The Day the Librarians Disappeared - We Can't Let This Story Come True!

Submitted by playplaylearn t3_11dryfs in books

"It started like any other day.
I woke up, went to the school where I worked, and settled in as the snow swirled outside.
My mind turned over the many things to do that day. I had no idea how many more were just up ahead. You see, this was the day that all the librarians disappeared."

https://media.gapingvoid.com/imls-ebook/full-view.html

If you are concerned about the rise in book bans, the ridiculousness of FL's list of books that won't get you a felony charge, and all of the other attacks on the right to read, this is a good ebook to read and share. Developed by GapingVoid as part of a national grant for school libraries, the book helps explain why librarians are so important in our schools.

77

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

alpha_rat_fight_ t1_jaag9wb wrote

“A truly great library contains something to offend everyone.” I love that quote.

30

yarnnthings t1_jaan4y4 wrote

Does your local elementary school carry Mein Kampf?

−38

lydiardbell t1_jaay8ca wrote

Mein Kampf is well beyond the reading level of the vast majority of elementary school kids (and those few who could read it probably aren't in a normal elementary school). Plenty of universities (and even some high schools) carry it for their history program though.

22

alpha_rat_fight_ t1_jaaopv6 wrote

It’s a quote from the slideshow that OP posted. I assume it was included in support of the idea that librarians are meant to be impartial stewards of information.

I’m betting you don’t need a library to find something that offends you, though.

17

Grantagonist t1_jab36r9 wrote

At first read I thought you said “libertarians” and I was like, “ooh, tell me more!”

15

potpro t1_jab5vmb wrote

I saw the same and then thought "POPCORN TIME!" Then saw 21 comments.

2

nomadiclibrarian t1_jacv1an wrote

In my 20+ years of librarianship, I have worked in schools, public libraries, for library vendors, and in university libraries. In every position, I have had to continually fight against budget cuts, position cuts, tenure removal, cities or university administration wanting in some way to take over library space, etc. It's depressing. ETA I think some people don't value what libraries have to offer until services are reduced or eliminated entirely. I'm not sure why this is the case.

4

Dunkin_Ideho t1_jadvya1 wrote

Let’s not get too dramatic. Local communities that fund libraries can choose what content they find acceptable to distribute in their community. Not funding books they find antithetical to their values isn’t an attack on the right to read.

Let the publishers publish what they will, people can choose to buy the content or not.

As to librarians, whom I love, why would they disappear and if they did what harm would it cause. Here are some counterpoints to the references narrative.

If the librarian disappeared and they didn’t notice at first, that supports the reduction of staffing not negates it.

If they don’t have an agenda how would they know where to go…to find the good stuff. It’s an inherently subjective analysis. You don’t need a librarian to show you where the Stephen King novel is but perhaps to recommend you a good book in a certain genre.

I should note that I actually donate money to library and support spending public funds on upgrading them and offering other services (within reason) so I’m not anti library or reading.

3

pcsweeney t1_jacns4i wrote

You can also launch a local campaign to fight against book bans in your community at fightforthefirst.org

1

tygerprints t1_jadmyjo wrote

My love of reading was sparked by my Dad, who used to pick up anything nearby and read it to us at bedtime. Comic books, newspapers, shakespeare, the bible, pieces of mail, anything.

And that's really how I became a lover of reading and an educated man. To me it's quite obvious why libraries and books of all kinds are necessary and important. And I have hard time understanding how anyone could be OK with any sort of a ban on books.

I'm more than just concerned about book bans, I'm sickened and disgusted by them. I've seem videos of the parents who are trying to ban books and I'm horrified at the lack of intelligence and the bigotry on open display. These parents are unhappy with their lives, and it's obvious they want everyone else to be also.

No society of any worth would ever ban a book of any kind for any reason. And yet somehow one of the most violent and sexually explicit and gory books, The Bible, never gets brought up for discussion for removal.

Which proves to me that all this book banning is just knee-jerk reactionism toward progressive and scientific reasoning. If the Bible isn't excluded, then it proves that these are just acts of smallness and bigotry on the parts of those promoting such bans.

1

ViskerRatio t1_jaaju19 wrote

Classically, libraries were necessary because printed text was the only reasonable way to disseminate information. The fact that Harvard had some information in its library didn't help me much if I lived in Grand Forks, so we needed a public library. The fact that downtown Grand Forks had a public library didn't help me much if I lived 10 miles outside of town and needed to do a school paper for tomorrow. And so forth.

But this does not describe the modern day. The last time I entered a library for a book was almost a decade ago - and the only reason I did so was because it was sufficiently obscure that it didn't exist in digital format. Despite the fact that I use the written word far more than most in my professional life, it's almost entirely digital at this point. I don't need a library down the road because I can read directly from the largest compilations of the written word in the world from the comfort of my own living room.

This is the reality that most school children are growing up in. While we old fogies can wax poetic about the joys of a physical book, this is little different than the folks who love vinyl rather than mp3s - it's their particular hobby rather than the core element of civilization it once was.

Nor are librarians particularly useful these days. Google does a better job of cataloguing and indexing information than the best librarian ever did.

Indeed, if you actually visit a library you'll recognize that relatively few of the patrons are there for the books. Modern libraries are primarily a public 'third space' - they're more about giving the homeless a place out of the rain, parents a place to dump their children for a few hours or local community groups a place to hold their meeting than they are about the materials they're nominally intended to warehouse.

I get it. No one likes to see the world they liked so much as a child change. But if you're concerned about books, you shouldn't be concerned about libraries - the vagaries of IP law are more important than some building you probably loved as a child and now never get around to visiting.

−29

HonestPonder t1_jaant9q wrote

Libraries offer a plethora of digital content, internet access and computers for people who can’t afford them at home.

You say homeless people just hang out there, but it’s the only place they can 1) apply for jobs 2) find the help they need 3) connect to the internet free of patronage 4) be inside

I respectfully disagree with you and find the fact that you personally do not go to the library to be completely inefficient as a reason they’re obsolete.

They also do a bunch of free services for the public like learning English as a second language, community activities for children, providing meeting spaces for local groups. My local library even has authors come visit for free meet and greets, getting books signed, and listening to the author talk.

Oh. And free books because not everyone can pop on Amazon and have it delivered to their door haha

Libraries are so important to community and without them we’ve just about privatized literally everything and cut off all public resources for those in need.

Edit to add also museum passes! They can make trips to expensive museums cheap or even free.

21

hobbitzswift t1_jaaqbcs wrote

This is..... incredibly short-sighted. You think just because YOU don't need a library, NO ONE needs a library?

Libraries provide community activities, summer reading programs for children, a place for the homeless to shelter (as well as serving as disaster relief shelters in some communities!), a place where people go to vote, storytime and activities for children, movie nights for families (btw, the only place you can rent movies for free in most communities is the library), game rentals, book clubs, language classes for adults, assistance with applying for jobs, a place for seniors to congregate and exist, a place for local historical archives and artifacts to be housed, digitized, and to SURVIVE....and who do you think organizes ALL of that? Couldn't be those useless librarians, could it? (I am aware that not all libraries have all of this. This is due to under-funding and under-staffing.)

You don't have to personally care about libraries if they're not useful to you but if you like books they actually ARE important to the future of literacy and publishing and so what is happening to them matters. If you care about the less privileged members of your community libraries are important too.

16

ViskerRatio t1_jaar077 wrote

> Libraries provide community activities, summer reading programs for children, a place for the homeless to shelter (as well as serving as disaster relief shelters in some communities!), a place where people go to vote, storytime and activities for children, movie nights for families (btw, the only place you can rent movies for free in most communities is the library), game rentals, book clubs, language classes for adults, assistance with applying for jobs, a place for seniors to congregate and exist, a place for local historical archives and artifacts to be housed, digitized, and to SURVIVE....and who do you think organizes ALL of that? Couldn't be those useless librarians, could it? (I am aware that not all libraries have all of this. This is due to under-funding and under-staffing.)

Your litany of reasons for having libraries has essentially nothing to do with libraries. You're not arguing for libraries - you're arguing for public spaces. And, for that matter, why would you hire a librarian to oversee it? Their training isn't in the logistical matters necessary for the tasks you describe but rather in the organization of information in a pre-digital age.

−20

Klau5_Dieter t1_jaavzty wrote

The library IS the public space. And the fact that this public space also provides access to a free source of information on just about any topic is great and should be kept that way.

Also, the sale of print books has been steadily on the rise, increasing every year since 2012. Books are not dead.

11

hobbitzswift t1_jaatpp9 wrote

>Your litany of reasons for having libraries has essentially nothing to do with libraries. You're not arguing for libraries - you're arguing for public spaces.

This has always been part of the purpose of libraries, especially since the 1960s or so. Why start some new type of public space when there already exists an institution that is supposed to do that? (I'll never argue against MORE public spaces but this is part of why libraries exist and ignoring that leads to less funding for libraries to do this type of community service.)

>Their training isn't in the logistical matters necessary for the tasks you describe but rather in the organization of information in a pre-digital age.

Uh. Nothing you said here is correct.... Current librarians are trained in organization of information in a DIGITAL age AND ALSO in the logistical matters that go into organizing community activities like the ones I described, with the exception of things like voting and disaster relief.

10

ViskerRatio t1_jaayp7j wrote

> This has always been part of the purpose of libraries, especially since the 1960s or so.

More like "since the 1990s" - and was largely a reflection of the declining utility of warehousing printed material.

Most of what you see as the modern purpose of libraries was more commonly performed by churches and other religious institutions in the past.

In any case, it doesn't really matter. If you're using a stables as a restaurant, that doesn't magically make stables relevant just because restaurants are.

> Current librarians are trained in organization of information in a DIGITAL age

Library science programs do not teach the mathematical tools for the organization of digital data. That's why you don't see organizations operating large-scale repositories of digital data hiring librarians.

> ALSO in the logistical matters that go into organizing community activities like the ones I described

Again, if this were true you'd see non-library organizations hiring library science graduates. But you don't. Whatever training they receive is not sufficient to make them experts in the tasks they're being asked to perform.

−10

hobbitzswift t1_jaazpmk wrote

>More like "since the 1990s" - and was largely a reflection of the declining utility of warehousing printed material.

I'd allow the 70s, but 90s is wildly recent. This is incorrect. "Warehousing printed material" also isn't a very accurate description of what a library does and it proves your disdain for the field.

>Library science programs do not teach the mathematical tools for the organization of digital data. That's why you don't see organizations operating large-scale repositories of digital data hiring librarians.

Library science programs teach the tools to organize digital archives. Aka their job.

>Again, if this were true you'd see non-library organizations hiring library science graduates. But you don't.

Well, firstly, librarianship is a specialized field and most people who get their MLIS go on to work in a library of some sort since that is, you know, what they paid to go to school for. However, some MLIS graduates change careers and work elsewhere. So this is again, incorrect, and frankly incredibly rude and dismissive of an entire profession you very obviously know nothing about.

7

ViskerRatio t1_jab17is wrote

> I'd allow the 70s, but 90s is wildly recent. This is incorrect.

The change in libraries is very recent. All of that space given over to media and digital presence? That was - at the earliest - in the 90s. Prior to that, you might have had a room full of vinyl records. But no computers, visual presentation devices, etc.

Likewise, most of the 'social' functions of libraries are within the past few decades because that space was taken up by physical books. If you needed a conference room for a public event, you were far more likely to use a church or school.

> Library science programs teach the tools to organize digital archives. Aka their job.

If this were true, library science graduates would be paid lavishly by private sector organizations. They are not. They are public sector-only employees that no organization that has to organize digital data on a large scale has any interest in hiring.

I know what you want to believe about librarians and their training. But they are largely obsolete, kept around mostly by the inertia of government and nostalgia.

> So this is again, incorrect, and frankly incredibly rude and dismissive of an entire profession you very obviously know nothing about.

I actually know a very great deal about the organization of digital information - and I know that actual professionals in the field consider the idea that librarians have any meaningful expertise in it laughable.

Again, there's a reason that the serious people who do this for money (rather than simply being on the government payroll) don't recruit from library science programs.

I get it. Change is scary. You have fond memories of a world that is going away. But that world is going away and neither you nor I can stop it.

−3

hobbitzswift t1_jab2znu wrote

>All of that space given over to media and digital presence? That was - at the earliest - in the 90s. Prior to that, you might have had a room full of vinyl records. But no computers, visual presentation devices, etc.

Was it maybe because digital presence was not as big a thing before the 90s, when everyone started having computers in their houses?

>If you needed a conference room for a public event, you were far more likely to use a church or school.

Yeah, because libraries generally use their conference spaces for their own activities lmao

>I know what you want to believe about librarians and their training. But they are largely obsolete, kept around mostly by the inertia of government and nostalgia.

I actually do know what I'm talking about! There is no need to condescend. What you're saying continues to be incorrect. If you hate librarians and think librarians are useless that's cool, good for you. That doesn't mean the spaces are obsolete. They aren't.

>I actually know a very great deal about the organization of digital information- and I know that actual professionals in the field consider the idea that librarians have any meaningful expertise in it laughable.

Why is your argument that librarians wouldn't be good at whole separate field supposed to hold any water in what we are talking about? Librarians are trained in the tools they need to help a modern library function (many people aren't aware of what librarians' training entails so I would take these data professionals' opinions with a grain of salt, not having any further information on them). And yes, I know a great deal about the profession of library science as well. So please assume that I'm not talking out of my ass. It's clear to me from your comments that you don't actually know the purpose of a library or how it functions - you admit you don't use them frequently. That's fine, it's not for you anymore. The world IS changing and the library spaces are going to continue to change with it. They already have changed, wildly, from what they were in the 1950s and 1960s. That's a great thing! It doesn't mean they're obsolete, it means they're adapting to the needs of the modern world, which is awesome.

5

ViskerRatio t1_jab3omj wrote

> Was it maybe because digital presence was not as big a thing before the 90s, when everyone started having computers in their houses?

Undoubtably this was part of the reason. However, knowing the reasons doesn't change the reality - the transition of libraries to community spaces and digital media sites is within the past few decades.

> Yeah, because libraries generally use their conference spaces for their own activities lmao

Libraries didn't have those community spaces. Perhaps the easiest way to see this is to visit a major research university and compare the newer vs. the older libraries. Those older libraries - with their endless stacks, lack of conference rooms or 'open office'-style spaces - are how libraries used to look.

> What you're saying continues to be incorrect.

Again - if what you believe is true, then why aren't any of the institutions that deal with large-scale digital data hiring graduates in library science?

What you're arguing is equivalent to arguing that astrologists are essential to space travel in the face of the reality that NASA doesn't hire astrologists.

0

hobbitzswift t1_jab5n53 wrote

>Perhaps the easiest way to see this is to visit a major research university and compare the newer vs. the older libraries. Those older libraries - with their endless stacks, lack of conference rooms or 'open office'-style spaces - are how libraries used to look.

Oh, I see! We're talking about two different things. I'm talking about public libraries. Also, yes, even public libraries used to look like that, especially pre-90s. The fact that they've evolved is a good thing because not all media is stored in books anymore, which you obviously agree with.

>What you're arguing is equivalent to arguing that astrologists are essential to space travel in the face of the reality that NASA doesn't hire astrologists.

No, I'm not. I'm arguing that librarians have important jobs that are distinct from other professions. You're arguing "if they're so good, why don't they all do this whole other job"? It's more equivalent to you saying why aren't college professors working in c-suites for businesses or something. Or why don't local public service government workers go work for the FBI.

Edit: left out a word

3

KickFriedasCoffin t1_jacklax wrote

I trained in nursing and work as a nurse. Apparently that's wrong lol

2

hobbitzswift t1_jad1rrs wrote

Yes, clearly we should all get degrees in specific fields and then go work in a different field to prove our education was worth something, lol.

1

Kataphractoi t1_jabihyj wrote

If you think libraries are only about books, you know nothing of libraries.

11

playplaylearn OP t1_jaakub0 wrote

Oddly anti-book given the subreddit.

Also, I would suggest that is kind of the point of The Day the Librarians Disappeared. School libraries serve so many other roles: meeting spaces, learning commons, exploration/maker spaces, and just a safe space for students.

Maybe I am just waxing poetic, but I still see a need for school libraries. And a need for books, be they digital or physical. Current attempts to break down systems like libraries and classrooms are truly insidious.

8

ViskerRatio t1_jaaqh3o wrote

> School libraries serve so many other roles: meeting spaces, learning commons, exploration/maker spaces, and just a safe space for students.

This is really the point I'm making. Those 'other roles' are not inherently linked to the 'library' function. It's just that as libraries themselves declined in utility, the space was re-purposed to fill those roles. But there is no reason you can't fulfill those functions without the 'library' part - and, indeed, this is increasingly what you see on college campuses.

−4

hobbitzswift t1_jaavthv wrote

I think you don't understand what the library has been used for historically.

10

3pbc t1_jaanbbl wrote

>Oddly anti-book

Nothing they wrote was anti-book

−11