Skip to main content

Week 14 Prompt


Respectfully, I would not shelve them outside of the general collection unless they were being displayed for a specific, temporary function such as a topical or seasonal display. Of course, it would depend on the reasons why the patrons requested the separation: if it was to make the books more easily found by those who would read them, I could suggest an alternate method (making up an annotated bibliography, doing a few blog posts of “So you’re interested in…”, a passive display, etc.). If it was for the purpose of censorship, I could provide the concerned party with a copy of library policy and explain that libraries (and other services subsidized by the federal government) must serve a diverse community. 
  1. If the collection is not separated by genre, starting a new system for one subset of books is not appropriate to the organization of the library. We probably—to be perfectly honest—do not have the space to set up a completely different set of shelves for a small subset of books. It is impractical on the logistical side of things.
  2. Censorship is against library policy, as is favoritism. We have plenty of ways to support the types of books we like (see above), and the more you try to ban or hide or burn an idea, the stronger it will become. 
  3. Genres are not staid and distinct; the edges of them are fuzzy and there is no platonic ideal or analogue of any particular genre that hasn’t been altered in the last 20 or 50 years. These things have shifted and will shift again. 
It doesn’t make sense practically, politically, or intellectually. And honestly, if we did end up being forced to shelve either of those genres separately because of the complaints of a religious group, the Bible would be among the books also shelved in those areas, it spans so many genres… and I would be sure to include familiar classics and books that have been retroactively assigned that genre. These delineations are not new genre inventions in themselves but only in the categorization. There is no “them”. There is only us. 

Comments

  1. Hi Rivkah! I appreciate your very logical response. Your alternative methods of locating materials are a nice solution. Well spoken.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi,
    I like your point about retroactively assigning genres. Sometimes it seems as though libraries are increasingly separating their collections into genres, subgenres, etc. Challenges are inevitable. As you said, having the collection development policy at hand to give to patrons is a necessary part of library services.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Rebecca. I understand that on some level, dividing things up into genres gets more books into people's hands, but there is a point where it can be too much, or veer into censorship. All kinds of fun to be had here:)

      Delete
  3. Excellent points! I really like how you broke it down and made it logical and persuasive. Full points!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Week 11 Prompt

The change from printed book to ebook or audiobook does imply some shift in appeal factors; an ebook is no longer subject to possible restrictions on length because of the heaviness of the book (or portability, whether or not it will fit into a purse), and an audiobook may be limited in its appeal to readers because of the style of the narrator.   This change affects our knowledge of the genre because we can no longer make snap judgments based on the publishing company’s dustjackets, blurbs, or the physical attributes of the book (font, paper type, cover material, etc.) and does not allow for browsing a shelf as easily as has been done in the past. We must learn to browse electronically and make connections through online networks (GoodReads, YouTube, various bloggers, NoveList—just for a few examples!).   The fact that readers are able to change font, line spacing, color, etc. of an ebook could have an effect on the reader’s appeal but I think individual rea...

Next stop: MYSTERY

Next Stop: FANTASY