> It'll just alienate old friends without attracting new ones.

I think that's certainly something to worry about.

OTOH, I believe similar things were said about buying fiction for public libraries (as opposed to "quality books"), open stacks, children's books in libraries, audio and video recordings in libraries, video game collections in libraries and so on. Hence the push and pull.

[Also I just told Marianne that I wasn't going to reply. So I am a liar, as charged. ;) ]

Heh. No argument there.

Also, you might like this somewhat different take on "Librarians as Enemies of Books" from a 1937 essay in Library Quarterly:

http://people.virginia.edu/~pm9k/libsci/enemy.html

I can see why it sounds like I think you are being offensive, though I wouldn't put it quite that strongly. And I agree that you have a right to dislike the overhaul of the local library (though I thought we were talking just about the university library before; you have a right to an opinion there, too, of course, but I feel a bit more qualified to talk about that).

Rather than trying to answer all your questions, I'll try and explain a bit more about where I'm coming from--as a stranger sticking his nose in your community, I probably should have started there. My apologies if I came on too strong or defensive/offensive earlier.

As an academic librarian, it is my belief that libraries are in a difficult time of change. Hearing pleas for spaces that better suit students' preferred ways of working, we are trying to find more space for collaboration and more space for computers, while not totally abandoning those who would like a quiet place for solo study and reading. When faced with those demands on one side and a book collection where a large percentage of the collection is never used and yet it continues to grow each year as new books are added, librarians feel forced to make difficult decisions.

Now, I will in no way argue that librarians always make the best choice or go about making decisions in the best possible way. But I think at most institutions, they/we try to do it in a way that is not full of lies or in thrall to a mall-based idea of what public life should be like, but in a way that is sensitive to the many needs of the many communities on campus. Your university library may have done it badly and may have done it without proper input from the community, but it's hard to know that without talking to people about it.

I love books as texts and I love books as objects. I have taught a course on "the history and future of the book." I'd like to see libraries respect reading and books while still seeking ways to grow and change. I'll probably use these terms in ways you don't care for, but ibraries have an very interesting tension between the conservative and the progressive, in that we aim to preserve the cultural products and evidence of the past while still always seeking ways to provide more information to more people in more ways.

Anyway. Sorry for the length of the comment, and thanks for the opportunity to air it.

'Sup, Jay?

I work with Marianne, and I almost don't want to comment since she's doing such a bang-up job. And yet.

I'm one of those Masters-degree-holding librarians. And I'm probably more sympathetic to the library-specific parts of your argument than you might expect. But when you try and draw conclusions about how the changes in the library *must* have come from the upper administration and/or that everyone in the organization is a "a full-time compulsive liar," I conclude that you are simply making stuff up to suit your meta-argument about capitalism.

Did you share this post with your 20-30% of your friends who are part of the "library science bourgeoisie?" You say they share your convictions--which ones? And do they all see this exactly as you do? I bet if you listen to them, you will find a wide spectrum of thoughts and ideas, assuming they are used to you making up cute names for them and implying they are unwitting pawns of a great lying machine.