What model would like us to use? Apparently, you would like libraries to buy books and give them to you. You want no limitations on how long you can keep the books – but I’m guessing you would object strongly if you were the one on the waiting list, and someone else decided to keep the book you wanted for a few months because it took them that long to finish it. Free comes at no cost if you return the book on time. You can always check it out later to finish it – again, at no cost.

What limitations on how long you have to read a book? Limitations on how many times you can renew a book? Inability to renew a book because someone else decided they wanted to take the book you have? Being charged late fees all because you are not fast enough to read a book in under 2 weeks? Free comes at a cost, and this is why many libraries are dying. Time to change the model and get rid of archaic policies that do more to discourage reading.

The Harris Poll, the OCLC Perceptions 2010 study and the OhioLINK–OCLC Collection and Circulation Analysis Project 2011 are examples of this.

That’s a good thing in my book and I hope we both keep chiming in …

The patrons are deciding the “value-added” here. Study after study shows that there is a reader-book connection which can’t always be defined or explained. We mess with that at our peril.

The people also want an iPad, a McMansion, and a Ferrari. Sadly there’s limited funds and we sometimes have to decide between giving them what they want and what they actually need. Libraries don’t exist just to buy popular books for people to cheap to buy them for themselves.

Not that I’m going to be the one to change the status quo. This isn’t something I care enough about to risk the wrath of little old ladies.

“Libraries should concentrate on collecting books that people might want to read, might even enjoy and benefit from, but don’t know about, and then promote them like crazy.”

I agree with you completely. As a new Library Director in my first public library job after years of working at large elite universities, I’m dealing with “culture shock.” I do believe some focus needs to directed to the whole funding issue, though… people DO want bestsellers and complain and even write angry letters to the editor when they don’t get them.

But, one of my big goals is exactly as AL described… to bring lesser-known “gems” to the masses. These are books I’m sure people would like if they knew about them. Fortunately, I have total control over what is purchased in my small library, and I’ve broadened collection development from the “all new mysteries and thrillers all the time” policy of my predecessor. And… shock! People are happy about it. Some people do criticize me for “wasting” money on nonfiction, but they’re thankful for the “unusual” fiction picks and foreign films and documentaries. I try to make people aware of older items we already own, and new items they might not otherwise think of.

I don’t think it’s elitist to say that public libraries should provide education to the masses, I just think it’s very unrealistic. People don’t want that. As crazy (and depressing) as it sounds, insisting on providing what we, as librarians, think the masses should be reading, but which the masses don’t want, is in many ways as stubborn as insisting we have a library twitter account, or Facebook account, which patrons don’t use. Yes, the difference is that unlike twitter and Facebook, classics and the like have some inherent value… but no value to the patrons if they’re just sitting on the shelf unread.

That may be so. And I agree – public library collections should include every viewpoint – from socialism on on the left to libertarianism on the right.

But in our supercharged, hyper-partisan political climate, what “most people” think or want doesn’t matter all that much. All it takes is a few very loud people getting worked up for chaos to ensue.