Dilevko and Magowan believe that Bernard Berelson’s 1949 suggestions would make a good guide for libraries.8 Berelson believed we could measure library success in terms of “social, political, and psychological processes,” such as the “promotion of group understanding, the clarification of the goals and values of the society, the encouragement of interest in politics, [and] the development of greater rationality in political decisions.”9 Ross’s enumeration of the values of reading provides a clearer path to these goals than anything suggested by Dilevko and Magowan. When readers find confirmation of self-worth through romances, they enhance their psyches and become more able to participate in the social world. When they get new perspectives from Alexander McCall-Smith’s optimistic detective Precious Ramotswe, Michael Connolly’s tough-guy Harry Bosch, or the clever historical heroes of Dorothy Dunnett, they incorporate or reject the author’s and character’s philosophies, thus clarifying what they believe should be appropriate goals for society. Through consideration of hypothetical worlds such as George R. R. Martin’s fantasies or Lois McMaster Bujold’s Vorkosigan saga, they better understand the real world and become more interested in politics and making intelligent political decisions. And yes, if readers want to pursue these same goals through classics instead of genre fiction, contemporary RA can accommodate that as well.
Finally, Magowan and Dilevko’s claim that contemporary RA practice somehow deskills librarianship is only true if we cannot identify worthwhile, challenging goals that need to be addressed for continuing RA improvement. When we start from our shared values of service, inclusiveness, respect for the interests and needs of all library users, and advocacy of good reading, then a set of ongoing challenges for professional readers’ advisors becomes abundantly clear. We have much work to do, but contemporary RA is on the right track. Instead of retreating to the methods of the distant past, let’s continue in evolving a high-quality service.
References
- Juris Dilevko and Candice F. C. Magowan, Readers’ Advisory Service in North American Public Libraries, 1870-2005 (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Co., 2007).
- Ibid., 53.
- Dilevko and Magowan, Readers’ Advisory Service in North American Public Libraries.
- Ibid.
- Nancy Pearl, Book Lust (Seattle: Sasquatch Books, 2003).
- Catherine Sheldrick Ross, “Finding without Seeking: The Information Encounter in the Context of Reading for Pleasure,” Information Processing and Management 335, no. 6 (1999): 793-95; “Making Choices: What Readers Say about Choosing Books to Read for Pleasure,” The Acquisitions Librarian 25 (2001); Catherine Sheldrick Ross, Lynne McKechnie, and Paulette M. Rothbauer, Reading Matters: What the Research Reveals about Reading, Libraries, and Community (Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited, 2005).
- Dilevko and Magowan, Readers’ Advisory Service in North American Public Libraries, 199-200.
- Bernard Berelson, “Reply to the Discussants,” in A Forum on the Public Library Inquiry: The Conference at the University of Chicago Graduate Library School, August 8-13, 1949, ed. Lester Asheim, 60-65 (New York: Columbia Univ. Pr., 1950).
- Ibid., 64.
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.