My Library is an embarassment.

[CBVan]

I picked up an "Upcoming Books!" Paper from my local library, and much to my dismay, I saw the following:

Brown, Sylvia. Father God: Co-Creator to Mother God. (202.11)

Worst of all, this was under the section entitled "Non-Fiction."

I am embarassed to have my library even carry this nonsense...

 

[JJM]

I know that feeling well. However- there is a bright side. Most patrons who borrow the book won't purchase it, even if they like it, because it is available free.

The librarians try to channel limited funds to books that are sure to be popular; like it or not (and I don't), Ms. Browne is popular. Also, you wouldn't want your library to censor what you can read.

The library makes material available- you choose what you want to read. And consider scholarship- suppose 20 years from now you want to write an analysis of Browne's idiocy and you could not find a copy of her (out of print) book in a library? I think books by the woo crowd could have some sociological value.

As for the woo books being catalogued as nonfiction, I haven't figured that out.

 

[CBVan]

I know that feeling well. However- there is a bright side. Most patrons who borrow the book won't purchase it, even if they like it, because it is available free.

The librarians try to channel limited funds to books that are sure to be popular; like it or not (and I don't), Ms. Browne is popular. Also, you wouldn't want your library to censor what you can read.

The library makes material available- you choose what you want to read. And consider scholarship- suppose 20 years from now you want to write an analysis of Browne's idiocy and you could not find a copy of her (out of print) book in a library? I think books by the woo crowd could have some sociological value.

As for the woo books being catalogued as nonfiction, I haven't figured that out.

Well, I really wouldn't mind if the censored what I wasn't going to read anyway. In other words: If I was doing the censoring, I wouldn't mind. That blanket statement of yours in the 2nd paragraph is a little risky, don't ya know?

 

[LibraryLady]

Well, I really wouldn't mind if the censored what I wasn't going to read anyway. In other words: If I was doing the censoring, I wouldn't mind. That blanket statement of yours in the 2nd paragraph is a little risky, don't ya know?

Which blanket statement?

Actually, librarians, at least the ones I work with, try very hard to have all sides of an issue represented. See if your library has any Randi or Martin Gardner. Which library, by the way?

 

[fuelair]

I know that feeling well. However- there is a bright side. Most patrons who borrow the book won't purchase it, even if they like it, because it is available free.

The librarians try to channel limited funds to books that are sure to be popular; like it or not (and I don't), Ms. Browne is popular. Also, you wouldn't want your library to censor what you can read.

The library makes material available- you choose what you want to read. And consider scholarship- suppose 20 years from now you want to write an analysis of Browne's idiocy and you could not find a copy of her (out of print) book in a library? I think books by the woo crowd could have some sociological value.

As for the woo books being catalogued as nonfiction, I haven't figured that out.

A)catalogers get their data from the sales company/jobber or a standard cataloging supplier. They catalog according to data provided to them - they do not editorialize.
B) Librarians/media specialists are not supposed to editorialize (like putting all the quack books in a labeled quack section or putting them and the religion books in fiction and arranged by authors' last name). I, being not so serious, once catalogued a religion book (The Prayer Spot) quite accurately (Dewey with 7 numbers after the Decimal group to get it in the highly specific accurate location) in Geography.

 

[JJM]

A)catalogers get their data from the sales company/jobber or a standard cataloging supplier. They catalog according to data provided to them - they do not editorialize.

That may be a necessary evil, I wish there were a way around it. However, even librarians who think they understand technical stuff really don't. For example, a librarian who regularly reviews books on health (usually, "alternative medicine") for The Library Journal once gushed over the quality of a book on herbs. An authority on herbs reviewed the same book thus-

This herbal is particularly hazardous because its appearance gives undeserved credibility.

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/NegativeBR/ody.html​

 

[Mojo]

See if your library has any Randi or Martin Gardner.

And if not, ASK FOR THEM!

 

[ChrisC]

And if not, ASK FOR THEM!

Definitely request books you'd like to see. The libraries I visit have a little form that can be filled out. They always seem to do their best to keep a wide-ranging selection of materials but sometimes nobody notices that there's a gap in the catalog. Let 'em know!