Libraries are here to stay in good times and bad. Under the radar of digital trend-spotting and independent bookstore declines, librarians soldier on—passionate about books, enthusiastic about their work and their communities, optimistic about the future—even in the worst of circumstances.

Although the foregoing was not their intended message, I came away reinforced in that thought after listening to two big city librarians at an AAP panel on April 22 describe the paradox of library acquisitions and trends in an era of economic uncertainty, transforming technologies and new consumer reading behaviors. The paradox is increasing demand and expansion of libraries, along side tightening budgets, shrinking hours of service and the gradual displacement of print by digital media.

Barbara Genco, Coordinator of Special Projects and Strategic Planning at the Brooklyn Public Library, and Christopher Platt, Head of Materials Acquisition for the New York Public Library both pointed to increasing circulation demand while library budgets were being squeezed.

At the same time, panel moderator Nora Rawlinson, co-Founder of EarlyWord.com, a content preview service for librarians, also pointed out that new libraries continue to be built to augment the some 16,000 library buildings now serving a population that is increasingly at first searching through library holdings on line.

A former librarian herself, as well as a past editor of Publishers Weekly, Rawlinson reported that "circulation in libraries is climbing like crazy." Contrary to the fears of librarians after the Cleveland Pubic Library system first posted its catalog online that the internet would cut down on patronage, experience has shown the opposite.

Most interesting was being reminded that, despite all of the buzz about e-book sales and the Kindle and Sony Reader, circulation acquisition and management is still very much print-based, and acquisition decisions are made by librarians based not only on patron interests but also very much on the merits of the book. And the latter is less a matter of the format than of the content.

Whether print or electronic, what influences the buyer is who the publisher is, who represents them in the distribution channel, and first and foremost the credibility of the author as evidenced by reviews as well as reputation. It was nice to see that ForeWord Magazine was on their list of preferred reviewing media that included also PW, LJ, Kirkus and Choice.

At the same time, as Barbara Genko observed, “we are the long tail,” and books for which there is backlist demand are always being replaced or, even purchased for the first time. This is especially true for children’s books.  Librarians are always on the lookout for books that satisfy the special needs of their neighborhoods—so that ethnic concentrations, occupational demographics and parent interests influence selections. In that sense, because who comes into the library is very much a product of location, so are its collections—and the library as we know it remains a real time individual and community experience—the internet and e-Books notwithstanding.

For many small and medium book publishers with trade markets, bookstores on the ground—and in many cases on line—have become loss leaders for a large share of their titles. It is the library market that provides a reliable and profitable distribution channel. And this market appears to have a future grounded in their communities—uncertainties notwithstanding.

Posted by: Eugene G. Schwartz, Editor at Large

Publishers Weekly’s Editor-in-Chief, Sarah Nelson, came up with a new twist on turning a sow’s ear into a silk purse in her commentary this week. She addressed the bogus book-banning list attributed to Governor Sarah Palin that was circulating hot and heavy on the net a few weeks ago. Her well-intended comments qualify for the cup-half-full, or rose colored-glasses award, masking too easily the ear that a sits on the well-fed sow resting in the shadows.

So, I want to shine a light on that sow’s ear. But before doing so, I want to acknowledge a few things about Publishers Weekly and its editor that I feel bear saying in a ForeWord magazine blog. Despite the fact that PW has purloined (purposely or accidentally) our trade mark “Foreword,” for the front section of their magazine, I have been and remain an admirer and regular subscriber to the magazine—not just for its literary side, but also for its reports on industry business news—and for a sense of where our industry establishment (its major publishing houses) is leading us and for the trends that fuel their publishing programs.

Let me say also that Sarah Nelson has built up a lot of good points with me as I’ve traveled the industry circuit and heard her on panels and in keynotes and in workshops. On occasion when she brushes up against politics or gossip, I may part company, but she comes at issues on our business with common sense, a good heart, and informed experience. She has presided over what I feel is a tremendously improved editorial product at PW, and is managing their operation with a steady hand in a time of great financial uncertainty—both for trade magazines generally, and for PW’s corporate support in particular.

PW has been, forever it seems, the reliable source for industry news, and the periodical of record for mainstream trade publishing. One expects as a matter of course that it would be in the forefront in the defense of first amendment rights and in opposition to censorship in all of its forms. The initial appearance of the so-called banned–books list, supported by the confirmed fact that as Mayor of Wasilla, Palin asked the librarian about their policies for removing books (“a perfectly acceptable question for a new mayor to ask,” Nelson observes), was rich fuel for the flames of ridicule and contempt being heaped on Governor Palin in the national political arena.

Inasmuch as a we can all acknowledge that the library and publishing industries, perhaps somewhat less than the entertainment industry, are predominantly self-identified as politically liberal, the allegation supported the prevailing stereotypes of conservatives  held by many liberals as intolerant and ignorant provincials or religious zealots. Everyone embracing those stereotypes eagerly seized upon this news as further evidence that Pailn would be a threat to our liberties.

So, I thought it was an act of justice on Sarah Nelson’s part to use her platform to point out that “there is no evidence that Palin tried to remove books from the library...while Palin stands for many things about which my feelings range from unease to stout disapproval, one thing I cannot accuse her of is being a book banner.” Nelson then goes on to suggest the kinds of “phony lists” a Palin-basher might have concocted that would at least have been well grounded in Palin’s belief system, such as support for gun rights and opposition to abortion.

Nelson surmises that book-banning was chosen because on the former issues Americans are fairly split, whereas on opposition to censorship we are all united. So, turning a rosy-hued spin on it (with which I can agree) she found in it something “in a roundabout slightly twisted way, pretty positive. To wit: books matter...they matter enough for us to solicit and debate our potential leaders’ attitudes towards them.”

One can turn a similar eye on all such ill-intended and mean-spirited bogus “facts”. For example, allegations that the Islamic heritage that forms a part of Obama’s family tree render his Christian affiliation suspect, could serve the salutary purpose “in a slightly twisted way” of encouraging a national conversation about the commonalities of spiritual benevolence shared by Christianity and Islam.

My point is that I think the truly positive benefit that could come out of these examples of bigotry in action would be a national conversation on how Americans have come to see pluralism of belief – in this case Christian fundamentalism vs Christian humanism—as mortal threats to each other. So much so, that remarkable women such as Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin—women who have hit the glass ceiling and found a way through the cracks—can be vilified and dehumanized so that whatever they say or do is spun into a disrespectful caricature.

In that environment any heartfelt tear shed by either of them is suspect, and any allegation that fits the mold is celebrated as further proof of the caricature.

Yes, it is reassuring “in a twisted way” that in choosing to circulate a bogus list of allegedly banned books, the miscreant also illuminated the value we place on books. It would have been more reassuring to me “in a hopeful way” if it prompted a national conversation on why we are so ready to believe the worst about “the other.”

Posted by: Eugene Schwartz, Editor-at-Large

In my last blog, I responded to a Library Journal piece by John Celli, former chief of the Library of Congress CIP Division, in which he challenged the library community to break out of its path and re-visit how we define the nature and purpose of the library. He also questioned whether current library establishments are in a position to take the intitiative. I suggested that individual libraries could do so anyway. Here is Celli's response to me. What are your thoughts? 


-----Original Message-----

Note: John Celli is recently retired Chief of the Library of Congress CIP Division

Dear John Celli:

I thought some of your ideas in "CIP on the Moon" in Library Journal's "Net Connect" (Winter 2008) to be so promising that I want to share my enthusiasm over them with my blog readers at ForeWordMagazine.com in this open letter to you.

As a publishing industry trend-watcher and columnist I have taken to stopping in at small town and city libraries in the past year or so to get a feeling for what is going on as I travel around the country on other business.

In the main I come upon buildings newly built or in process of upgrading, wide area spaces or glass-walled conference rooms being used quietly or collectively to some reading, computer or discussion purpose, and lots of evidence of audio, cd and video on media shelves. And, yes, plenty of books and spaces to sit an comfortably read them – including floor areas in nooks and crannies.

When I visit, I also see libraries used as community centers and repositories of civic information resources. They are also entertainment centers –and I think that the notion you advance of adding to the stated library mission " to inform and entertain" is one of the several out of the box ideas that struck me as promising. Any teacher can confirm that learning takes root most effectively when inspired teaching viewed as a performance [entertainment] art. And as you note, "much of what we provide is clearly entertainment – novels, movies, music, etc."

Three of your other breakout ideas seem to combine well: (1) providing a content "push" service to patrons (as does the LOC to its Congressional patrons), (2) having certain key libraries, following the PBS model, serve as nodules that produce service programming that could be pushed out through a network of libraries to service a national subscriber audience, and (3) exploring with content providers ways in which libraries "might play a large and more active role in providing users a full range of content (including current releases)."

I think also in testing out new ideas for the distribution of copyrighted and licensed content, new business models could be tried. The library circulation model would especially lend itself to anything from pay for use to, what I think would be most promising, subscription based access to a prescribed range of content. Such usage based purchasing by libraries from publishers properly structured might enable libraries to better allocate their collection development funds.

You close your imaginative piece concerned that library systems as "all too well established" institutions might "respond to challenges with "endless debate;" and that "our leadership will not bring us to a new city on a hill by applying the same skills that maintained the old institutions."

As you also recognized, however, the majority of libraries are publics or academic institutions and are distinguished in their "core uniqueness" from mass media. Therein, I think lies the "city on the hill." Any library or library system, or informal consortium, that can bring together the "seed" resources can seek to build a nodule with a solely owned or collaborative service that could then be syndicated to other libraries. I suspect that many publishers would be eager to partner in such initiatives.

The journey to the city on the hill can begin in the hands of any librarian who wants to pursue it and can enlist the support of their on local director or library board. Hopefully your article shot an arrow into the air. . . .

Posted by: Eugene G. Schwartz