the AL (which I like to think of as the Farkas Fracas) is the assumption that when/if the AL is unmasked, it will turn out to be someone you've heard of. Maybe, maybe not. I don't want to spoil it for you. But what if the AL turned out to be just some bored librarian or group of librarians sitting around having a lark? Would that lessen the impact? Or what if the AL turned out to be someone ensconced in ALA headquarters? Does it matter at all who writes the AL? Does the identity of the author(s) somehow change what's written? All questions I might consider when I write my memoirs, tentatively entitled, of course, Relaxin' with the AL. I might as well use the title now that the blog is defunct.

For me, all this just adds an extra and fun dimension to writing the AL. As you read the AL (or anything else, I'm not being egocentric), to a great extent you project onto the AL what you want or hope or fear. The fun part is that as you're reading the AL, I might just be reading you.

Meredith Farkas is NOT the Annoyed Librarian

2007-11-09T09:00:00.000-05:00

There's been some speculation in the comments of this blog, her blog, and even at some blogger dinners that Meredith Farkas writes the Annoyed Librarian. I want to state emphatically that this isn't the case. Meredith Farkas has no connection to the Annoyed Librarian, and that should be obvious to anyone who reads both of our blogs.

Just because Meredith has taken up the AL's cause in the war over blogger anonymity or because the AL came in #1 on her library blog survey (even though no one actually voted for the AL) doesn't mean that she writes this blog.

Just consider the stylistic differences between our blogs. I write unusually long blog posts with lengthy paragraphs that are often satirical and sarcastic, which some people claim I can do because my real name isn't attached to them, whereas Meredith writes unusually long blog posts with lengthy paragraphs which are rarely satirical and sarcastic, because even though she might want to be sarcastic people know who she is and she has a career to think of. There's probably also no correlation between our blogging frequency, either, with my monthly number of posts high during months when hers are low and vice versa, though I couldn't check that without doing some research. On second thought, I don’t think you should bother doing that research. I’m sure there’s nothing interesting there. Oh, and she uses Wordpress, while I use Blogger. That's a huge difference right there.

Note as well our different accomplishments. As anyone who reads my profile will know, I'm possibly the most successful, respected, and desirable librarian of my generation. Meredith, on the other hand, has merely developed a high profile library blog, given myriad presentations, written a book, designed the popular Five Weeks to a Social Library course, put together the Library Success Wiki and several ALA conference wikis, become an American Libraries columnist, been asked to adjunct at a library school, and been named an LJ Mover and Shaker, all within three years of becoming a librarian. As you can see, these two profiles just don't match at all.

Finally, there’s just the enormous difference in tone and content. Meredith is cheery and upbeat most of the time, while the AL is pessimistic and critical. True, Meredith has occasionally been pessimistic and critical in the past, such as when she used to criticize the ALA, but that was a long time ago, before the AL came along to criticize the ALA. Sure, it's true that one of her criticisms involved the alleged librarian job shortage that the ALA is always promoting as just around the corner, but that was back before the AL came along to criticize the job shortage hoax. Now that the AL's around, Meredith doesn't have to write about that topic anymore. She can be cheery and upbeat and say nice things about the ALA and get to be a columnist for American Libraries. She wouldn't have been able to do that saying mean things about the ALA under her own name. And sure, it's true that Meredith argued that the ALA should "raise the accreditation standards for library schools" so that they were more rigorous, but that was back before the AL came along claiming library school was an intellectual joke and the ALA should raise the accreditation standards. Meredith doesn't have to write about stuff like that anymore now that the AL's around.

And Meredith writes about social software and library 2.0 and such, and it’s obvious that I’ve never even heard of most of those trendy things. Oh, and she never writes about public libraries. That’s definitely one topic we haven’t both written on. That’s because she’s an academic librarian. I guess I’m an academic librarian, too, but I probably don’t work at Norwich University in Vermont. Everyone knows I don’t like rural areas and that I prefer civilization, and if I don’t like rural areas I couldn’t very well live in one, now could I? No, I couldn’t.

These are just a few of the many obvious reasons why Meredith Farkas isn’t the Annoyed Librarian. There, I hope that has gone a long way to set the record straight.

And thanks for reading!

Harry Potter versus the Librarians

2007-11-07T07:27:00.000-05:00

Via LIS News I read this article about J.K. Rowling, the author of a series of children's novels that have somehow become the touchstone of what passes for culture in this country. I haven't read any of them, because I read only grownup books, but other librarians seem to gobble them up like chocolate, of which they might be the literary equivalent. During the annoying lead up to the release of the final (it is to be hoped) volume of the series, one couldn't escape from morons speculating on, well, whatever it is morons speculate about regarding Harry Potter. And the librarians were the worst.

Now I hope the love affair is over for all you Pottery librarians out there, because Rowling has declared war on the mainstay of our profession--the reference book. She's suing a publisher over a Harry Potter lexicon that she claims violates her intellectual property rights. I guess writing anything about Harry Potter at all is a violation of her property rights, so I hope she doesn't run across this blog and try to sue me. This reference book was written by a librarian, naturally, because who else would think anyone wanted another reference book.

As librarians, we can't tolerate this sort of behavior from mere authors. Doesn't Rowling know that the reference book is sacred to all real librarians? That we think reference books are the most important kinds of books? That if there's no reference book on the subject then as far as we're concerned the subject doesn't really exist?

It was bad enough inflicting so many tedious children's novels upon the world, but now she's gone too far! Librarians should rise up against the oppressive, anti-reference book regime that Rowling would like to see enforced. I expect the ALA to make a stand on this, to put Rowling in her place. After that, I expect librarians to boycott other Rowling works, to toss those Potter books off the shelves and into the pulp machine. We'll teach her not to mess with the librarians.

We Know What Library Five-0 Is and Is Not

2007-11-05T07:26:00.000-05:00

Before we begin, I'd like to apologize for the technical problems last week. That Annie Linney is sneaky, and I was totally unprepared for the powerful computer skills she'd honed playing videogames with pimply teenagers. I had to give my security team a good tongue-lashing. Then I sent them out to find Annie and euthanize her, which I figured would be best for all of us. However, she was so bubbly and apologetic once she realized that my security team meant what they said about the maple syrup and the Valium that I relented, and even agreed that I might let her guest post again some time in the distant future. We satisfied ourselves by driving over her laptop with the East Skeeter Public Library bookmobile and making her write a thousand times on the ESPL white board: "I will not hack the AL."

So down to business. We here at the Annoyed Librarian Flea Libary know things about Libraries 1.0 and 2.0, as well as 3.0 and 4.0 (which we've long past). As my long time readers know, the ALFL is a Library Five-0 library, and we're darn proud of it. Considering we've been Library Five-0 for a year and a half, we might have to upgrade to Library Six-0, but we change so constantly we no longer know where everyone is supposed to show up for work, either in person or virtually. While some twopointopians have lately been going on about Library 2.0 as if anyone cared anymore, and some others have been commenting upon their goings on, I thought it would behoove us all to see where the real trends are leading. Library 2.0 and the twopointopians (which might make a good name for a bad band) are sooo last year. Library Five-0 is the future, baby, and, I might add, is the only library trend with its own cool theme song. Since you may be confused about Library Five-0, I'll share some incontrovertible and indisputable facts with you, since I know what Library Five-0 is and is not, and you, obviously, don't.

Library Five-0 is librarian-centric. Actually, we could go further than that. Library Five-0 is techie librarian-centric. Library Five-0 is for all of you librarians feeling useless and unappreciated, who want to show library users how cool and techie you are. This proves that the librarians actually know about something. Unfortunately, it's not anything the users care about, but that's not the point. The point is to show that instead of being shushing spinsters who know about yucky old books and stuff like that, librarians are now computer geeks who go to conferences to get out of their little computer techie shells, get together with a large group of real people, and then spend the entire time blogging about their surroundings. Yep, that's bound to impress normal people as the kind of thing they want from their librarians.

What matters is us, and what we like to do is post pictures and videos of ourselves on the Internet, then Twitter everyone about our latest movements ("Hey, just finished lunch and then had my latest movement"), then IM a bunch of fellow techies and congratulate ourselves about how we "get it," then go to a conference where we either speak in an excited proselytizing tone about how cool everything we do is, or sit staring at our computer screens blogging and IMing while completely ignoring the real people around us.

Library Five-0 is about constant change. From the website of the world's first Library Five-0 library: "We change constantly. We are revolutionary. Do not try to find us in meatspace, as our address changes daily to keep up our reputation for constant change. Do not try to call us, because our phone number changes hourly to keep up our reputation for constant change. Do not try to email us, because our email address changes every half-hour to keep up our reputation for constant change. You can try to reach us through IM, but we change our IM username and client every 15 minutes--to keep up our reputation for constant change. We also change the location of our blog every 10 minutes to keep up our reputation for constant change. Quite frankly, you are lucky to have found this page at all, as we change the URL of our homepage every 5 minutes to keep up our reputation for constant change. We do not even have an RSS feed because we change so fast the director's aggregator exploded. The only thing that never changes is the rhetoric."

We know how everyone loves constant change, and we want to fulfill that need. Not the library users, of course. They don't want constant change, but then again we're not here to make them happy; we're here to make us happy, and it's about time librarians got to be happy about something. Is that so wrong? Oh, wait, most of the other librarians don't want constant change, either. Some of them go so far as to say that the whole idea of "constant change" is just gibberish. Well, fooey on them.

Library Five-0 is just about the technology. Let's be honest for a moment. Some of the twopointopians claim that Library 2.0 isn't just about technology, that it's just the stuff librarians have always been doing, or would have been doing if they weren't such evil librarians and we weren't such good librarians. We know that's malarkey, because if that was the case there would be no need to coin such a stupid phrase to describe something that is already going on. Unless of course the point is to coin a stupid phrase to make it seem like we're doing something new when we really aren't, which will allow a few of us to congratulate ourselves in a heated circle-blog and get ourselves invited to conferences so we can talk about all this stuff that's old but that we've somehow made to seem new. No, wait, that's getting too complicated.

Let's just say that we Library Five-0 librarians prefer not to be so duplicitous. Library Five-0 is about the technology. We like to play around with techie gadgets; what can we say? We're just a bunch of techie geeks who want to start a bunch of new techie initiatives that no one but us wants so that we can pretend our libraries are just big techie toylands for our benefit. Library Five-0 is all about the technology, baby. You know, it felt good to get that off my chest. I'm glad we Library Five-0 librarians don't have to dissemble so much as those poor twopointopians. Those poor devils have to go around hopelessly trying to convince other librarians that Library 2.0 isn't just about the technology when everyone knows it is. I'm not sure who they think they're fooling, but we Library Five-0ers prefer the truth, consequences be damned!

Library Five-0 isn't political. Politics is such a messy sport, especially in libraries, where the politics are so nasty because so little is at stake. The twopointopians are always running into political problems as they try to shove their half-baked techie ideas down everyone's throats while pretending that the users are clamoring for these ideas. Of course one is going to run into political problems when one's idea of politics is all about the Good Us and the Evil Them. The Good Us just wants to have free reign over the entire library to implement whatever silly uncalled-for service we think we might like to waste time playing around with for a while, and the Evil Them just wants to thwart our plans by asking about silly things like empirical research, data-driven change, library budgets, impact on other librarians, actual user expectations, and other big, mean grown up things.

Library Five-0 doesn't have to worry about that, because we're not interested in thrusting ourselves upon everyone else. We don't really care about the library users or our colleagues, and unlike the twopointopians we don't have to pretend we do. We're happy if our administrations give us some computers and cubicles and let us play around all day. They know we won't bother the rest of the librarians if we're busy IMing and Twittering and Flickring and stuff like that, and they like to keep us quiet. That way, everyone benefits.

There, I hope this has set the record straight about what Library Five-0 is and is not. The twopointopians already know this feeling, because they revel in it, but I can say it really does feel great to be superior to the rest of you poor schlubs and tell you like it is. Remember, I'm right and you're wrong, and if you disagree with me it's just because you don't get it and don't love the library users as much as I do. At the Annoyed Librarian Flea Libary, "we love you more than your mama does."®

The AL's Been Hacked!

2007-11-02T07:12:00.000-04:00

Hi everyone!

Annie Linney here, from the East Skeeter Public Library in East Skeeter, Michigan. (Go, Skeeter High Skeeters!)

I bet you were expecting the Annoyed Librarian today, but you can't have her, because I've hacked her blog! Yay! I used the important critical thinking and computer skills I learned playing Dance Dance Revolution to take over the AL's blog! Today, the AL, tomorrow the world! Or at least the ESPL community room to play some more DDR and keep those kids healthy and off the street! Yay!

And why did I do this terrible thing? It's because I don't think you should be reading the AL. She's not good for you and she's not good for our profession! She's so negative! She's so disrespectful of librarians, librarianship, and library school! She's not constructive for the profession! And she's so cowardly! And mean! And elitist! And contumely!

AL, have you ever heard that if you can't say something nice, then don't say anything at all? Well, that goes double for librarianship. If you can't say something absurdly enthusiastic about the profession, don't say anything at all!! If your perky, chipper smile isn't locked in place and you don't feel as if you'll wet yourself with excitement as you speak about librarianship, then don't say anything at all!

We need more librarians who are perky and upbeat! We don't need cranky old people! Old people are bad because they do things that old people do. Cranky people are bad because they do things cranky people do.

You know who else we don't need? Critics! The AL and her dimwitted minions are all so critical! Criticize, criticize all the time! But does she ever do anything constructive? No! I just don't understand why she would criticize any problems without fixing them! I don't understand why she just makes fun of library trends but doesn't start up her own library trend! Heck, I don't understand a lot of things! (Didn't keep me from sailing through library school, though. ;)

People shouldn't be allowed to make fun of libraries and librarians! That's just not fair! Especially if they're all cowardly and won't even tell us who they really are! That's just wrong! I don't know why, but I just feel that it is, and feelings are important!

Librarians should always be SERIOUS! They should be CONSTRUCTIVE! Because libraries and librarians are serious issues! If you're going to talk about serious issues, then you should be serious and boring, not mean! If you're going to discuss any problems in librarianship, make sure to be as boring and humorless as possible so no one can stay awake until the end of your discussion. That way no one will know about the problems! Yay!

When we're not serious, we definitely shouldn't be satirical. Satire is just mean! We need to be frivolous in a happy, fuzzy-bunny way. We need more kittens and puppies and flowers and happy thoughts in librarianship, not mean old fuddy-duddies who don't always say constructive stuff about our wonderful profession.

I love being a librarian! I love EVERYTHING about it! Anyone who doesn't love everything about it should just be quiet and go do something else! I'm just appalled that anyone would say anything critical about our profession! Librarianship, love it or leave it!

Don't you all know that libraries are in trouble? If we don't stay upbeat and perky, then we might not be around much longer. That's what I overheard in the breakroom today. So we need to perk up and be chipper and happy and brighten everybody's day by dancing and playing with them and maybe showing them pictures of puppies and kittens! That's what people want from librarians! They don't want old sourpusses who just go poopie on everything!

AL, you and all your readers should be ashamed of yourselves, criticizing things and making fun of stuff and everything! You just need to direct your feet to the sunny side of the street! You need to put on a happy face! Smile and the world smiles with you! Don't worry, be happy!

Perkily yours,

Annie Linney :)
East Skeeter Public Library

Library School is Fun!

2007-10-31T07:07:00.000-04:00

Some of you out there think playing videogames and hosting dance parties in the library make the library "fun" so that the illiterate kiddies who'd normally never come near the library will show up. (One might ask what difference does it make if they show up, but that's another question.) Now someone has the great idea to make library schools "fun" as well, to make sure that the library school students won't get to bored with all this "education."

If you're reading this blog, there's a good chance that you consider(ed) library school to be tedious and something of an intellectual joke. Library school is boring. We all know that. I think library school could be made less boring by making it more rigorous, in keeping with real graduate programs. But the majority in this, as everything prevails, and we know that can never happen. It'll always be library "science," so why don't we put some fun into it? Thanks should go to Dr. Webtamer, who's putting the FUN into library school!

The Shifted Librarian writes: "I love that my friend, the newly minted Dr. Stephens [i.e., Dr. Webtamer], devoted one of his LIS class nights to gaming. I’m sorry I couldn’t be there to help out, but it sounds like the students did quite well on their own. I would love to see more LIS courses playing and exploring like this, helping the students form their own opinions."

Yep, me too. I'd love to see more so-called graduate school classes devoted to people sitting around playing videogames, you know, so the students can "form their own opinions." Forming opinions--that sounds almost educational! But who cares if it's educational, it's fun! Library school wasn't particularly educational before, so it's not like spending an entire class playing videogames is dumbing down the standard LIS curriculum.

Forming opinions is, as I noted, almost educational. Perhaps I didn't need this class, though, because I've already formed an opinion. I wouldn't want to pay money for a graduate school class and then sit around playing videogames, but that's just me. If this thing absolutely has to be done, then it might be appropriate for a homework assignment (which would be a typically easy and intellectually vacuous library school homework assignment), but I couldn't tolerate it in a class. Is this what graduate school seminars have become? But I know the problem. I just don't like fun.

I've written before that my suspicion that library school was an intellectual joke was confirmed when I was asked to make a poster presentation, which showed me how library school was like the third grade. At least with the poster I was supposed to convey information. If I had been subjected to gaming during class in library school, I'd have been very tempted to sue the university for breach of promise. Graduate programs in universities aren't supposed to have classes where people sit around and play videogames. Or at least I thought so. Apparently I'm wrong. Always remember, it's not graduate school, it's library school, and with a little more of this it could be library FUN school.

I think we've reached the nadir of library "education," the point at which we've given up any pretense of intellectual endeavor, but that's okay. We should embrace this diversity. Library science isn't much of an intellectual endeavor anyway, so we might as well have FUN doing it. You can't really have a graduate "education" worthy of the name when you teach classes in storytelling and pop-up books. It was always my hope that there was some possibility of intellectual engagement in a program that billed itself as a graduate school, but intellectual pursuits are so elitist. Better just to play games, because apparently everyone in the world wants librarians to play games and host parties.

Get away from training people to entertain the kiddies, and the rest of the program has at least the possibility of something remotely resembling graduate education, right? Absolutely not, so let's rejoice that someone has seen the light, and offer more classes on "library 2.0 and social networking." I think we can now see the intellectual content of library 2.0. I haven't been hearing much from the twopointopians lately, and now I suspect it's because they've been playing videogames, apparently an important part of both library 2.0 and social networking.

Shifted also quotes from a couple of blogs related to the class. One student writes: "How do you make your college-age son jealous? Tell him you played Guitar Hero… in school…for a class…while the teacher was there." There's another way of looking at that. What if you're a young student and your parents are paying for all or part of your "graduate education"? How do you make your parents happy? Tell them you played Guitar Hero . . . in school . . . for a class . . . while the teacher was there. Or when you groan while paying back that $25,000 in student loans (and that day will come), just remember how much fun library school was, when you got to sit around in class and play Guitar Hero . . . in school . . . for a class . . . while the teacher was there. Education 2.0 in action, baby!

What's better than to pay for a course where you get to sit around and play videogames? It might seem like you're just wasting your money, but remember, this is library "education." It's not like "Libraries, Society, and You" has much intellectual content anyway. Sit through this stuff and you'll have an intellectually bankrupt "graduate" degree that might get you a mediocre library job somewhere if you're lucky. But after all, what do you expect of a degree where you sit around in class playing videogames?

If we just admit that library school is an intellectual joke, then libraries can also benefit. Libraries should do themselves a financial favor. If library school is to teach you how to play videogames and libraries are there to host dance parties and bring in the kiddies, forget these "educated" librarians. Libraries don't need them for this kind of work. This stuff doesn't require a master's degree, or even a college degree. Cataloging? Not necessary if everything's online. Reference? Are you kidding? We've got Google, what do we need with reference librarians.

The salvation of libraries is videogaming and parties, and we don't need librarians for that. Hire some smart teens for $12/hour to host dance parties and play videogames and troubleshoot the computers and check out the occasional DVD. Plus, they already know how to play videogames and dance. They wouldn't have to waste time in class learning these things. The teens are motivated and self-directed and they play games on their own. They'd probably do just as good a job as the librarians and the libraries wouldn't have to pay extra for the so-called master's degree. That sounds like the best thing for the "customers," and that's what we're really all about.

All Things to All People

2007-10-29T10:39:00.000-04:00

Today I was a bit hesitant to post. There's such a good argument going on in the comments to Friday's post (75 responses so far), and I hesitate to slow down a good argument by distracting everyone with another post. Still, I know most of you get this through a feed and never click through to see the comments, and slackers like you need entertainment, too.

Besides, one of the comments this morning amused me and I wanted to share it with you:

"Frankly, I am a bit tired about all this talk about video games and teens. Just offer video games and be done with it. I think there is another need not previously addressed by libraries. A lot of women have a serious fashion need that simply is not accessible to those with a low to moderate income. I think public libraries should acquire designer shoes and purses to loan for a period of two weeks. Yes, you run the risk of people never returning these items, but aren't your citizens worth the risk. Besides, you can turn delinquent patrons over to a collection agency. This also affords ladies the opportunity to try before you buy. I think it is a win-win situation. Perhaps, libraries should also get in to the business of collecting formal wear. This would be a great marketing strategy to attract teenage girls to the library. There could be YA programs focusing in prom hair and make-up."

I read that and slapped my forehead with enlightenment. (I'm not sure that sentence makes sense, but I think you know what I mean.) Why shouldn't public libraries offer fashion accessories to their "customers"? After all, isn't the job of the library to meet all the needs of the public? That's what some of my commenters keep saying. This at least is more practical for people than hosting dance parties. Fashion doesn't have to be frivolous, though that's the best thing about it. What about business suits so poor people can look good for job interviews? The right pair of shoes or the right suit could make the difference between getting a job and not getting one, especially for people with no marketable skills. I know I got my job purely on the strength of my skirted power suit (which highlighted my shapely calves).

Libraries should stock other useful stuff, too. What about cookware or power tools? This would be great, especially for urbanites with small apartments who have little storage, but who every once in a while could really use a large roasting pan or a circular saw. Better yet, why not have kitchens people can use? Every once in a while it would be an enormous boon to me to have a second oven. Why not: Second Ovens @ Your Library? And what about those carpet steaming machines that grocery stores sometimes rent? Those would be great. And rental cars! People are used to checking out novels for a long trip. Wouldn't it be great if you need a car for a long trip to know you could just go check one out from the library?

And what about those dangerous urban libraries? The ones dealing with games and drugs and homeless people? Librarians might be frightened of gangs, but gang members and drug dealers are community members as well. Their needs should be met. Libraries could supply semi-automatic weapons for gang members to check out in case their own were confiscated by the police. If that seems like capitulating to violence, what about needles? Libraries could rent out sterilized needles for junkies. They could include a free condom with the needles bearing the library's logo. A library in Los Angeles removed a bench outside when it became a hangout for prostitutes, but don't these prostitutes have a place in the library as well? Should we discriminate against them? I know from all the movies I've seen that prostitutes always have hearts of gold. Providing a library bench for someone with a heart of gold seems okay with me. Why not provide them with bedrooms so they can practice their trade. Is this any different than providing computers so people can fill out job applications? Some librarians complain about homeless people. How they smell bad and make weird sounds and offend people and stuff like that. But if we want to cure homelessness, we need homes for people. What better place for these homes than the library? Sleeping cubicles and showers seem in order, not complaints. This could be used for the prostitutes as well. Meet all the needs of the community!

And definitely babysitting and social work services. Some parents already like to drop their kids off at the library so that the librarians can suffer for a while just like the parents do at home. Why not just make this official? Babysitting @ Your Library. People would love it! The library seems like a good place for social work as well. Why should these poor messed up people who need social working have to go to two different locations? Let them take care of everything @ the library.

But is there room for all this? Sleeping cubicles and rental cars take up space, after all. Well, libraries are already becoming computer storehouses. Since apparently no one reads books anymore and librarians like to get rid of the books to make more room for computers (please the customers!), why not just get rid of all the books. That would leave plenty of room for sleeping cubicles, rental cars, cookware, and power tools.

I know for a fact there are already tool lending libraries, so why not expand?

One reason, I suspect, is interest. Libraries get some hip new librarians who like to play video games and dance, so they push to have more videogaming and dancing in the library. If these same hip young librarians like to cook or woodwork more, then we might have more cookware and tools. If more librarians we more dedicated to their apparent social work mission, they'd push for more sleeping cubicles. If more librarians rented cars, they'd understand the need.

It couldn't be that one thing is part of the mission of the library and another one isn't, because the library is there to meet the needs of everyone, right? The library has no mission other than to get people in the door so that librarians can keep their jobs. That ALA guff about educating the citizens and providing information access to all is just so much empty rhetoric. Even my most infotainment-minded readers will admit that the library is there for both the educational and recreational needs of the community. Cookware and tools can be both educational and recreational. Since there is no purpose to public libraries besides entertaining the people so they'll keep coming in, add some pots and pans and powertools, along with extra kitchens and fashion accessories. If you want to compete with the mall, dammit, you've got to be creative!

Some might say, "But AL, we don't have enough money for all this stuff!" We'd love to rent cars and provide sleeping cubicles for homeless people and prostitutes, but we can't afford it! If you don't have enough money, just raise taxes. Have a referendum. Surely people will vote to raise their taxes if they know that public libraries are hosting dance parties and providing cookware and purses and rental cars. Be creative! Meet the needs of your "customers"! Be all things to all people!

For This We Need Librarians?

2007-10-26T07:57:00.000-04:00

"The Commonwealth requires the education of the people as the safeguard of order and liberty." That's what it says on the side of the Boston Public Library building. These days order and liberty don't need to be safeguarded, I guess, or at least libraries have nothing to do with it since that requires the education of the people. Educating the people is so boring, though. These days the Boston Public Library is "moving with the times," according to this article. "At the Boston Public Library each month, teenagers get down to the vigorous techno thumps of the popular arcade game Dance Dance Revolution."

Kimberly Lynn, president of the Massachusetts Library Association, likes it. "We are not your grandmother's library," she says, whatever that means. What if my grandmother lives in Boston, though? Doesn't that mean you are in fact my grandmother's library? Oh, I know. It means they don't like old people in the library. Old people read books and pay taxes and stuff. Teens "get down" to "vigorous techno thumps." I have to admit, my grandmother doesn't do that very often. I haven't seen her get down a vigorous techno thump since Christmas two years ago when she'd had too much sherry and my brother started playing some Dave Clarke music. It wasn't a pretty sight.

According to the article, "In the era of waning readership and Internet search engines, libraries in Massachusetts and across the country are shifting their resources and expertise to areas once unthinkable." Resources, sure, but expertise? Where's the expertise? "Public libraries are finding new niches that make them appealing to patrons, and patrons are increasingly using libraries as a free alternative to DVD rentals, music stores, Internet cafés, and even gaming arcades." Oh, expertise in being Internet cafes and gaming arcades. I guess I missed that class in library school. Maybe my library school just wasn't hip enough.

And what's the appeal for the patrons? "People are realizing how much money they can save their family, not going to a video rental store or even buying DVDs but instead renting them for a week for free," said a video librarian. Hmm, I wonder if they could save any money for their family by lowering their taxes by, say, reducing library taxes. I for one don't want to subsidize video arcades. That's what we have malls for.

The danger is that if libraries don't "move with the times," that is, become something else other than libraries, they'll close. "Library officials do not have to look far to see what happens when towns decide their services have become irrelevant. Last summer, libraries in Saugus and Bridgewater, which had relied mostly on books, were on the verge of being shut down and were forced to reduce their hours." Better to do anything to get people through the door than educate the people to safeguard order and liberty. Hey, let's have dance parties! Yay! People like to dance!

"It's cool that we have activities other than reading books at the library now," said Leon Shaw, 15, panting after a particularly difficult Dance Dance Revolution pirouette in one of the library's basement rooms last week. "More libraries should do this." Finally, libraries are "cool." And reading books is so boring compared to dancing. Now dancing, that's important! Reading isn't very important. Let's not try to get the kids reading, like some foolish librarians want. Let's get them dancing!

As one teen librarian says, "We're not only trying to meet the [patrons'] reading needs but we also want to meet their social and recreational needs. This is where libraries are going." But if they're not reading anyway, why bother to try to meet their reading needs? Why not save money you might have spent on books and buy video games instead? Oh wait, that's what you're already doing. Good job!

I'm glad somebody is finally admitting it. Social and recreational needs. The library as recreation center. Why doesn't the ALA change its mission statement to reflect that this is "where libraries are going"? Here's what the ALA says its mission is:

"The mission of the American Library Association is to provide leadership for the development, promotion, and improvement of library and information services and the profession of librarianship in order to enhance learning and ensure access to information for all."

I'm not sure the ALA accomplishes any part of this mission, but it's definitely time they "move with the times." If they want to support libraries, then they should say they want to improve library and entertainment services to ensure access to entertainment for all. We can all entertain ourselves to death while education, order, and liberty disappear.

I keep hearing that "professional" librarians need master's degrees. Does an MLS now qualify one to run a recreation center? Obviously library "education" needs to change as well. It's already intellectually stultifying, but now library schools should just close down. Buying video games and hosting dance parties isn't professional library work by any stretch of the imagination. So why should libraries hire people with library degrees? What a waste of money.

If librarians want a good way to deprofessionalize themselves and completely convert themselves to clerks, what better way than hosting dance parties and staying fully stocked with DVDs? You don't need a master's degree to work at Blockbuster. You don't need a master's degree to run a recreation center. Important as these jobs might be, they don't require even the laughable education an MLS provides. So public libraries should save themselves the money that might be spent hiring so-called "educated," "professional" librarians, which is ironic since it's obvious that librarians are "moving with the times" not because people need more "free" entertainment, but because otherwise the libraries will close down and librarians will lose their jobs.

The Commonwealth requires the entertainment of the people as the safeguard of librarian jobs.

Sports Writers and Librarians

2007-10-24T14:24:00.000-04:00

What is it these days with sports writers and librarians? Those sports writers seem more obsessed with us than we are with ourselves, and that's saying something.

This article was sent to me by a fan. In it a sports writer (of sorts) speculates on what jobs he would like if all jobs paid the same amount of money. Librarian come in #3, behind "Movie Theater Ticket Ripper Person" and "Lifeguard." And what's so attractive about being a librarian?

"Do libraries even exist anymore? I haven’t been in one since grade school, which is a LONG time ago. I didn’t really like them back then either. Why do I have this job on my list then? Because you always have to be really quiet in a library, so no one will really have to talk to me. I know I would have to know they Huey-Dewey Decimal System (or something like that) but who cares. You sit there all day and stamp peoples books, how hard can that be? I would hate to put the books back, but you do have one of those push carts. I also hate to read books, so I probably wouldn’t be a good person to ask about how a book was. This job seems pretty easy though, and all the librarians that I can remember had pretty pail skin and seemed allergic to the sun, which is right up my alley so I would fit right in."

More great ALA recruitment material. Perhaps he does have what it takes to be a librarian. Just count the exclamation points in the full article. If not a librarian, he's at least qualified to be a library blogger.

Homely Librarians

2007-10-23T07:24:00.000-04:00

I wanted to write about the "homely librarian" fuss. Some sports writer in Boston named Ryan wrote about some sports guy named Brady and some librarians got upset over this line: "And you can be sure Brady will be seen in public with a homely librarian before he engages in any discussion about the difference between the receivers he was forced to work with last season and the ones he has now." You can get all the relevant links at LIS News. Librarians complaining about "stereotypes" again, naturally. It's all so pathetic.

A high school librarian wrote this in a letter to the editor of the newspaper: "It is time to stand up as a society and realize how important it is to break stereotypes and show respect to some of the most valuable community members we may be fortunate enough to 'be seen with.' As for Ryan, I would advise him to get to know his local librarians better."

There's not much commentary I can make about such a self-righteous, humorless response that doesn't involve swearing and calling people names. "Most valuable community members," indeed. I doubt Ryan would want "to get to know his local librarians better" if they were all like this. Besides, it should be obvious that Ryan wasn't ridiculing librarians so much as he was ridiculing homely people, but I didn't notice any homely people protesting.

As I said, I wanted to write about this, but I just don't have the strength. Why bother to make fools of foolish librarians when they do such a good job of it themselves? I know it seems like I'm writing about this, but considering the usual length of my posts, I don't think this should count as writing. Librarians can be such sad little creatures.

French Naughtygirls at the ALA?

2007-10-22T23:27:00.000-04:00

Sent in by a reader. Is this for real?

"(This is so dripping with irony that I couldn't make up a better story if I tried)

Hey AL,

For at least a week, it looks like somebody pushing a website called "NaughtyGirl92 iFrance" has been posting its link all over the ALA Recruitment Assembly's Wiki.

Here's the link:

http://wikis.ala.org/recruit/index.php/Main_Page

So the ALA lets its recruitment wikis be taken over by French Naughtygirls. Maybe they want a few of them to go to library school?"

Library Confidential

2007-10-22T07:57:00.000-04:00

A forthcoming book should give the ALA and library schools a great marketing opportunity. Have you heard of Free for All: Oddballs, Geeks and Gangstas in the Public Library, by Don Borchert? According to the cover, it "puts the shh! in shocking." I read a review here, and boy does it sound exciting. (Note: the review is of Library Confidential, but the American edition seems to be entitled Free for All.) This is going to be such a great marketing opportunity, because after reading this everyone will want to work in a public library. We're always hearing about how librarians provide information and videos and stuff for people and how noble they all are, but we don't usually hear about things like this:

"Two drug dealers were convicted after they were discovered to be keeping their drug stash behind the vent in the men's toilets and using the library as a distribution point for methamphetamines.

They would come in, read the papers and wait for phone calls on the pay phone from prospective buyers.

They would then leave a green rucksack outside full of drugs, go back inside the library to wait and then go back outside to collect it later when the drugs had been swapped for cash."

Or this:

"The library is also the scene of fights. One full-scale brawl between teenagers was only averted by the arrival of car loads of relatives and friends of the two boys the youths had gathered to fight. Another time, two mums punched lumps out of each other in the car park because their young daughters, who went to the library together everyday, had fallen out."

Or this:

"On day when a group of young school children arrived at the library for a day of storytelling and puppetry, two drunk men dressed as ballet dancers - one in a wheelchair - were discovered lurking at the front door. The police moved them on."

Drugs, fights, drunken perverts--that's exciting stuff! Usually we have to go to anonymous library blogs to find that kind of library excitement, but now it'll be out in print. I wonder if the author offered it to ALA Editions before going with Virgin Books. Seems like it would have to be more interesting than the stuff they usually publish.

It's coming out next month. Be sure to order your copy today.

Crazy British Librarians

2007-10-19T07:31:00.000-04:00

‘People pre-judge me because I look like Hitler’

So he looks like Hitler, but is he hip?

Outsourcing @ Your Library

2007-10-17T08:20:00.000-04:00

Since it's environmental week at the AL, here's another piece with a tangential environmental connection. Last week a kind reader sent me this article about those Jackson County, Oregon libraries that reopened after they'd been closed for a while. You may remember I wrote about the closing back in March, speculating that choosing the spotted owl over human beings was one possible contributing factor to the library closings. Boy did some people get mad when I said I preferred people to spotted owls. My favorite comment on that piece was this: "Personally, I prefer the Redwood Forrest and the Spotted Owl to lumberjacks any day.... And who cares about their library. I can only imagine the sorts of things they checked out." Nice. That's what I get for saying I care about people. If I stick to my usual misanthropy, I'm safe.

Librarians all over the country raised a stink about how much those folks in Jackson County would suffer without their libraries and how important it was to keep them open. Now the Jackson County libraries are open again, but those librarians still aren't happy. You see, the only way they could afford to reopen was to outsource the library services, which are now handled by LSSI. Some librarians are angry about this, including the Glorious President of the ALA. I thought our library services were supposed to be all about the users and how important they are. You know, we librarians love you more than your mama does. All those twopointopians blather on about that when they're trying to pretend they're not a technocult. It's about service! It's about the user! But we know different, don't we. It's not about the user, it's about us.

Check out this from the article: "The practice [of outsourcing library services] has generated a backlash from those who argue that municipalities are employing a backdoor method of weakening the power of labor unions, and those who say that such profit-making ventures go against the notion that libraries are one of the noblest functions of government in a democracy."

Oh, okay. So what's more important--service to library users or making sure municipal unions are strong? I know what the regressive librarians would say, because for them libraries and librarians are secondary (if that) to their radical political agenda, so of course they care more about the unions than the library users. But I thought for the rest of us the test was supposed to be, is this the best thing for the library users? Is it better for the users to have outsourced library services, or no services at all? Let's make the question even harder. If library services were actually better outsourced, then which is better for the users? I can tell you, the users don't care if the library staff are "professional" librarians or unionized staff. They just care about service. It's the librarians who care about who provides that service.

And don't even get me started on "the notion that libraries are one of the noblest functions of government in a democracy." What in the heck is that supposed to mean? How is that at all relevant to this debate? If the services are being provided, and being provided well (or at least as well as public libraries usually provide them, which I realize isn't the same thing), then what difference does it make who supplies the services? The "government," after all, is still paying for these services. The libraries are outsourced, not privatized. Who says that a service paid for by the "government" has to also be provided by that government? Is there much evidence that people working in unionized government jobs do a better job that people working for profit?

Here's one unhappy librarian complaining: "'This is a shift from the public trust into private hands,' said John Sexton." "'Libraries have always been a source of information for everyone and owned by no one.'" Oh, okay. And how is paying for but outsourcing the library any different, especially from the patron's point of view? Does LSSI now "own" the source of information? Aren't we supposed to be thinking of the service to the users? Mr. Sexton, we discover, is "an out-of-work Jackson County librarian who has interviewed with LSSI for his old job," but no doubt his protest is motivated by the noble goal of defending the public from the evil LSSI empire.

Partly this mess came about because Jackson County didn't want to pony up for libraries. "Book lovers complained bitterly about the closings, but two ballot measures to raise taxes and reopen the libraries fell short." No doubt some of you think the US Government should have kept subsidizing this county indefinitely, even if the people there weren't willing to help themselves. But I don't. This shows that the majority of the people of Jackson County don't think it's worth paying more taxes to support their libraries. But, "then LSSI offered to run the libraries, underbidding the public employees union." So here we have a case of a community that won't commit more funding to libraries, and yet they're still getting library services that morally perhaps they don't deserve, because LSSI can do the job more cheaply than the unionized librarians. Just who exactly are the good guys and who the bad guys here? If it were up to the union, Jackson County wouldn't have any libraries. Are we supposed to treat these people like heroes?

"Some bibliophiles fear that the library, under distant, corporate management, will be less attuned to local interests when buying books and will stock the shelves with lots of best-sellers." (Notice how for the writer of this article, library supporters are all "book lovers" and "bibliophiles.") Yeah, I'm sure that's a lot different from public libraries now. We all know how public libraries don't stock their shelves with lots of bestsellers. We don't want our libraries to start stocking popular books and videos and CDs. We want our public libraries to keep providing the intellectually challenging and culturally rich collections they do now. Right.

Even the Glorious ALA President weighs in on this debate. "'Does this company understand local needs?' asked Loriene Roy, president of the American Library Association, which opposes library outsourcing. 'We have long regarded libraries as different. We deal with intangibles. We are not profit-driven.'" What is this supposed to mean? Her last sentence is clearly in line with her alleged position that librarianship is a "calling" and that money shouldn't be important to librarians. But "we deal in intangibles"? What, like high priestesses of information? Is this another religious interpretation of librarianship? The first question is purely empirical. LSSI will either understand local needs or not, but being a private company has nothing to do with it. Companies try to understand local needs; that's how they make money. Does that bustling deli down the street "understand local needs"? And is it run by the government?

LSSI defends itself, of course. "'The average citizen, when they walk into the library, they will see well-trained, well-educated, customer-service-oriented people working in the library,' said Bob Windrow, director of sales and marketing for ... LSSI. 'They won't know who is paying their salary, and they won't care. They care whether the library is open adequate hours, and are they getting good service.'" Apparently, the LSSI record is mixed, with some satisfied and some dissatisfied customers, but again, the question is empirical. If the Jackson County residents do get good library services, especially considering the option is no library service, then what's the problem? Who is most important to the librarians? The librarians, or the users? We know the answer is the librarians, and what I find so interesting about this debate is the way it cuts through the usual verbiage about how the users are sacrosanct. If the users are the measure, and if the users are happy, then outsourcing the services shouldn't be a problem for any librarians. It's all for the users, right?

And let's consider this from another angle for a moment. I will admit that some outsourcing bothers me. It especially bothers me when some ignorant customer service person is obviously in New Delhi or someplace and has no idea how to satisfy my needs. It bothers me on a different level when American companies move jobs out of America because some sweatshop in Guam makes tee shirts more cheaply than some sweatshop in Florida. I'm sympathetic to the masses of American citizens who are never going to be able to thrive in an information economy, who even with free education just won't be smart enough for intellectual work, but who could still be productive and self-supporting citizens if things were different.

But hey, we're not talking about some automaker who starts assembling cars in Indonesia. These library jobs aren't being outsourced to India (I think the reference could be outsourced to India, but the reshelving would be problematic.) These are still Americans working these jobs, even perhaps "professional" librarian Americans. Okay, so their benefits aren't as good as they were. The other option here, in case it isn't clear, is no job at all. And if the librarians need better jobs, then they'll just have to be mobile and have marketable skills like the rest of us. This "outsourcing" isn't the kind that raises the hackles of many Americans. Americans in general aren't necessarily being harmed by this, and one could definitely argue that Americans in Jackson County are being benefited. Librarians are the ones in danger, not Americans, not the users, and not libraries.

This debate is similar to all the guff about how we have to bend over and grab our ankles to make libraries "relevant" to people. Libraries are relevant or they're not. The people care, or they don't. If people don't want what libraries provide, then libraries will go away, but that's more of a problem for the librarians than it is for the people. What if all "information" was available for free online, search engines had perfected search, "information literacy" was universal, and computers and Internet access were available to all? If that happens, public libraries will probably be unnecessary for the most part. Is that a problem for the people, or for the librarians? Even now it's true for many people. Access to information is cheap. We talk about the "digital divide," but I wonder how many people on the other side of the digital divide can afford televisions and cable.

All this rubbish about public versus private is just, well, rubbish. Perhaps, as one of my commenters last week suggested, this explains the inanity of some librarians considering the profession a "calling." It's the non-profit syndrome, the unverified and unverifiable belief that working for a non-profit somehow makes one nobler than those poor philistines who work for profit. This attitude is rampant in academia, and I'm assuming elsewhere as well. All of us earning our pay from other people's tax money tend to forget that most people have to actually produce things or provide services for a profit to support us. We don't seem to mind people providing us goods and services for a good price while making a profit, then taking their money to provide our salaries, but we then get all misty-eyed when we think of our own noble sacrifice. Yes, we non-profits are soooo noble. We "deal in intangibles." We aren't interested in filthy lucre. Mere "profit" means nothing to us. Trade is so dirty, isn't it. How aristocratic we all are! How noble!

I might also note that this public versus private rubbish implies that public librarians are better librarians than librarians who work for law firms or corporations. Does anyone believe this to be true? Are public librarians so much better than other librarians because they are noble servants of the public? For you special librarians out there in the corporate sector, what do you think of the notion that you're not as good at your jobs as you might be if you sacrificed yourself for the public and lived off someone else's tax money?

It turns out, though, that librarians aren't really so noble. They want to be all "relevant"--so they don't get fired. They want people to come to the library and support the library--so they don't get fired. They would rather Jackson County go without library services than have some private company provide the services--so they don't get fired. They're desperate to seem hip and happening and desirable--so they don't get fired.

I'm not saying many, and perhaps even most, librarians aren't dedicated to library users. I'm saying it's time librarians stopped claiming that user satisfaction is all they're interested in, or pretending that public library service is somehow more noble than going out to work for the Man. If librarians were interested only in user satisfaction, they wouldn't complain about library outsourcing in such a knee-jerk manner. Librarians are interested in librarians, except, of course, when they're not.

Save the Environment the Annoyed Librarian Way

2007-10-15T07:36:00.000-04:00

You might not realize it, but today is "Blog Action Day." As the organizers put it, "On October 15th, bloggers around the web will unite to put a single important issue on everyone’s mind - the environment." I considered organizing "Annoyed Librarian Blog Action Day" to try to encourage bloggers around the web to unite and blog about the AL, but then I realized my feelings might get hurt if just a few people did it and they were really mean or something, so I'm blogging about the environment. I think I'm being boycotted by a lot of librarian bloggers anyway because they know that every time they criticize me I get a bunch of new fans and they just hate that.

I've noted before that I'm not a nature loving sort of gal, but I do think it's important to have an environment, so I don't mind doing my part to save it. Some people donate money to environmental charities, but I'm a librarian and every dollar counts. Some people make movies about how bad the environment is, but those people all have more money than me, too. Some celebrities go on talk shows and tell the world about their electric cars and stuff, neglecting to mention their private jets, but if I went on Oprah I'd have to reveal my identity, so I'll just be a celebrity in secret. I'm like Batman (or perhaps Batwoman; is there a Batwoman?), living as a boring librarian during the day, being the AL by night.

So, you ask, how am I saving the environment? I'm saving the environment the Annoyed Librarian way: by drinking, specifically Banrock Station Wine. I would never give up the martinis, but now I temper the effects with some inexpensive wine that saves the world with every glass I drink. Besides, the martini is properly treated as an aperitif, and one needs something to drink during and after dinner. It doesn't matter, because neither Tanqueray nor Beefeaters nor Bombay Dry save the environment. I know. I checked.

And how does drinking this wine save the environment? Because Banrock Station in Australia is also a nature reserve where the company is restoring some damaged wetlands. I never want to be in a wetland, but they seem to be the sorts of things that an environment needs. Because of Banrock Station's success in Australia, they now sponsor preservation and nature reclamation projects around the world, including the Florida Everglades. This is actually a company that does good things, besides making a useful product and employing a lot of people and stuff like that. Most companies do that boring stuff, but they don't save the world.

Thus, buying Banrock Station Wine helps Banrock Station do their good environmental work. That's the kind of environmental activism I like!

Did I mention this stuff is cheap? Partly, it's inexpensive because I'm buying the boxed variety, or what I understand the Aussies call "cask wine." When Americans think box wine, they usually think crappy wine, and they're usually right. But I gather from my extensive research on the topic, using both Google and the Wikipedia, that in other parts of the world this isn't necessarily the case. In fact, the box wine packaging is superior to a bottle in the short run, because as the bag holding the wine collapses, no air gets in, which means the wine stays fresh for weeks. No need to try to finish off that bottle of merlot because it'll be stale tomorrow. (On the other hand, that's always a good excuse to finish off a bottle of wine that never works when you're talking about a bottle of gin, though "I've just got to finish off this vermouth tonight" might work.) One doesn't want to store this stuff in one's wine cellar for years, but for casual wine drinking it's very convenient. I don't have a wine cellar, anyway.

The box has 3 liters of wine in hardly more space than 2 regular wine bottles, and it's lighter and cheaper to ship. Thus, even the shipping is less hazardous on the environment because less fuel is used to ship the wine. It costs about the equivalent of $5/bottle, and you can recycle the box when you're done, whereas you would have had to recycle 4 bottles. I don't know if you can recycle the cute foil bags the wine comes in, but I don't have to think about it because I make Christmas gifts out of them.

As for the taste, eh, it's not bad. I'm not a wine snob, except for vermouth. I could probably tell you within a couple of sips what gin you've made my martini with, but as long as it doesn't taste actively bad I can't tell much difference with wine. I like it okay. But even if I didn't like it, I would continue to drink it, because the more of this wine I consume, the better for the environment it will be. As usual, I'm willing to sacrifice myself for the greater good. I hope you remember that when I declare Annoyed Librarian Blog Action Day.

Calling All Librarians

2007-10-10T07:43:00.000-04:00

Last week someone left a comment on my post about a recent silly speech of the current ALA president:

"I had Dr. Roy as a professor in library school. She was a good instructor but whenever anyone brought up the idea that librarians were underpaid, she became very emotional about librarianship being a calling and how you shouldn't go into it if you want a high salary."

I haven't tried to verify if Roy does this, because that would take actual research, and if I was going to do any of that I'd publish it under my own name and get another line on the vita. But even if she doesn't think of librarianship as a "calling" then certainly plenty of other librarians do, and I'll just generalize about them.

Thinking of librarianship as a calling certainly explains why so many librarians are willing to work for such low pay in such inhospitable conditions with such little respect. I always assumed that librarians working the really crappy jobs were doing it because they were lazy or stupid, or had no marketable skills, or had previously worked in an even more annoying profession, or were uncompetitive in some way they couldn't help (unable to move from the area, for example), or just not very good at their jobs. But now I know that it's possibly because they view librarianship as a calling, like being a priest or a rock musician. Those librarians are just living the dream, serving the public faithfully, saving the world one library card at a time.

This hypothesis explains a lot. It explains why so many librarians lack ambition and don't demand more money or better working conditions. It explains why they dance like monkeys to get people's attention and show how "relevant" they are. It explains why so many of us other librarians find them so ridiculous. Any hypothesis that can explain so many facts must have something behind it.

It's probably obvious by now that I don't view librarianship as a calling. If the call went out, I must not have been answering that week. I more or less view librarianship as a profession and a career, but mostly I view it as a job. It's a job I try to do well, and have been successful at, but it's definitely a job for hire. If I weren't decently paid, I wouldn't do it. And it's certainly not one of those things I'd do even if no one was willing to pay me. If tomorrow I ceased being a librarian because I could support myself just as easily doing something I really love to do, I'd leave librarianship behind and wouldn't miss it a bit. I wouldn't leave libraries behind, of course, because I love them, but I don't love being a librarian. The thing I like best about being a librarian is being in the library.

Am I so unusual for the profession? The AL has kind of a cult following of people who agree with me on some things, but I do get a lot of criticism for not being a cheerleader for librarianship. Some people are disturbed that I even dare to mention the dark side of the profession, even if they know it exists. I shouldn't criticize so much, especially pseudonymously. I shouldn't make fun of silly librarians who, after all, are just trying to show how great and relevant the library is. Is part of the reason because they see the profession as a calling, and thus as sacred somehow? They just love being librarians; it's their reason for being. Is this the case for most librarians?

And is there a difference from seeing librarianship as a calling and just being passionate about the work? I'm just curious. I also have no passion for the work. It's work I'm trained to do and try to do well. I'm good at it and I try to keep up with the field, but I could take it or leave it. I love to read. I love to write. I love to drink martinis. I don't love to librarian.

I have a friend, though, who is very passionate about the work and who can't understand my ambivalence. "AL," she'll say, "I just don't understand your ambivalence about librarianship," or words to that effect. I don't think she sees the profession as a "calling," though. She's too ambitious for that. She doesn't want to serve the world selflessly, but take over the library world and make sure it's run right. She wants to be the best, at the top of her profession. It seems to me that being passionate about librarianship is different from seeing it as a calling. The ambition and drive somehow make it different, but I'm not sure how.

I, on the other hand, don't have such ambitions. I'm not sure what it would mean to be at the top of my profession, but if it required any more effort than I expend now, it wouldn't be worth it. Rising in the profession has brought me as much grief as relief and possibly more. If I cared only about my career and how to further it, I certainly wouldn't write this blog. I'd have another blog, or more likely I'd be publishing more essays in peer-reviewed journals and speaking more at conferences, since that's what would bring me more professional respect where I work.

And so, I leave the questions but have no answers. Do a lot of librarians view librarianship as a calling? Is this detrimental to the rest of us because it makes them willing to work for such low pay in such bad conditions, thus driving down wages and standards? Are that many librarians even passionate about their work? It seems to me that most aren't, but maybe I mainly associate with jaded pragmatists like myself. And if some do seem passionate, is the passion for real, or only an act they put on so they'll benefit their career? Or are most librarians like me--doing a job that could be a lot worse for pay that could be a lot better?