I think by now most bibliophiles have seen this:
This year, after having amassed a collection of more than 20,000 books, officials at the pristine [Cushing Academy] campus about 90 minutes west of Boston have decided the 144-year-old school no longer needs a traditional library. The academy’s administrators have decided to discard all their books and have given away half of what stocked their sprawling stacks - the classics, novels, poetry, biographies, tomes on every subject from the humanities to the sciences. The future, they believe, is digital.
“When I look at books, I see an outdated technology, like scrolls before books,’’ said James Tracy, headmaster of Cushing and chief promoter of the bookless campus. “This isn’t ‘Fahrenheit 451’ [the 1953 Ray Bradbury novel in which books are banned]. We’re not discouraging students from reading. We see this as a natural way to shape emerging trends and optimize technology.’’
You heard it here first, folks. After a mere 2,300 years the book has now become obsolete. It would be laughable if it wasn’t part of a well-established general trend to push books further and further down the library totem pole that I’m sure you’ve all see in your local libraries. As Stefanie recently blogged, libraries, or at least some of them, are giddily embracing new technologies. Some of these seem appropriate—I can access newspapers, databases, and all sorts of reference works through my library’s website, an experience that greatly improves on the analog equivalent. I can’t tell you how much I hated spending days on end sifting through scientific journal indexes in university and I’m glad students don’t have to go through that any more. But there’s a difference between gathering information and reading.
I don’t know if advocates of the digital library have really considered the economics and ergonomics of reading. As Stefanie points out in her post, the costs of digital technologies seem to get overlooked. There is this idea that once you digitize a book it will be free and useful forever. Who pays for the data servers, computers, reading devices, database subscriptions, software upgrades, hardware upgrades, IT support, electricity, and disposal of toxic e-waste is a question that is never asked let alone answered. When you consider all of the costs of maintaining constantly changing technology, buying a book once and sticking it on a shelf for a few decades seems like an incredible bargain.
I also wonder how people are supposed to read the books in a digital library. I can’t imagine reading a whole book on screen. It’s simply not that comfortable. With a book you can curl up in an armchair or stretch out on a sofa, read it over breakfast or sitting on the bus. You can change position as often as you like, cuddle with the mammal of your choice, or (as is usually mentioned in these discussions) read it in the bathtub. Of course you can do all that with an e-reader (provided the batteries are charged), but do we expect every man, woman, and child to shell out hundreds of dollars for an e-reader every 3-5 years? Obviously that is not going to be possible for a great many library patrons, and if libraries can’t even buy books now they are certainly not going to be buying thousands of e-readers to loan to their patrons.
There’s also the question of quiet. Reading and thinking require quiet. The human brain has not changed with our changing lifestyles, and the science is clear: more distraction equals poorer reading, thinking, and learning. As libraries add coffee bars, video games, big screens, and other interactive amenities, where are we supposed to read? You would think that in this noisy, infinitely distracted world we would value quiet places even more than before, but the opposite seems to be the case. Just about every news article about libraries that I read makes fun of the “shushing librarian,” as though quiet is old-fashioned and we’ve evolved beyond it. Quiet reflection is out, and manic distraction is in. Unless something changes, there will soon be no place in public life for quiet thoughtfulness at a time when it has become the rarest of commodities. All things considered, if the goal of libraries was to discourage reading, going entirely digital seems like a very good way to go about it.
I think libraries feel that they have to do something. The days of “build it and they will read” are clearly waning. Funding is weakening dangerously and circulation (of books, at least) continues on its downward slide. Libraries have responded by going multimedia, but is this what libraries are for? The one thing libraries traditionally had that you couldn’t get anywhere else was a wide selection of books that are free to read, and a peaceful, quiet place to read them. That is still a combination you can’t get anywhere else. The first rule of marketing is to state what makes your product or service unique. Why aren’t libraries promoting themselves as a way to get away from the rat race and media frenzy, a place to relax, recharge, and just be you for a while?Instead, librarians seem embarrassed by their books and quiet and are eager to assure patrons that they can be as noisy and distracted in a library as they are every place else.
Who knows, turning libraries into public rec rooms might keep overall circulation up, but it will rob society of something it needs, whether it knows it or not. I think society actually does know it, or else it wouldn’t be stampeding in search of quiet and wisdom from yoga, tai chi, meditation, and retreat centres from every branchlet of every tradition you can think of. Aren’t quiet and wisdom what libraries do best? Maybe that’s something they should be making noise about.