Dealing with the Reader as a Whole: the Use of Appeal Factors
Dilevko and Magowan’s next targets are the lists, books, and databases used by readers’ advisors. They believe that categorizing books within these tools fragments the reading public into ever-diminishing subgenres that become target audiences for publishers. Further, they characterize the development of appeal factor theory by Joyce Saricks and others as part of this attempt to mechanically define readers and then pigeonhole their reading to a particular subgenre. Any attempt by advisors to make the practice of finding books easier or more efficient is considered evidence for their characterization of contemporary RA as a mindless, automated process. They strongly imply that our final goal is the elimination of human librarians altogether.
Again, there are glimmers of truth in this position. There is a potential for librarians to become too engrossed in subdividing books into categories, to collect books into lists just because we can. While limits on our resources do require that we seek efficiency in providing readers’ advisory, RA should not be reduced to a simple process of pigeonholing readers into categories. Admittedly, our tools are not perfect. The literature of RA and the databases on the market are works in progress–a mix of high quality and missed potential.
But again, Dilevko and Magowan’s characterization of RA practice is incorrect on the whole. They misunderstand the way in which appeal factors are used. The language of appeal, when used correctly, attempts to describe the complex totality of a given reader’s preferences, to inventory that reader’s values, not reduce them to a single category. The goal is not to provide only books that exactly match every single preference, but to make sure that the collection of books we suggest to the reader on the whole will address their interests and needs. A good readers’ advisor provides some books that are right down the middle of the reader’s interests, and others that provide room for small stretches in new, but related, directions. A good advisor can use the language of appeal to help the reader understand his or her reading history and how the books that are suggested address, and sometimes subtly vary, from those preferences.
When the authors turn to case studies of contemporary RA tools, they again resort to an unfair, reductive characterization of advisory service.4 In their study of NoveList, they asked students to use simple keyword searches to generate readalikes for their favorite novels. After trying one of these novels, the students critiqued the service. The process used for the case study failed to include more complex kinds of searching that are possible with the database and, in particular, ignored all of the value-added content that NoveList contributors have written. Nancy Pearl’s Book Lust is given similar treatment; its brief, entertainment-focused reading lists are subjected to a scholarly critique that isn’t appropriate for the format or the stated intentions of the book.5
More important, both of these case studies lack an important component of advisory: the advisor. A good advisor would use these tools with the reader to help generate ideas, then follow up with further analysis of what appeals to the reader to narrow (and sometimes broaden) the list of future reading possibilities. Dilevko and Magowan might remind us that too many shortcuts result in shoddy service, but their case studies are ultimately tantamount to snacking only on raw ingredients from a chef’s kitchen, then complaining about the quality of the cuisine.
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.