Barry Trott, Editor
Neil Hollands, Guest Columnist
Print version (Adobe Reader required)
Readers’ advisory (RA) services have a long history in United States public libraries. Since the late nineteenth century, there always has been a component of public library services that has focused on connecting readers with books. As RA services have developed, contemporary practices have generally built on the foundations established by previous generations of readers’ advisors. In their book, Readers’ Advisory Service in North American Public Libraries, 1870-2005, Juris Dilevko and Candice F. C. Magowan look at these foundations of RA services, and then call into question the work of contemporary readers’ advisors.1 The authors present a highly critical view of RA as it has developed in the past two decades. Among librarians who work with readers on a daily basis, Dilevko and Magowan’s work has generated controversy for its harsh critique of contemporary RA practice and theory. In the following article, Neil Hollands examines Dilevko and Magowan’s thesis and addresses the criticisms of contemporary RA theory and practice that the authors raise.–Editor
Where are we going, where have we been? Those are questions that come to mind as a contemporary librarian reads Juris Dilevko and Candice F. C. Magowan’s Readers’ Advisory Service in North American Public Libraries, 1870-2005. Their book is ostensibly a history of RA service in public libraries, but from the first sentences it is apparent that “history” will be molded to serve the authors’ arguments about what RA service should be. Dilevko and Magowan seek to revise the way in which we look at RA’s history, and, in doing so, lead a reactionary movement toward a future in which advisory is practiced as it was in the past, not as it is in the present. The authors have strong opinions, but ultimately their conclusions are wrongheaded. Nonetheless, examination of these opinions serves to remind us of the philosophy behind contemporary RA service, and thus can inform our goals for future practice.
Dilevko and Magowan’s central thesis is that contemporary literature has become commodified, concerned only with the profitability of books and their use to cross-promote other products. They believe that, beginning in the late 1960s, under the influence of the “Give ‘Em What They Want” movement, RA in public libraries was steadily co-opted by corporate culture. Readers’ advisors, they argue, have devolved into little more than marketers (perhaps knowingly, perhaps not) for dumbed-down, narcissistic literature to the detriment of readership for classics and serious nonfiction. Even worse, they claim, our emphasis on appeal factors, technological tools such as the NoveList database, and categorized book lists is leading to “McProfiling,” a deskilling of the profession that will ultimately lead to our replacement by machines and paraprofessionals.
History’s Reflection on the Present: Two Views
Instead of the current RA model, as defined by Joyce Saricks, Duncan Smith’s NoveList, the Genreflecting series, Nancy Pearl, and others, Dilevko and Magowan propose that RA be remodeled in the fashion of what they consider its glory days, 1917 to 1962, an era which they believe was “committed to systematic adult education.”2 In that era, they hold, readers’ advisors were subject experts who could separate literary wheat from the chaff and design systematic reading courses in subjects that would help undereducated adults “get somewhere.” The authors seem to have no argument with early library practices that actively discouraged fiction reading unless it was focused on “great books.”
The best chapters of their book concern RA’s history to 1962. This history will remind thoughtful practitioners that many interesting approaches to advisory have historical progenitors that deserve exploration. If the authors had stopped here and drawn reasonable conclusions–that RA’s educational and therapeutic aspects deserve renewed attention; that systematic reading courses supporting self-education in practical topics might be a good addition to promotion of popular materials; that advisors might find inspiration in historical ideas, such as the belief that every librarian should be a capable readers’ advisor–this would be a valuable book for practitioners.
AMEN! I remember when reviews and news of this book came out. I took a look at Mr. Dilevko’s resume. Not only was his “scholarly” activity in a hodgepodge of topics, he had absolutely no public library experience or knowledge. None – so how can he claim to be any sort of expert? And this is appropriate for someone training future librarians? I pity his students.
As one of Dilevko’s current students and a TPL employee for almost eleven years, I must say that Dilevko is dead on. Unfortunately, most large public systems DO focus on items that are deemed ‘marketable,’ moving away from what really is considered truly great literature… it’s a shame.
I disagree with the first comment. Dilevko may have no public library experience but so what? RA is an area where every party involved can have an opinion about how it should work. Anyone who cares about RA can write a good book about RA. You don’t have to be a drug addict to help drug addicts, and many excellent educators do not have their own children. So what? An avid reader who has been using public libraries for years can write a good book about RA. It won’t be written from a librarian’s perspective, but so what? Dilevko may not be a public librarian, but he’s an expert who has been researching the issue for years, and I am sure he’s a dedicated public library user. His fresh perspective should be welcomed. A plurality of interpretations/diversity of opinions should be welcomed. I may personally disagree with over 50% of what is said in the book, but I can certainly appreciate and admire the quality of craftsmanship and Dilevko’s courage to stand up for what he believes in. Perhaps the book is somewhat intellectually idealistic and excessively nostalgic. But is that necessarily a bad thing? Dilevko did not intend to write an RA manual. It’s a philosophical meditation and a well researched piece. If we stop dreaming or forget the past or have no difference of opinions, our profession will fester and rot. It was Henrik Ibsen who warned that “The worst enemy of truth and freedom in our society is the compact majority.”
I did not know about this book until I read Dr. Ross’s review (LQ, Oct. 2008). What a review! What poise and tact and wisdom. What grace and objectivity. Surely I went off and read the book. This book falls short of a scholarly publication that would criticize a theory or a practical approach and present alternatives. Dilevko breaks the cardinal rule of scholarly argument–he gets personal. He seems less interested in improving RA than in chasing his suspects across the RA field. He does not criticize the system but goes after Bill Crowley and Joyce Saricks and Nancy Pearl. He is out there attacking them. It’s his privte little vendetta. Actually, this book can read like a good thriller where the world of North American RA is the world of conspiracy populated by ill-intentioned librarians and confused readers. The author is surely the main character on a mission to save the world. If he wrote fiction he could produce bestsellers. Sorry, not bestsellers, classics… His cental theme is stunningly obvious: librarians are poorly educated, anti-intellectual and ideologically corrupted. Oh self-righteous Dilevko and his book dripping with disdain, condescension and pomp! He’s particularly cruel in his evaluation of Nancy Pearl’s work. For example, Pearl’s recommendations on the Middle East are rendered superficial, pseudointellectual and deliberately misleading. Of course, he counteracts Pearl’s selection with his own “balanced” “thoughtful” and “intellectual” selection. Is he an expert on the Middle East? I don’t think so. Then why is he so confident that his subjective approach is in any way more comprehensive and appropriate than Pearl’s? I have a hard time imagining an ethical scholar disparage another’s lifeword as he does. It all comes down to the argument culture that Dilevko evidently lacks. Civility, ladies and gentlemen, civility and facts!
I am coming to realize that anonymous blogs are not quite appropriate for established academic journals. Private websites, popular magazines or newspapers-yes; scholarly journals–not really.