Higher Ed Libraries: Let's Get Rid of Books

[Astro Pen]

Digital books can be switched off, or even eradicated from the planet at political whim.
Soon you can't find anything but a vague memory of that thought provoking book you read as a teenager. The statues have gone from their podiums and there are houses with small circles of fresh looking brick where blue plaques have been taken down.

 

[Toby Frost]

But I am confident that in that paperless world of (ho ho) universal access, there will be enormous loss, and I don't even know just what it will be.

I think you're absolutely right about this. Even leaving out political threats (my feeling is that books are more likely to be outright banned by fascists and religious maniacs than "tidied" into oblivion by "the PC brigade"), the fetish with everything becoming digital is dangerous.

For one thing, digital copies aren't readily accessible to older people (and, in a different way, to the poor). I am in early middle age, and there is a lot of stuff that I can't do with a computer or a phone that most people of, say, 30 can. I find much of it uninteresting, and some of it simply beyond my abilities. God knows what a person of 70 might think. For another, I am not convinced that digital copies are better at surviving than physical copies. A physical copy requires much less attention to survive than a digital one.

Also, I like books as objects. Like LPs, they have cover art. I grew up with Chris Foss' spaceship art, for instance, which has ended up as a big influence on the models I make. A printed book is a distinct object, while a file on a computer is just another file.

 

[BAYLOR]

I think you're absolutely right about this. Even leaving out political threats (my feeling is that books are more likely to be outright banned by fascists and religious maniacs than "tidied" into oblivion by "the PC brigade"), the fetish with everything becoming digital is dangerous.

For one thing, digital copies aren't readily accessible to older people (and, in a different way, to the poor). I am in early middle age, and there is a lot of stuff that I can't do with a computer or a phone that most people of, say, 30 can. I find much of it uninteresting, and some of it simply beyond my abilities. God knows what a person of 70 might think. For another, I am not convinced that digital copies are better at surviving than physical copies. A physical copy requires much less attention to survive than a digital one.

Also, I like books as objects. Like LPs, they have cover art. I grew up with Chris Foss' spaceship art, for instance, which has ended up as a big influence on the models I make. A printed book is a distinct object, while a file on a computer is just another file.

Having hard copy backup to digital storage , though not foolproof , is a sensible strategy .

 

[Randy M.]

Randy, yes, I understand about weeding. (Btw I am a 1985 graduate of the University of Illinois School of Library and Information Science.) We're talking about something radically different here, as you'd probably agree.

Okay. Apparently I was being denser yesterday than I realized.

My little university got rid of most of its reference collection, and, for our users, there was no need to keep some of those books -- old agricultural annuals and so on. But they got rid of their sets of the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature and Book Review Digest. Just this year the absence of the former made it harder to pursue an inquiry of mine. (I mentioned it here, the search for an article from around 1975 about publishers using cheaper bindings of books.) The university here didn't have those volumes and did not subscribe to the "historical New York Times index" we eventually needed to check. So I emailed several other universities. The main research library in the state still did have the Reader's Guide in book form, and I urged the librarian to keep them... at last what I thought for a while was THE article was found. Turns out it can't have been, but that's another story.

I can't speak for other libraries, either, but having to make decisions like that lead to agonizing by our librarians. With much of that information online, they've had to relinquish items that were gold standard in previous decades: We don't have the Reader's Guide anymore, either. (Having waded through those for research projects as an undergrad, my own feelings on their departure are ... mixed -- so very useful if they didn't frustrate you into tantrums.)

But anyway... you mention the claim about "study space." I can't speak for other libraries, but I know for certain that at the university here, with thousands of books from the stacks and the reference collection, & the periodical archive, gone... what we now have might as well be regarded as a storage area for unused chairs and tables. Over 95% of the available space, I would sincerely estimate, is not used at any given time. There is less reason than ever for students to come to the library, so the library's user statistics have probably fallen through the basement. This is not, of course, entirely the library's fault. The teachers evidently do not assign library work. (When I taught English there, I used to wonder how many assigned papers, whether using online sources or library materials.)

Our experience is a bit different, though some of the traffic in the main library is due to the cafe established there about 12 years ago. In our branch we have ~150 seats in a reading room and three small study rooms students can reserve. The latter are usually (but not always) fully booked from about 10am until late afternoon (similar rooms in the main library are even more heavily used), the former usually has 70-90 students during mid-day, the higher number coming near mid-terms and finals, occasionally rising above 100. Our branch is currently bookless because of structural issues that led to closing the stacks, even from staff. There are a limited number of comfortable study spaces on campus, so our main library regularly records 100K+ patrons over the school year.

As regards the local university library, there's also the fact that the administration made them "find room" so that space could be carved out for office(s) for one of the academic divisions.

In short the library is physically smaller, it has fewer paper resources, and it is used much less than it formerly was. Sad.

That's unfortunate. The internal combat for space is often intense, and the library only wins (or breaks even) when upper administration values its contribution. Even then, the wins are not necessarily frequent.

 

[Extollager]

I mentioned Book Review Digest and meant to come back to it. Brace yourselves --

BDR is still "available" online. But the excerpts from book reviews that appeared in the paper volumes are now missing: something to do with getting copyright clearance to reproduce an enormous quantity of material. Perhaps librarians were promised that the online version would be fully as good as the paper version. In any event, it is not.

I hadn't realized this. I was informed of it by an occasional correspondent and independent scholar. I don't have his permission to mention his name, but if you know anything about Tolkien scholarship you know his name. He said that the online BDR is hardly usable for the type of research he used to be able to do, now that the more complete version is gone from the university library closest to him.

I hate that. I couldn't say how often, as an academic and in retirement, the title of a chapter in C. S. Lewis's English Literature in the Sixteenth Century, Excluding Drama, comes to mind: "New Learning and New Ignorance." About the new learning enabled by digital technology I need not say anything to this group. There's some great stuff happening. But the spread of new ignorance among the "learned" hits me frequently. The loss I have mentioned in this posting is a real loss, but perhaps it seems of little significance to y'all. But a "little" loss here, and a "little" loss there, in the world of learning, culture, civilization... it adds up to big loss, and it's happening under our eyes.

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

The value of digital copies is amazing. I can view a digital image of every known Sumerian Script which is available from multiple sources. Same with so many additional obscure scripts.

The major governmental archives are not talking about burning their libraries to the ground.
There are several "rare-book" libraries that are both digitizing their collections and maintaining the physical books. For example the Bancroft Library at the University of California at Berkeley.
So the question becomes how many libraries must maintain how many physical copies of how many books?
And also, how many copies of the electronic archive of all knowledge should we encourage to be developed.
We probably all remember the important plot point from the Planet of the Apes TV Show (1974), the computerized records of all knowledge to rebuild society.

 

[THX1138]

I mentioned Book Review Digest and meant to come back to it. Brace yourselves --

BDR is still "available" online. But the excerpts from book reviews that appeared in the paper volumes are now missing: something to do with getting copyright clearance to reproduce an enormous quantity of material. Perhaps librarians were promised that the online version would be fully as good as the paper version. In any event, it is not.

I hadn't realized this. I was informed of it by an occasional correspondent and independent scholar. I don't have his permission to mention his name, but if you know anything about Tolkien scholarship you know his name. He said that the online BDR is hardly usable for the type of research he used to be able to do, now that the more complete version is gone from the university library closest to him.

I hate that. I couldn't say how often, as an academic and in retirement, the title of a chapter in C. S. Lewis's English Literature in the Sixteenth Century, Excluding Drama, comes to mind: "New Learning and New Ignorance." About the new learning enabled by digital technology I need not say anything to this group. There's some great stuff happening. But the spread of new ignorance among the "learned" hits me frequently. The loss I have mentioned in this posting is a real loss, but perhaps it seems of little significance to y'all. But a "little" loss here, and a "little" loss there, in the world of learning, culture, civilization... it adds up to big loss, and it's happening under our eyes.

Well said! One thing I have found in researching through the net is that I need to pay more attention to its source. There is a lot of borderline plagiarism out there now. So now, I do a lot of cross referencing looking to see how many sources repeat the same sentences or paragraphs. If I start seeing a pattern of miss-information, especially if I know the topic, I disregard it and move on.

As you know, there is more than one view to a subject and more than one way to approach it. But being told 'This current view is what everyone now follows.' doesn't set well.

 

[soulsinging]

I'm not sure the two are as seperate as I would like.

Many of the larger companies that are digitizing content have also taken to removing certain aspects or making it "suitable for a modern audience". How long before the originals do not exist anymore? Having the majority of the worlds knowledge and entertainment digitised by a select few companies with their own agenda (whether that be financial or political) is a problem to me.

I'm not necessarily in the camp that this is all about profit, some of the major studios push specific messages - that should be beyond doubt just looking at the content.

Just my 2c.

How many original copies do we have of Beowulf or Chaucer or even Shakespeare? Heck there are even debates out there that the Bible is missing a few gospels. We can't be assured the text we've read is an exact match for pretty much anything before the printing press, but those works still receive plenty of attention and discussion.

That said, the recent actions around Ronald Dahl and Ian Fleming works certainly lend some support to this concern. And I resisted a Kindle for a long time because I DON'T like the idea of Bezos being able to possibly rewrite books he doesn't like. But at the end of the day, the technology cannot be stopped. We all have access to more information in our pocket via smartphone than any public library we had growing up and some of the university ones. That means libraries need to evolve. And unfortunately, as with basically every conversation in western economies, if you don't like what's happening, you better find a way to pay for something else.

 

[soulsinging]

BDR is still "available" online. But the excerpts from book reviews that appeared in the paper volumes are now missing: something to do with getting copyright clearance to reproduce an enormous quantity of material. Perhaps librarians were promised that the online version would be fully as good as the paper version. In any event, it is not.

I just want to again note that this sounds 100% like a financial decision, not a campaign by "self-righteous institutions" - that generally take strong stands against banning books and do more to preserve them than any other entity on the planet - to scrub the world of obscure (and expensive) reviewer quotes from periodicals that already have limited interest.

Furthermore, why is it THEIR responsibility? Is it not possible to contact BDR for this? If not, why do they have no obligation to preserve it? Or the source publications from which those quotes came? Are these self righteous institutions the ONLY ones with this duty? And if they're so misguided and self-righteous in prioritizing fighting banning some books in their ENTIRETY, why trust them to preserve valuable back issues in the first place?

 

[pogopossum]

Having spent my entire reading life around libraries and then 35 years as a public librarian this is almost too painful to discuss. Luckily I still have access to a major library that believes in stacks.
About two months ago I checked out a book by a revered SF author. I was happy that my library was still owned it as I had only found it there and at a university library where it was "Access Restricted" The clerk while checking it out noted the condition and said that it would probably be cancelled on its return. I now doubt that it will be as I repaired the spine and repaired both the cover edging and reinforced the exterior of the spine.
The pages were slightly foxed, but then you'd have to read it to notice that, hmm?
I am not recommending bandit repairs, however if you know what you are doing - - -

The conundrum of collections vs. space hit my old employer. But the reaction was to cancel references on the (probably correct) assumption that they were not being used. The general collection was frequently weeded beyond the needs of space on the assumption (based on a couple of studies) that the remainder would circulate better as it was less crowded and fresher. The flaw in the studies that I saw was the assumption that overall circulation would improve. Something not supported, even somewhat contradicted. We used to have a last copy rule that with 26 branches and four regional branches a solitaire would be retained - and be accessible, The policy went away 15 years ago.
Well, I retired ten years ago, and as an old fogy I could see what was being lost, but not perhaps the positive changes sufficiently.

 

[melenkurion abatha]

I think you're absolutely right about this. Even leaving out political threats (my feeling is that books are more likely to be outright banned by fascists and religious maniacs than "tidied" into oblivion by "the PC brigade"), the fetish with everything becoming digital is dangerous.

For one thing, digital copies aren't readily accessible to older people (and, in a different way, to the poor). I am in early middle age, and there is a lot of stuff that I can't do with a computer or a phone that most people of, say, 30 can. I find much of it uninteresting, and some of it simply beyond my abilities. God knows what a person of 70 might think. For another, I am not convinced that digital copies are better at surviving than physical copies. A physical copy requires much less attention to survive than a digital one.

Also, I like books as objects. Like LPs, they have cover art. I grew up with Chris Foss' spaceship art, for instance, which has ended up as a big influence on the models I make. A printed book is a distinct object, while a file on a computer is just another file.

I'm only in my mid 40s and I'm already finding much of this technology uninteresting. I don't want to have make sure an electronic device is charged up just to read a book. I don't want to have to stare at a screen emitting light at my eyes. I don't want to have to navigate yet another user interface just to find things that I only own the rights to lease a copy of. I just want to pick up a physical book on my shelf, turn to the page with the bookmark and get down to reading.

This is somewhat ironic as I'm a software developer and spend my entire working day in front of computers.

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

In the early 2000s my childhood local library was torn down and replaced with a new larger building. The marketing is that the building is 3 times the size. 5,000 sf to 15,000 sf (roughly 500 square meters to 1500 square meters). One day I went in to look around. I was a little stunned by my perception of things so I asked a reference librarian. "They say this is 3 times the size but it doesn't seem like there is any more shelf space." I stated. "No, there is less shelf space in this new building." explained the librarian.

In the US, anyway, local libraries are not, and are not intended to be depositories of books. They have a process where they "cull" books that have not been checked out for a certain amount of time.
There is the famous story of "Chuck Finley", (more here) a person made up by two librarians to check out books so that certain classics would not be removed from the library shelves.

So then, are electronic archives a good addition to the existing system of libraries which individually have limited shelf space and must choose which books to maintain and which to discard?

 

[Randy M.]

I'm only in my mid 40s and I'm already finding much of this technology uninteresting. I don't want to have make sure an electronic device is charged up just to read a book. I don't want to have to stare at a screen emitting light at my eyes. I don't want to have to navigate yet another user interface just to find things that I only own the rights to lease a copy of. I just want to pick up a physical book on my shelf, turn to the page with the bookmark and get down to reading.

This is somewhat ironic as I'm a software developer and spend my entire working day in front of computers.

For what it's worth, we often have students ask for a print book because trying to write on their screen while also looking at something on the screen is awkward, at best.

 

[OuttaInc]

In the US, anyway, local libraries are not, and are not intended to be depositories of books.

Our newest community library has a Makerspace and a recording studio along with one heck of an electronic library system.

It’s a response to what the younger generation wants today. Neither of my kids read paper books, but they download tons of media to their phones. *shrug*