Thank you. Once upon a time it was a point of honor for people who worked in bookstores and libraries to defend books and authors with unpopular views.
I was a consultant to the library world for 40+ years and a contributing editor, reviewer, and columnist for The Bloomsbury Review (TBR) for about 14 years. TBR was an independent book mag…
Thank you. Once upon a time it was a point of honor for people who worked in bookstores and libraries to defend books and authors with unpopular views.
I was a consultant to the library world for 40+ years and a contributing editor, reviewer, and columnist for The Bloomsbury Review (TBR) for about 14 years. TBR was an independent book magazine focusing on small, regional, and academic presses in the US and Canada. Also, back in the day, I helped found and manage an independent bookstore in the Midwest before I moved to Denver in 1975. We were proud that we sold books that other bookstores would not have on their shelves, including bilingual children's books, authors representing the gay and lesbian communities at the time as well as self-published books with right- and left-leaning political slants.
I visited libraries and bookstores throughout the United States and worked with state and national professional library and book-related associations. Increasingly, I heard and saw good people, who wanted a better world, advocate for removing books considered unworthy from shelves and to censor their authors. I found it hard to relate to their concerns. I don't think silencing ideas improves the world.
I admit it can be a fuzzy line deciding to not acquire a book because of subjective issues such as "quality" or because a book does not fit the current collection development guidelines versus not agreeing with an author's POV. And I have witnessed my share of clashes between library users and staff over favorite (meaning old) books removed from the shelves to make room for the new. However what you describe, in my opinion, is different and not just about the practicalities of limited shelf space and the changing interests of readers.
Thank you. Once upon a time it was a point of honor for people who worked in bookstores and libraries to defend books and authors with unpopular views.
I was a consultant to the library world for 40+ years and a contributing editor, reviewer, and columnist for The Bloomsbury Review (TBR) for about 14 years. TBR was an independent book magazine focusing on small, regional, and academic presses in the US and Canada. Also, back in the day, I helped found and manage an independent bookstore in the Midwest before I moved to Denver in 1975. We were proud that we sold books that other bookstores would not have on their shelves, including bilingual children's books, authors representing the gay and lesbian communities at the time as well as self-published books with right- and left-leaning political slants.
I visited libraries and bookstores throughout the United States and worked with state and national professional library and book-related associations. Increasingly, I heard and saw good people, who wanted a better world, advocate for removing books considered unworthy from shelves and to censor their authors. I found it hard to relate to their concerns. I don't think silencing ideas improves the world.
I admit it can be a fuzzy line deciding to not acquire a book because of subjective issues such as "quality" or because a book does not fit the current collection development guidelines versus not agreeing with an author's POV. And I have witnessed my share of clashes between library users and staff over favorite (meaning old) books removed from the shelves to make room for the new. However what you describe, in my opinion, is different and not just about the practicalities of limited shelf space and the changing interests of readers.
Again, thank you.