Letters

I must be confused. If John Berry is so strident about the American Library Association (ALA) costing too much ("A Vote for ALA Members ," Editorial, LJ 3/15/03, p. 8), its dues must be out of line with other associations. So I checked a few. Since many are salary-based, I used $50,000, just below the median household income for the United States. If that's too high for librarians—well, you know, ALA's current leadership has been raising this issue….

New York LA: higher; California LA: higher; Texas LA: higher. Maybe other kinds of librarians? SLA: higher; AALL: much higher; MLA: higher; ASIST: higher. Maybe Berry's used to dealing with associations of editors? ASME: $250, but a "mere" $125 for peons. ASME: $180 minimum. The fact is, ALA dues are among the cheapest of any professional association. Saying "Oh, but you're paying more because you buy ALA Editions books" is absurd…. I've never seen "Must buy x number of ALA books" as a condition of membership. Fine, Berry: you just don't like ALA. I think we get that.
—Walt Crawford, Research Libraries Group (writing on his own behalf)

As my American Library Association (ALA) membership card notes, I have been a member for 23 years. My primary motivation for membership is, and has been, a feeling of professional obligation ("A Vote for ALA Members ," Editorial, LJ 3/15/03, p. 8). My membership in the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), on the other hand, is relevant and helpful to me as a librarian. The ACRL conference I attended in Colorado was more focused and rewarding than the regular, oversized ALA conference. If I could belong to ACRL without having to join ALA, I would probably do so, and I suspect many librarians would choose a similar option to belong to "their" divisions if the possibility existed.
—Rob Sloan, Reference Libn., St. Mary's Coll. of Maryland, St. Mary's City

I disagree with Michael Gorman about unusable Google hits (Letters , LJ 2/15/03, p. 10). He states, "I got 'about 1,910,000' hits in, naturally, no order." This is simply incorrect—Google uses a series of complex algorithms to rank the results. Google can be an excellent searching tool for the librarian, when used properly. Simply searching "civil war" is just too broad. I treat a search engine just as I would a reference interview: Does the patron mean the American Civil War? Does s/he want just general information or info on specific battles or perhaps biographical information on the generals involved? Just as asking this information gets to what the patron really wants, using the search engine properly (adding additional search terms, or telling it what info you don't want) can get you the results that you want.
—Jennifer Joseph, Reference Libn., New Castle P.L., PA

My search on Google for "civil war" +.edu yielded 593,000 hits, the first couple of pages of which were relevant, authoritative resources. A search for "war between the states" +.edu yielded 5270 hits, which were also usable, valuable resources, at least in the initial part of the results list. Perhaps what Gorman needs to do is learn how to maximize search results by making the most of search strategies (Letters , LJ 2/15/03, p. 10). I currently work as a faculty mentor for a university that requires all graduate students take a course called "Information Research Strategies" in order to learn how to use both databases and Internet search engines.
—Kit Keller, M.L.S., Lincoln, NE

I have to admit the [Julia] Alvarez poem is pretty bad ("Why I Am in Love with Librarians ," LJ 1/03, p. 58). Eastman is right ("Condescending prattle ," Letters, LJ 4/1/03, p. 10)—it's horrible drivel. You should have sent J.A. a pink slip on that one.
—Rob Atkinson, St. Charles, IL

After reading "Burned Any Good Books Lately? " (The Dean's List, LJ 2/15/03, p. 48), I was offended by Blaise Cronin's epithets against Bible-believing Christians and his cynical advice for librarians confronting patrons' censorship requests. As a Christian and a public librarian, I suggest he research the 17th-century poet John Milton's essay "Areopagitica," which sets forth principles from the Bible to support freedom of the press. Milton contends that book-banning is counterproductive and that no person is truly qualified to censor the printed word. Milton further demonstrates from New Testament scripture that God requires a diverse palette from which the reader may select. Please consider this reasonable and gracious approach when appealing to book burners.
—JoAnne Martin, Teaneck, NJ

Thank you for your invitation to participate in the Day of Dialog at BookExpo America this year (Inside Track , LJ 2/15/03, p. 120). I appreciate the keen interest of librarians in the plans we are making for the new Random House Ballantine Group. But I feel that it's premature for me to speak about this so early into our effort. Perhaps we can have the discussion you propose at a later date.
—Gina Centrello, President & Publisher, Ballantine Books, New York