January 07 2005
Library's mission off the mark.
Columnist discusses the state of the Denver library system, citing Buffy on a couple of occasions. "I typically spot an unfortunate soul in his mid-30s checking out a half-dozen episodes of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," and instantly I question the function of the library system - and humanity's mental state in general."
You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.
400lb_Gorilla | January 07, 01:32 CET
prospero | January 07, 01:33 CET
ruthless1 | January 07, 01:46 CET
But the "should the state pay for entertainment question is, in my opinion, valid, though there's no "solution" to the question. I just don't think there's an easy answer. In the case of Buffy DVDs, I know many are donated. What of the CDs, and other DVDs? Are they paid for with state money, or are they donated? I suppose it doesn't matter.
I think the reality is that if the library were the typical stuffy and silent place of old, there would be virtually no young adults visiting them these days, barring college students, and the rare teenager who actually enjoys reading as a hobby. (Or maybe I am totally out of touch with young adults. Wouldn't surprise me at all.)
Say all DVDs and CDs were pulled from the shelves. Just books. Given that the author opened the article with a complaint about the quality of a book, I think it's safe to assume that he would then just criticize the books offered, and checked out. (And on that point, Tatum O'Neil? That's what libraries pick up for check out? See. I can do it too.) So then his taste should be the standard for book inclusion in a library? Or mine? Or anyone else's? I'm just happy complaining about it.
I think the most that can be hoped for is that those who enter the library for a CD or DVD might wander over to the book side every once in a while. Anything beyond that is simply deciding for others what they should be offered, and what they should enjoy.
Angela | January 07, 01:50 CET
[ edited by tnewebmaster on 2005-01-07 21:05 ]
tnewebmaster | January 07, 01:51 CET
Miko | January 07, 01:55 CET
The elitism, and the conclusion drawn that libraries have gone deficient because libraries they have become places for people communities to gather, as well as resources for things that are always going to be subject to varying assessments of inherent value is really just, well, short-sighted and ignorant.
[ edited by k8cre8 on 2005-01-07 00:47 ]
k8cre8 | January 07, 02:05 CET
Simon | January 07, 02:08 CET
And perhaps I was skirting the rules but he definitly implied that there was something wrong with 30 year olds checking out Buffy DVD's when he said:
"It's on these visits that I typically spot an unfortunate soul in his mid-30s checking out a half-dozen episodes of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," or some such thing, and instantly I question the function of the library system - and humanity's mental state in general."
I don't want my mental state questioned.
I promise that I will refrain in the future from calling names but I will tell you now that I will think those names.
loudly.
ruthless1 | January 07, 02:16 CET
The article misses the point. You can't force people into libraries. You have to endeavour to get them in the door. Times have changed. We're better off than our grandparents. There's more forms of entertainment. Libraries have to compete with this to survive and they have to have the funding to do this.
The Buffy jibe? Well some people get Buffy, some don't. Always been this way, always will be.
Simon | January 07, 02:33 CET
As to the authors pointed comments about Buffy, the column practically staes that people who watch Buffy are wasting their time and watching garbage. I get the feeling that the author feels like we are stupid. I don't post very often, but I check this site everyday and have noticed that everyone that posts here is very smart, witty, and entertaining. I think us Whedon fans are some of the smartest out there. Obviously the author knows nothing about Buffy, including how much depth the show has. So much so that there are college courses on the subject. In my opinion, anyone who is so biased to not check their facts, shouldn't have any right to complain about anything. Ignorance is no excuse.
Illyria | January 07, 02:35 CET
I see what he is saying, but I also feel very strongly that the 'state', or any government or official body, should not try to decide what the public should and should not read. That leads to censorship. So if someone wants to read a comic, watch Buffy or rub gravel in their hair then that's their choice.
Hopefully people using a library will wander around and browse and pick up the odd new book, knowing that it won't cost them anything to take it home for a week or so and see if they like it.
zz9 | January 07, 02:53 CET
He apparently prefers the quiet library with nothing but books and just doesn't "get" how they have changed over the years. Checking out a DVD set like Buffy could very well lead to a jog over to the other side of the building to explore fan fic, which could very likely lead to an interest to read such classics, as say, Tolkien, and beyond.
Angela | January 07, 02:54 CET
I think it's wonderful how libraries have adapted to our society's changing definition of a text, whether we find it in television and film, music, or even those smelly books. Libraries are about providing access to language, whatever form it comes in.
Finally, it's a little ironic that the article would bemoan the conversion of libraries into Barnes & Nobles. It exhibits a kind of close-minded thinking that has contributed in no small part to the kind of market mentality that makes librarians have to use consumeristic imagery to justify their existence.
Biff Turkle | January 07, 03:04 CET
Of course the author is going to make a slash at Buffy if he sees somebody checking out the show's DVDs and has not done his homework or perhaps even seen any of the said show. It's called Buffy the Vampire Slayer, it's a television show, it wasn't based on a book but on a failed 1992 movie, it existed within popular culture, was advertised for an adolescent audience... Just the implication that 30 year olds who watch Buffy is cause for speculation of the library system and "humanity's mental state in general" supports my own suspicions that he's judging the show at a superficial value. Of course he will not know of Buffy's substance. Ignorance.
He raises some good questions nonetheless. I also cringe at the thought of a library holding an Ashlee Simpson CD but yet, if it brings more people into the library then there's a benefit. Like Simon said, libraries need to survive. They need to get people through that door. I do not want libraries to simply become the new Blockbuster with books either but ... it's a rather complex thing to contemplate, but I do not want libraries to be wiped out entirely due to lack of interest and use. However, this author really needs to do his research on things that he implies as being detrimental to the library's functionality.
Natashia | January 07, 03:07 CET
Buffy is chock full of wonderful literary references that I like to think might lead people to check out their local library.
I don't agree with the author's opinion of what a library should be. But mostly, I found the projection of what the librarians must be thinking and feeling to be pretty darned offensive. "Behind the bright smiles of the librarians, there is tension." Sounds like something straight out of a sci-fi script.
The other thing that struck me, immediately, was the author's shock at the noise, the materials, etc. Sounds to me like he hasn't ventured into a public library in a very long time.
looking | January 07, 03:13 CET
But I have also been a very poor graduate student, and I have made tremendous use of public libraries to sample music of different kinds -- including classical (which I would suspect this guy would okay, despite its being in the multimedia part of the library), Latin American, jazz, etc. -- and to try to expand my knowledge of classical, independent, and foreign film. (Public libraries were/are way ahead of academic libraries in terms of their holdings of music and film.) I could not have afforded to purchase the things I sampled, and they enriched my life beyond what I could calculate.
The sad thing is that many of the same people who want to limit what children have access to in school curricula are the same ones who think that there should be limits on what public libraries offer -- and we always get back to the "tax dollars" excuse. Interesting that they always forget that we all pay taxes. Public libraries serve the needs of the whole population, not just those of the self-appointed cultural regulators who mistake "taste" for "higher learning."
palehorse | January 07, 03:43 CET
He also doesn't realize that library staff are not elitist intellectuals who are being forced to lower their standards in order to provide popular fiction and media.
Most librarians (and library staff--apparently he also doesn't realize that not everyone behind the library desk is a librarian) that I've ever known enjoy popular TV, movies, novels, and music and are pleased to provide their patrons with these items. Hell, it's kept us in business for years! The public library hasn't been a sacred tomb reserved only for quiet study in ages, and there's no way public libraries could stay open that way. Most libraries are able to provide a balance of basic reference materials and classic literature and also meet public demands--provided we continue to get the funding!
[ edited by cheesygirl on 2005-01-07 02:15 ]
cheesygirl | January 07, 04:13 CET
dcubed | January 07, 04:28 CET
The author of this article, Mr. Harsanyi is going to get an earful from some librarians on this one. The article has probably already made it to the listservs. He too will learn the lessons taught to Harper-Collins and John Ashcroft. Don't p*ss off the librarians.
What the author misses, is that a library is not just about books, it's about connecting people with information - irrespective of format. Before there were CDs and DVDs there were tapes and records and microfilm and etc. Now there are databases and internet access. Funny he doesn't mention them.
With his examples, he is making unfounded assumptions about why people are using the resources they've picked. One of the first lessons a librarian learns, is to never assume to know the intent of the patron. Perhaps the "unfortunate soul in his mid-30s" is a returning college student doing a genre analysis for the writing course he is taking as part of his degree program.
And what about this statement: blackmailed into subsidizing the perverted habits of others What exactly does that mean, and who decides? Collection development is a serious part of library work. A library should contain - as many librarians say "something to offend everyone". If you're doing that - you're on the right track. Why is "Everybody Poops" - a frequently challenged book btw - any more or less entitled to be in the collection than say, a Britney Spears CD, a Jane Fonda excercise video or the complete works of Shakespeare? Short answer - it isn't.
His comment:
Behind the bright smiles of the librarians, there is tension. They've worked their tails off to earn master's degrees, only to be forced to subdue the ancient art of shushing and become mere clerks. The humiliation they must feel checking out an Ashlee Simpson CD to some punk who could care less about Melville Dewey is probably unbearable.
Shows a complete lack of understanding of what a librarian does. Yes, we have masters degrees. But the "mere clerk" checking out the CD, is probably not a librarian. They probably are a clerk. And that is in no way meant as disrespect. The librarian was the person who helped the patron find the CD, and along the way, took advantage of the "teachable moment" to show them how to construct a search in the online catalog, gave them a brief overview of classification, and told them about colocation as they led them to the CD they wanted. The patron learned something in the process that gives them power in their next library experience.
BTW - Melville Dewey was a wack case who created the Dewey decimal system in part because it was a classification easy enough "for a woman to understand".
Sure libraries try to give people what they want, but as Mr. Harsanyi fails to point out, we also do have what they need, it's just not up to the librarian to determine the difference.
"The public library is more than a repository of books. It's a mysterious, wonderous place with the power to change lives. Chicago Tribune literary editor Elizabeth Taylor"
and by the way - The Foot Book is awesome!
Some links:
Library Bill of Rights
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/statementsif/librarybillrights.htm
Freedom to Read Statement
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/ftrstatement/freedomreadstatement.htm
Libraries: An American Value
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/americanvalue/librariesamerican.htm
[ edited by Znachki on 2005-01-07 02:45 ]
[ edited by Znachki on 2005-01-08 00:38 ]
Znachki | January 07, 04:41 CET
Woe is him. He knoweth not what he wrought.
(He's gonna catch a lot of shit for this.)
Willowy | January 07, 04:45 CET
In fact, I'm going to email him, so he'll know.
obsessed | January 07, 04:56 CET
RavenU | January 07, 05:07 CET
obsessed | January 07, 05:29 CET
Perhaps he's trying to be controversial (that's my Pollyanna alter ego emerging) Kind of like a newspaper version of a radio shock jock - encouraging debate, engagement with the newspaper, sales, that kind of thing (ok she's gone now!)
Poster Boy | January 07, 06:27 CET
Had he not mentioned Buffy and its fans in such a nasty tone, I still would have written an email to the newspaper, protesting his elitist attitude and incorrect information. Thanks RavenU - you did good!
Lioness | January 07, 07:23 CET
Um. This is a bad thing? I thought one of the major objectives of an institution offering a service to the public was participation from that public sufficient to keep the institution in operation. Is the writer suggesting that there are too many employed librarians around? Not keeping step with the times is certainly one sure strategy for decreasing customer satisfaction and patronage, not to mention increasing the number of frustrated Library Sciences graduates looking for work.
And supposing that an individual who's checking out BtVS disks one week might not also have checked out "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", the collected works of Theodore Roethke and "The Crimson Petal and the White" at some time in the past demonstrates a remarkable lack of understanding by the writer that others besides himself might have far less narrowly defined tastes. I've been known to bring home classical and hip-hop CDs, along with books on medieval stained glass, quantum theory and popular fashion. If libraries are all about cultural exchange and the freedom to learn about new things, how would limiting our available options make us more intelligent and informed?
I have a lot of good friends who are librarians, and at times I've even considered going back to school for an MLS degree myself. The field has changed enormously, as any library professional will tell you. They have to be as skilled in conducting research online as they once had to be shuffling through heavy, multi-volume indices and card catalogues, all while tailoring that assistance to each patron's individual needs. Maybe some high-level library administrators can hide upstairs in their offices and grumble about what books people are checking out, but all the front-line staff and librarians I know are too busy actually helping people to be concerned with such trivialities. They're busy because people are engaged, and that's what being in "the business" of offering information to the public means these days. Along with data, they provide guidance and human contact, which is part of what building "community" actually means.
Should a library be in business at all? Should it compete with Blockbuster? Or should it provide a basic level of educational and research services for the community?
The community in which a library operates should determine what the library provides, not the other way around, with the materials people actually need and want given precedence (within reason). Fundamentals such as dictionaries, encyclopedias and other up-to-date research materials should be common to all, but prevailing requirements of the community itself should help to shape at least some of the collection. Most average readers can't afford all the books on every subject they might conceivably be interested in, and if catagories of books are excluded arbitrarily based on what some outside group decides is and isn't seemly or appropriate, libraries would soon find themselves dusty, haunted mausoleums instead of lively, thriving places of learning.
And what's wrong with some entertainment being mixed in? Variety is the filé powder in life's gumbo! Many so-called "classics" were regarded as scandalous, low-brow or trashy at the time they were originally published; similar judgments leveled at all pop culture of our time may be seen in a similar light years from now. Incidentally, books of all kinds -- popular, self-help, non-fiction, genre -- also come on tape and CD. What about people who can't read, or who prefer to listen to books while commuting? Should those resources be considered a "waste" if they're helping to teach the love of literature to those who otherwise wouldn't be able to enjoy paper-bound books?
As far as the Buffy jibes go, I feel pretty sure the Slayer will stand the test of time; some of today's librarians will have actually had the chance to take classes on BtVS by the time they graduate, and I personally know of at least one working in North Carolina who regards Giles as her personal patron saint, even to the point of having a picture of him on her desk!
To be fair, I think the writer is exaggerating a little for effect; there's a tongue-in-cheek quality to the language that suggests he's trying to incite a bit of controversy with this article. I think he's going to be much more successful than he ever anticipated. ;)
Wiseblood | January 07, 07:24 CET
I did an article on libraries recently, and the purpose they've come to serve for new immigrants and refugees (and lots of popular culture, incidentally, is useful both for learning English and familiarizing oneself with a new environment). In writing the article, it really struck me how important these institutions are, as one of the last places left that's totally free, that doesn't ask your citizenship or employment status or where you live - that just says Welcome and offers to help find information. Libraries have expanded way beyond the repositories of old classics they once were, and I think it's great. Defying everyone's predictions about how the Internet would render them obsolete, I believe they've become more relevant than ever, but it's by expanding, not limitiing what they are.
Anyhow, sorry for the long rant. But the guy clearly doesn't get libraries, or the concept of a public good. Or, of course, Buffy.
acp | January 07, 07:29 CET
So what does this make poor 50+ me? Except that I don't have to suffer the author's snide remarks and discrimination because I can afford to buy my own DVDs.
I don't have to make academic excuses for why I like to watch the show - I just know a good story when I see it.
Ruadh | January 07, 07:46 CET
killinj | January 07, 08:12 CET
What I find more offensive is the author's seeming dismissal of anything other than literature as a valid artistic medium.
ariana75 | January 07, 08:51 CET
Madhatter | January 07, 10:22 CET
An argument could be made perhaps, for library being about books. And that it should remain about books and books alone. I don't agree but I could see the point. Fine. Take ALL dvds or cds out then. But then the argument would start over what books are 'worthy'. Some might object to Buffy novels. Others to Harry Potter. Yet others to Mark Twain. See where I'm going with this? It ridiculous.
I personally cringe at the name of Ashlee Simpson as well but if we have libraries that carry cds, then by all means, put her in there. Kids that do wish to see her cd in the library's racks should not be deprived of her simply because I personally find her insipid. 'Worthiness' is too subjective a thing to apply to libraries. I'm sure those kids don't give a hairy rat's behind about my opinion on Ashlee any more than I give one about this writer's opinion on Buffy.
And by the way I still wouldn't consider those teenagers 'inferior' in any literal way. I just loathe their taste. But to suggest someone is a 'poor soul' just because he enjoys a certain TV show.....frankly I'm not even sure what his point is. That Buffy is stupid? Only for kids? (Because his age appears to be a factor) That he might be ogling teenage actresses?? What?
And then this line: "we're all blackmailed into subsidizing the perverted habits of others". Perverted? Is that still in reference to the 'poor' Buffy watcher? Now it's perverted to watch that? Please, this is simply a case of elitist snobbery put to paper in the shape of an article. There's quite a few books or movies that are deemed 'literary' that I found extremely dissappointing when I read/watched them. I'd sooner put Buffy in there than some of those. But hey, I don't (nor should I) get to make that call.
And hey, neither does this 'writer'.
Thank goodness.
EdDantes | January 07, 10:27 CET
I adore Buffy (duh). I'm fourteen(fit into the young adult category). And I've gone to the library every two weeks or so since I was three or something. I disagree that you need such things to attract young people but I'm not against having them either. It's not like it's hurting anyone and if it makes people happy why complain?
pezwitch | January 07, 17:07 CET
Censorship is not taken lightly in this room and rightly so. The public libraries do their best to service the people and offer as many forms of media as they can. This person didn't 'approve' the materials he saw on display. He also questioned the 'people' whom would enjoy such media. So he didn't think they should be there. Most of us here call that line of thinking 'censorship' and it can raise blood pressures by several points.
You hit the nail on the head. If you're not interested in an item on the shelf, then leave it be and go about your business. And don't prejudge the people who do lift that item off the shelf. I adore Buffy as well and I'm forty-one. So does my mother and she's sixty-seven. Age has nothing to do in understanding BtVS.
Madhatter | January 07, 18:11 CET
We just had a big new library opening as part of a regeneration program which also includes a college. I live in an area which is very ethnically diverse (which is quite typical for London) but also an area where we have lots of new immigrants and refugees. The library functions not just for local people who are looking for education/information/entertainment, but also as an extension of learning and economic development (ie helping people to find employment or starting their own business). Particularly important is the free internet access it offers – people are often poor around here and cannot afford PCs at home.
As a side effect, I very much agree that offering people access to popular culture deepens the understanding between immigrants and their host culture on a day to day “this is how people live, who they are, this is what they watch/read/listen to” basis, which is a bloody good thing if we ever want to stop killing each other.
Conversely, by offering popular material suitable for ethnic groups within the community, it also works the other way round. My library for example holds lots of Bollywood films, as well as music from the Middle East, because it reflects the ethnic mix of the area I live in, and I have borrowed stuff that I normally probably wouldn’t look at (mostly because I just wouldn’t think about it). I have however no desire to read Indian philosophy – sorry, but that’s just too specialist an interest.
In very practical terms popular culture items are also more easily accessible to a person with limited language skills. I mean when I learned English, I didn’t start off with the great novels of the 19th century either.
In short, less of the high fallutin values and a bit more practicality. When the Victorians put money on the table for a library system, they wanted to get economic returns – doing good, coupled with pragmatism and those sorts of values work totally for me (after all it is my tax money that is being spent).
miranda | January 07, 18:21 CET
marmoset | January 07, 20:10 CET
Thanks for the mention, unfortunately Mutant Boosters has closed and I'm not sure how much longer the site will remain online. The Whedonverse Multimedia Project, which makes up the library campaign continues, but on another site. Announcements about the Project are going out today - so you should find out more about it soon.
[ edited by killinj on 2005-01-07 23:42 ]
killinj | January 07, 20:52 CET
Disclaimer - I totoaly disagree with this view point and strongly believe that we are all bear responsibilty for our neighbours' well-being (including the very basic right to be exposed to the Whedonverse, of course).
WWBD | January 07, 23:17 CET
"You're going to get a lot of these letters, so I'll try to be brief.
As far as Ashlee Simpson goes... right there with you. She's proven to be a fake, she is now getting what she deserves by writers such as yourself and other media outlets. Perhaps together we can all help accelerate her 15 minutes of fame and convince her to stop riding her sister's coattails and go to college or something.
While she's there, she could take a course in Buffy Studies. For real. Go ahead and run a google search using the words "Buffy studies". You may be surprised by what comes up. The show is actually taken seriously as an example of excellent storytelling and character development in the visual medium (taken seriously by more than just the show's fanbase).
You may hate the show yourself (which is fine), but Buffy is not a good example of "junk" in the public library.
Mattro
Seattle, WA"
Hjermsted | January 08, 00:12 CET
This is only true of Americans of a particular political persuation and not true of Americans in general.
killinj | January 08, 00:17 CET
2. Though Americans debate government support/funding of the arts, we are fundimentally committed to the public library system, under-funded though it may be. We just have a lot of different opinions about what should be made available by our libraries...and schools for that matter. And yes, they usually fall out along political lines.
3. The writer is definitely implying that the reason that a 30ish male would be watching BTVS is to ogle and pervertedly fantasize about the too-young-for-him female characters on the show. I doubt sending the writer DVD’s of the show would help, though it probably couldn’t hurt. Even if he did watch them, he may very well not be able to get past the attractive young female element of the show even if he wanted to. After all, in many minds, the only reason a man would ever have any interest in anything revolving around a female character is sex. Stories about women are simply not considered of interest to men unless sex is involved…women are not considered of interest to men unless sex is involved…and for many men that is true.
But the perception runs both ways. About 10 years ago I tried to discuss a genre show’s interesting thematic elements with an old friend who shut me up with a curt, “You just like it because it’s got a hunky guy in the lead. Why don’t you just admit it?” I did not try to discuss such things with her again. This past Spring I shocked her when she pried out of me that I had been to a nearby BTVS convention the previous weekend. Interestingly, when I admitted that I had been watching BTVS in reruns for about 3 months and had found various elements of it fascinating, she was open to learning more about the show. I realized that because it was female-based and she knew I was extremely heterosexual, she did not suspect my motives to be puerile and shallow…silly girl. Oops, strike that last comment. (Actually, we spent New Years Eve together watching the first four episodes of BTVS and I left the Season 1 DVD’s with her. I am hoping before she gets to Season 6 she understands what I see in the show. Otherwise we will be back to square one. ;-) )
So I’m thinking that the, perhaps mythical, 30sh fellow in the library would not have been judged so harshly if he had been taking out DVD’s of Angel...no matter what the writer thought of that show. Geesh! My mind boggles at what people base their judgments on, whether those judgments concern other people or the functions of our government institutions.
newcj | January 08, 01:03 CET
RavenU | January 08, 01:04 CET
Madhatter | January 08, 01:17 CET
Ruadh | January 08, 01:31 CET
As an unfortunate mid 30's kind of guy myself, I wish I'd known that our library has an excellent buffy DVD collection as it would have saved me about 20 bucks at the video store. $40 if you include Angel. Ah well.
Also, Buffy had the best use of Slaughterhouse 5 in a TV context of all time. Just sayin'
[ edited by giles (yes, it is my real name) on 2005-01-07 23:33 ]
giles (yes, it is my real name) | January 08, 01:32 CET
Lioness | January 08, 01:54 CET
The letter writer's comment about the intent of the column, brings up a point that is acually the subject of a 1/6 blog entry at Librarian.net. www.librarian.net There are limited funds and tough choices about how those funds will be spent. Perhaps Mr. Harsanyi's intent is to lay the ground work for supporting jails over libraries. But he's not doing himself any favors going about it that way.
Znachki | January 08, 02:37 CET
SweetMarilyn | January 08, 02:49 CET
Simon | January 08, 03:03 CET
Angela | January 08, 03:05 CET
Paul_Rocks | January 08, 04:30 CET
Do we have pop DVDs? Yes. Should we? Well, some of our classes use them, but that's not the main reason we have them. We have them because patrons want them. It's that simple. It is so old-fashioned to think of libraries as the place where "we keep the books". Libraries are not about books. They are about information. They are about providing that information to anyone, in any form it comes in. We are not trying to compete with Blockbuster! If we were, we would have more than one copy of each DVD and charge more than the $1.00 per week rental fee. Once again, it's about making the information available.
Also, his comments about the librarians being ticked at what patrons check out is just laughable. As others have mentioned, in a large library, it's not the librarian that checks out the books, it's someone like me, a para-professional. Yes, I have gone to school to do my job, but I don't have a master's (yet). And trust me, no circulation clerk cares what people check out! It's like assuming that the 7-11 clerk cares that you bought condoms. You might be embarrassed to buy them, but he's sold a dozen packs today and it's no big deal. We know what's in our collection, and we want it to circulate. From day one of my schooling in library work, privacy, the patron's right to information, and lack of judgement have been emphasized. People who work in libraries are the least judgmental people in the world. We don't care why you want to know something, we'll just help you find it. And we're absolutely thrilled when we find it, even if it is an Ashlee Simpson CD, lol.
And I wish this guy would not perpetuate the stereotype of the cranky librarian. Many of the librarians I work with love BUFFY. I even know of someone who became a librarian because of Giles. We library folk aren't as stuffy as most people think. We know more words than "SHHHH!!", we aren't all women, and we don't all have buns. We all wear glasses, though, that much I'll admit! :)
Dizzy | January 08, 10:11 CET
- There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration. ~ Andrew Carnegie
- So the America I loved still exists, if not in the White House or the Supreme Court or the Senate or the House of Representatives or the media. The America I love still exists at the front desks of our public libraries.
- Mary Kay is one of the secret masters of the world: a librarian. They control information. Don't ever piss one off.
- You see, I don't believe that libraries should be drab places where people sit in silence, and that's been the main reason for our policy of employing wild animals as librarians. ~ Monty Python skit
(Hmm. Makes perfect sense that Giles is also known as "Ripper", now doesn't it? :)~ Kurt Vonnegut, "In These Times", 8/6/04
~ Spider Robinson, "The Callahan Touch"
Wiseblood | January 08, 11:21 CET