Flailing through the Archives

Because of commuting issues this morning, I am rather cranky and tired.  That will be my excuse for being rather short.

I have discovered the power of the double take: I told a co-worker at my unconventional other job I was a librarian (leaving off the “Mini” part), and her jaw dropped. She then  apologized for what she liked to read.

I’m going to make this statement once:

I don’t care what you read. If you’re enjoying it and will read more, then GREAT. If you’re reading classics just to impress, then what’s the point?

This is mildly, but not completely, related to the current Michael Gorman/Britannica Blog librarian drama, which relates more to social information tools such as wikipedia, blogging, and citizen journalism.   Unfortunately, the idea that academia knows best is not a new one:  there are “Good” things to read and “Bad” things to read.  “Good” things have been praised to the heavens by academics. “Bad” things are the books you’d hide from your high school English teacher

The problem comes people who only read “Bad” books may feel that if they can’t get their brains around something “Good” there is no point in reading at all.  Reading begets reading, and if there is a fundamental segregation between those who read “Good” books and those who read “Bad” books, then we’ve only succeeded in another form of playground bullying, with the nerdy elite as the perpetrators.