Had I been in a position to pursue that question at the time, I expect that I would have found that the holds/copies ratio was _extremely_ high and that it stayed that way for a very long time. One copy of "Irreversible Damage" in my 36 library consortium, seven of Shrier's newer book "Bad Therapy". Libraries were close to peak ideological mania in 2020 when "Irreversible Damage" came out...
Yes. Think of Rachel Rooney, author of "My Body is Me!". Lost her publisher and her career for an innocuous picture book because its materialist message contradicted gender ideology. One copy available in the entire state of MA.
So interesting, right? I would love to see how libraries behaved when the demand for "White Fragility" was high in 2020 compared to how they are responding now.
I ran a banned book library book test a few years back against Jordan Peterson's books.
I found an ALA list of books that a school district had banned. First, small segue on the meaning of "banned" --
-- "banned" for this list meant libraries were told to remove the books for review. That review would be done by the district school board. If reviewed well, then the books would return for circulation.
Now, I totally get that a review process is more government red tape. The irony here being: libertarian sounding conservatives leveraging the government to impose itself more in the lives of citizens. And I sympathize with committees of nonexperts making decisions that circumvent professionals. In this case, a school board committee trumping librarians trained to maintain circulation for local patrons.
The test case for my example was hyperlocal and democratic. It's partisan to criticize government red tape when the situation was hyperlocal. This test case was a school board that is directly elected by local citizens. And it's myopic to not emphasize that there was a democratic process. A school whose funds are by far raised from local citizens, despite much smaller subsidies from State and federal funding that typically get talked about.
So this was small government representing a small electorate acting on behalf of locals. This needs to be re-stated because the book-banning gets national attention, and digs up very old debates about federal power and protection, State homerule or sovereignty, versus local, direct democracy. These are deflections, but if the debate goes national then the implications reach further than pundits realize.
In this example of books, I found that the bulk of the books had been reviewed and returned to circulation. So a big news story that grew into a What-If nothingburger.
Another test case were banned books championed by the ALA. I compared the ALA book ban list to my local, regional public library. My local, public library had a copy of almost every book available on the shelf or for digital check-out. I compared this to Jordan Peterson's books. Every print copy of Peterson was checked out, and the digital copies were waitlisted. So the local demand to read Peterson's books was huge, while the demand to read the banned books was tiny or negligible.
I came to a conclusion that the ALA is fabricating a national narrative about banned books. This narrative shines a spotlight on a valid group of patrons who want to read a niche type of book, and demand this be funded. While at the same time, shifting the spotlight creates a shadow on the very large demand by other patrons, and synthesizes a constrained supply for books that ALA leadership finds ideologically abhorrent.
My examples are just local searches and research. I really wish a librarian or curator would research circulation demands of these various collections. Is my conclusion accurate? Are the collections of books labelled "right-wing" artificially constrained?
It's a relief to see you do this kind of research for Massachusetts. I didn't know librarians or curators could measure this, like the "high holds ratio".
I won't forgive the ALA for getting rid of the book award named in Laura Ingalls Wilder's honor because someone suddenly noticed that she portrayed some racist characters in her Little House books. She did not portray them favorably, nor was the author's voice even tacitly showing approval of them. It was one of the top 3 stupidest things I have heard in the last 20 years and that is saying something. To me it calls into question every Caldecott and Newbery winner since the revocation of the Laura Ingalls Wilder Award. I completely discount any ALA prize won from 2018 onwards as worthless.
Wilder was a great writer! I've been reading "Farmer Boy" recently. The world has to grow up and realize some of the best children's literature is also period literature at this time, and come up with something better than temporal snobbery to deal with it.
I ran a simple check on my local, multi-county library system.
The books listed by the ALA as banned for this week are all available in multiple formats. Some are checked out but there's at least 1 copy available somewhere in the system to be pulled / downloaded / streamed.
Kirk's book has a long wait list. 4 copies with >50 holds. Only available in 1 format (digital).
So not much has changed with my local, public library system since I last tested it with Jordan Peterson's books.
I gave up on libraries when they removed six Dr. Seuss books from circulation across the country, including my childhood favorite McElligot's Pool. Well, that and the fact they don't keep them quiet anymore and they sold off thousands of classic books so they could get more copies of Disney movies for the Loud People to rent.
I had always disliked Dr. Seuss, because of his more manic and popular books like "The Cat in the Hat". It wasn't until the publisher took it off their catalog and libraries started pulling it from their shelves that I read "McElligot's Pool" and discovered that Seuss could be charming when he tried.
Wondering what the stats are for Abigail Shrier’s “Irreversible Damage.”
Had I been in a position to pursue that question at the time, I expect that I would have found that the holds/copies ratio was _extremely_ high and that it stayed that way for a very long time. One copy of "Irreversible Damage" in my 36 library consortium, seven of Shrier's newer book "Bad Therapy". Libraries were close to peak ideological mania in 2020 when "Irreversible Damage" came out...
Liberals mainly ban books because of hate - not necessarily for hate contained in the book, often it is for the hate felt by Liberals toward the book.
Yes. Think of Rachel Rooney, author of "My Body is Me!". Lost her publisher and her career for an innocuous picture book because its materialist message contradicted gender ideology. One copy available in the entire state of MA.
So interesting, right? I would love to see how libraries behaved when the demand for "White Fragility" was high in 2020 compared to how they are responding now.
Great idea. Let's put the public back into public libraries.
Good slogan!
Great article! Thank you for drawing attention to the fact that not all books are created equal when it comes to libraries.
Good sleuthing
I ran a banned book library book test a few years back against Jordan Peterson's books.
I found an ALA list of books that a school district had banned. First, small segue on the meaning of "banned" --
-- "banned" for this list meant libraries were told to remove the books for review. That review would be done by the district school board. If reviewed well, then the books would return for circulation.
Now, I totally get that a review process is more government red tape. The irony here being: libertarian sounding conservatives leveraging the government to impose itself more in the lives of citizens. And I sympathize with committees of nonexperts making decisions that circumvent professionals. In this case, a school board committee trumping librarians trained to maintain circulation for local patrons.
The test case for my example was hyperlocal and democratic. It's partisan to criticize government red tape when the situation was hyperlocal. This test case was a school board that is directly elected by local citizens. And it's myopic to not emphasize that there was a democratic process. A school whose funds are by far raised from local citizens, despite much smaller subsidies from State and federal funding that typically get talked about.
So this was small government representing a small electorate acting on behalf of locals. This needs to be re-stated because the book-banning gets national attention, and digs up very old debates about federal power and protection, State homerule or sovereignty, versus local, direct democracy. These are deflections, but if the debate goes national then the implications reach further than pundits realize.
In this example of books, I found that the bulk of the books had been reviewed and returned to circulation. So a big news story that grew into a What-If nothingburger.
Another test case were banned books championed by the ALA. I compared the ALA book ban list to my local, regional public library. My local, public library had a copy of almost every book available on the shelf or for digital check-out. I compared this to Jordan Peterson's books. Every print copy of Peterson was checked out, and the digital copies were waitlisted. So the local demand to read Peterson's books was huge, while the demand to read the banned books was tiny or negligible.
I came to a conclusion that the ALA is fabricating a national narrative about banned books. This narrative shines a spotlight on a valid group of patrons who want to read a niche type of book, and demand this be funded. While at the same time, shifting the spotlight creates a shadow on the very large demand by other patrons, and synthesizes a constrained supply for books that ALA leadership finds ideologically abhorrent.
My examples are just local searches and research. I really wish a librarian or curator would research circulation demands of these various collections. Is my conclusion accurate? Are the collections of books labelled "right-wing" artificially constrained?
It's a relief to see you do this kind of research for Massachusetts. I didn't know librarians or curators could measure this, like the "high holds ratio".
I won't forgive the ALA for getting rid of the book award named in Laura Ingalls Wilder's honor because someone suddenly noticed that she portrayed some racist characters in her Little House books. She did not portray them favorably, nor was the author's voice even tacitly showing approval of them. It was one of the top 3 stupidest things I have heard in the last 20 years and that is saying something. To me it calls into question every Caldecott and Newbery winner since the revocation of the Laura Ingalls Wilder Award. I completely discount any ALA prize won from 2018 onwards as worthless.
Wilder was a great writer! I've been reading "Farmer Boy" recently. The world has to grow up and realize some of the best children's literature is also period literature at this time, and come up with something better than temporal snobbery to deal with it.
I didn't know the Wilder honors was removed in 2018. Thanks.
P.S.
I ran a simple check on my local, multi-county library system.
The books listed by the ALA as banned for this week are all available in multiple formats. Some are checked out but there's at least 1 copy available somewhere in the system to be pulled / downloaded / streamed.
Kirk's book has a long wait list. 4 copies with >50 holds. Only available in 1 format (digital).
So not much has changed with my local, public library system since I last tested it with Jordan Peterson's books.
I gave up on libraries when they removed six Dr. Seuss books from circulation across the country, including my childhood favorite McElligot's Pool. Well, that and the fact they don't keep them quiet anymore and they sold off thousands of classic books so they could get more copies of Disney movies for the Loud People to rent.
I had always disliked Dr. Seuss, because of his more manic and popular books like "The Cat in the Hat". It wasn't until the publisher took it off their catalog and libraries started pulling it from their shelves that I read "McElligot's Pool" and discovered that Seuss could be charming when he tried.
Yes, it's a deep catalog. If you get a chance, check out some of his earlier, more political and adult works. They're amazing.
The printing press has been powerful for centuries.
Now the internet has ebooks on all manner of topics.
Could the Koran be banned?
https://hellish2050.substack.com/p/catholic-priest-faces-prison-for