What's the use of libraries?

[Alan H]

Latest post of the previous page:

What an utterly, utterly stupid response by Pullman. The Council cannot raise extra money in local taxes as they are not allowed to, and receive less grant from the tax-payer through central taxation from the Government. So Pullman is doing no more than sticking his fingers in his ears, and shouting "la-la-la! I'm not listening!" besides showing a disgraceful ignorance or disregard for how the economy and government works.

Nonsense. He is letting the elected officials know what some of the electorate feel should be a priority. It's up to the officials to weigh up the various competing interest and come to appropriate decisions. If no one bothered to tell the Councillors what they think should not be cut, how else would they know? It's not up to the electorate to do his job of balancing the budget - that's what he's paid to do. No one is saying it's easy, but that's why they get paid big bucks.

[thundril]

Libraries are important to a small section of society. They should be more important to a larger section of society, but apparently only 16% of the population actually use them.

Right. So at the mo only 16% use them, and you think it would be good if more used them. So you obviously don't think closing the libraries we've got is a good idea. OK. I'm with you so far.

I belong to my local library, and as it happens, will be going today, as I have a book to return. Libraries are very important for kiddies, principally, IMO, because they can try books without cost. If books had to be purchased, then I think they would have less opportunity to read. Likewise, there are all the obvious benefits for the retired. So I'm not against libraries, OK?

Good. You've already made that clear in para 1, and I am certainly not doubting you.

LHowever, I think Philip Pullman's article is just an outburst of luvvieness,

WTF is luvvieness?

and IMO, shows wilful ignorance of subjects other than literature. He may raise a cheer, but IMO does precious little to ultimately help his cause.

Here in Oxfordshire we are threatened with the closure of 20 out of our 43 public libraries. Mr Keith Mitchell, the leader of the county council, said in the Oxford Times last week that the cuts are inevitable, and invites us to suggest what we would do instead. What would we cut? Would we sacrifice care for the elderly? Or would youth services feel the axe?

I don’t think we should accept his invitation. It’s not our job to cut services. It’s his job to protect them.

What an utterly, utterly stupid response by Pullman. The Council cannot raise extra money in local taxes as they are not allowed to, and receive less grant from the tax-payer through central taxation from the Government. So Pullman is doing no more than sticking his fingers in his ears, and shouting "la-la-la! I'm not listening!" besides showing a disgraceful ignorance or disregard for how the economy and government works. The rest of his article continues in much the same way (but I find it too exasperating to continue). Result? Absolutely no ideas how to help maintain access to books. He should be sent to the library and told to look at a few suitable works of non-fiction, and not allowed out until he sees the idiocy of his position.

Well this seeems all a bit unfocussed, Nick. You cartoonise Pullman's response, and then present in opposition something that really does sound like the fuming of a nearly-speechless Meldrew. If you want to make a case, i'm afraid it will have to be a bit more specific. As, I think, Pullman's case was.
Maybe you should go to the library and read a few works of creative fiction?

[animist]

I wonder if the 16% that Nick mentions represent just the card-carrying borrowers - there is also an important reference use to public libraries such as Internet use (not everyone has this), newspapers (YT and other old codgers read these - in my case for working reasons) etc. I think Nick does have a point given that it is the central government which limits what local authorities can spend, but libraries always seem to be an easy target, and closing 20 out of 43 libraries does sound quite drastic.

[Nick]

However, I think Philip Pullman's article is just an outburst of luvvieness,

WTF is luvvieness?

Luvvieness is a word I dreamed up to describe just such a response as Pullman's. It is common amongst writers (not so much journalists) actors and other arty-farty types- "luvvies". Though I am not a great fan of "the arts" I can see that others are, and have absolutely no problem with that. I find it mildly exasperating to hear actors discussing characters as if they were real people. I did A level English, ( I had been top of my year in previous years) but it sadly and successfully crushed any interest I may have had in "serious literature". To be asked "...and what do you think Othello is really thinking here?" strikes me as a ludicrous question. And if I want to examine social issues, I'd much rather examine academic argument than examine it through drama. I admit this is a somewhat jaundiced view, but plead an adverse reaction to force-feeding at a young age. Having said all that, sometimes it can break through (Educating Rita was fun as well as meaningful, for example), but I don't give it much of a chance. Temperamentally, I have absolutely no wish to get into literary characters, and I won't allow Jane Austen in my home! Yup! Emma was a set text! I feel scarred for life!

Anyway! Listen to any arts programme on the radio, and I defy you to get through an interview without someone, usually a director or producer, being described as "Absolutely marvellous!!" Again, different strokes for different folks, so it would be unreasonable of me to object or even criticise them for following something which obviously ives them great pleasure and meaning to their lives. But they do think it's a huge joke that they are incapable of any maths or science. I'm not great at those myself, but I'm not proud of it.

In his article, Pullman is (IMO) being a luvvie. Using theatrical language, but not addressing the problem at hand whatsoever.

OK, I'll admit to being a bit Victor Meldrew-ish, but I don't think I was being unfocussed. Indeed I am objecting to Pullman's non-specific and cartoonish response, and pleading for clarity and practical solutions, which he singularly fails to provide. How will creative fiction provide a solution? He might as well write a song about it, or even create an angry collage.

[Nick]

I wonder if the 16% that Nick mentions represent just the card-carrying borrowers - there is also an important reference use to public libraries such as Internet use (not everyone has this), newspapers (YT and other old codgers read these - in my case for working reasons) etc. I think Nick does have a point given that it is the central government which limits what local authorities can spend, but libraries always seem to be an easy target, and closing 20 out of 43 libraries does sound quite drastic.

I'm sorry I can't cite the research which yielded the 16%, but I expect it relates to usage. For most people, libraries are an irrelevence. I've just done a little field experiment, and in the railway carriage I'm sitting in (Inter-City, not suburban commuter) of approximately 40 people, not a single one is reading a book. Magazines, yes, papers, yes, computers, yes, but not a single book. Some are sleeping and a few just gazing into space. I think 16% is more likely to include those who have used the library just once or twice a year. I'll have to see if there are any figures on the internet.

I also think we should be looking anew at how we provide library (and other) services.

[lewist]

Nick, I read books on the bus! I also listen to audiobooks, look at the scenery, have a cup of tea and a sandwich if I'm on the Gold service, listen to music, sleep...

Enjoy your train trip.

[Nick]

Reading on the bus? I'd expect nothing less from such a superior being as yourself

Why-eye!! (However it's spelt...) The train's just pulled in to Newcastle! 3 hours, 3 minutes from King's Cross!

[animist]

I wonder if the 16% that Nick mentions represent just the card-carrying borrowers - there is also an important reference use to public libraries such as Internet use (not everyone has this), newspapers (YT and other old codgers read these - in my case for working reasons) etc. I think Nick does have a point given that it is the central government which limits what local authorities can spend, but libraries always seem to be an easy target, and closing 20 out of 43 libraries does sound quite drastic.

I'm sorry I can't cite the research which yielded the 16%, but I expect it relates to usage. For most people, libraries are an irrelevence. I've just done a little field experiment, and in the railway carriage I'm sitting in (Inter-City, not suburban commuter) of approximately 40 people, not a single one is reading a book. Magazines, yes, papers, yes, computers, yes, but not a single book. Some are sleeping and a few just gazing into space. I think 16% is more likely to include those who have used the library just once or twice a year. I'll have to see if there are any figures on the internet.

I also think we should be looking anew at how we provide library (and other) services.

Libraries may not be relevant to most people most of the time, though recession might make them more likely to borrow than buy - do you have any ideas about alternative provision? I don't actually think 16% is that low, and I suppose the other rejoinder might be that most competing services would cater for some other minority; but to repeat my anecdote about the loos, libraries should be doing everything to welcome non-users, not interrogating them.

[jamesjones950]

Now I am really confused.

A mere 16% of the population use libraries, so they're closing lots of them down to save our cash.

A massive 8.6% of the population are Roman Catholic, so they lash out millions of our cash on their boss's visit.

Good thinking, Batman.

[Alan C.]

jamesjones950
A mere 16% of the population use libraries,

I would be willing to bet money that the figure is much, much higher here where we live.
You can't get parked outside the library any day of the week. (And it's not in town)

[thundril]

Now I am really confused.

A mere 16% of the population use libraries, so they're closing lots of them down to save our cash.

A massive 8.6% of the population are Roman Catholic, so they lash out millions of our cash on their boss's visit.

Good thinking, Batman.

But isn't the connection obvious, JJ?
The Catholic church is the one that, in earlier centuries has tried to prevent the publication of any books at all. Even the bible, unless it was in a language only a trusted minority of the priesthood could read. As recently as 1960, when I studied at a seminary, we were encouraged to read the musings of Aquinas, Augustine, Newman, anyone; but not the actual bible.
So the old theocracy and the new barbarians have vital common interests. Freethinking comes from learning. Dangerous stuff, that. If there's an excuse to put a stop to it, the philistines will grab it.

[thundril]

I'm sitting at a coffee bar in Kelvingrove Museum in Glasgow. This is a stunning piece of architecture, and the museum itself is wonderful- it's an old-school style, complete with stuffed animals and dinosaurs, glass-case displays and careful labels, and it's full of excited kids and parents, getting themselves an education. And it's free.

[Dave B]

I am waiting for a phone call from a chap who wants some computer mentoring and I have the library web page for booking computers all ready so we can get a day and time fixed.

The library is very useful for this sort of thing.

Though the alternative is that I lug my laptop round to a pub and we do the work on a back table there - hmm, sounds like a good idea after all!

Naw, just got to lug the lump back home again.

[Alan C.]

thundril
I'm sitting at a coffee bar in Kelvingrove Museum in Glasgow.

We had one of our meet ups there, fantastic place we spent the whole day there.

[thundril]

thundril
I'm sitting at a coffee bar in Kelvingrove Museum in Glasgow.

We had one of our meet ups there, fantastic place we spent the whole day there.

Yep. gorgeous place it is. Wish I'd had more time. unfortunately, am now on train back to Cardiff, (change at Crewe.)

[Fia]

Glasgow is the best city I've been to for free, interesting and accessible culture. Edinburgh may have the National collections, but Glasgow has the heart and humanity.

Hope you are home now thundril - a long journey for you...