If the authors had talked to more practicing readers’ advisors, they would find that we serve readers with many goals. It’s true that many readers seek out light reading and genre titles as a way of diverting themselves for a few moments from the complications of their everyday lives. They don’t apologize for this goal, and, as advisors, we don’t apologize for supporting them. But we also serve plenty of readers who love the challenge of the classics and great books. Nor is advisory as simple as a choice between these two extremes. In a single RA conversation, we often point a reader toward a mixture of light, quick fun and more complex works.
Throughout their book, Dilevko and Magowan create a false dichotomy, taking the position that light reading and great books are somehow mutually exclusive. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. If they would rely less on the casual snobbery and cocktail-party theorizing of conservative culture critics, and more on reading research, they would know that people who read light fiction are more likely to read great books and complex nonfiction than the average person. But light fiction isn’t just a path to the great books. If the authors had RA experience, they would know that readers are capable of pulling great insights from light fiction.
While characterizing contemporary RA as an extension of publisher marketing is wrong, there may be a grain of truth to the authors’ position. In our general enthusiasm for reading, advisors may become caught up in promoting books that we know have limited charms but will circulate easily. Some books are advertised more than enough without the advisory community adding to their readership. Without violating our tenets of matching book to reader, we can still seek out the best books within all genres at all levels of difficulty and all measures of appeal.
But to characterize RA librarians on the whole as purveyors of commodified mediocrity is false. We are strong advocates for exceptional books. We seek out excellent titles, both new and old, and promote them relentlessly. The advisors I know are greatly concerned when mediocrities outsell books that will stand the test of time. We campaign tirelessly for the excellent low- and mid-list authors that our readers enjoy upon discovery. We work hard to find audiences for the long tail of lesser-known authors and older books that fill the shelves of our buildings. The advisors I know certainly demonstrate more awareness of excellent books than Dilevko and Magowan, who in two hundred pages don’t have a single kind word for a living fiction author.
Where we differ with the authors is in our insistence that readers should not apologize for their tastes. We disagree with the outdated practice of shaming people for what they enjoy. We do not believe that only literature professors can identify a good book. We trust readers to know when a book has served a purpose for them. There is subtlety and balance in the RA process. We can recommend excellent books that are germane to a reader’s interests without defaming or shunting aside the books that gave them a love of reading in the first place.
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.