Feedback

Thank you for Francine Fialkoff's editorial “Blockbuster Strikes Again” (LJ 6/15/07, p. 8). The techniques used for selecting materials for the library collection have not improved in 25 years. The profession relies heavily on book reviews and superficial indications of demand (i.e., advertising budgets, holds lists, etc.). When our best tools are questionable reviews, annotated lists from distributors, or computer-generated holds lists, it is no surprise that we purchase 30 copies of Jackass 2.

Communities trust us to make wise choices when selecting materials for a collection. We mustn't lose the public trust by using inadequate and inept collection development tools and techniques.... We need collection development policies and plans that have greater congruence with mission statements. We must do a better job with collection development.

—Seth Stephens, Director, Jefferson Twp. P.L., Oak Ridge, NJ

Francine Fialkoff's “The Library Market” (Editorial, LJ 7/07, p. 8) was terrific! Library exposure should not just be de rigueur as part of marketing plans for big publishers but an inexpensive ace for smaller publishers. Creating a buzz about a small press book in library systems, with personal contact and attention, could get quicker results than trying to snow the big bookstore chains, which everybody else is courting, too. Librarians aren't as likely as bookstore folks to be ho-hum-get-in-line about publisher and author attention.

At conventions, when I see good comics work from self-publishers or small publishers off the radar, I talk to these folks about how to get their graphic novels into libraries: send copies to LJ and other review magazines, get fans to post reviews on Amazon and other online hot spots and blogs, and offer to put on comics workshops at local library branches. They seem interested. Maybe being off the beaten track—as comics have been for years—they have fewer preconceptions.

—Martha Cornog, Philadelphia; LJ Graphic Novels columnist

Rachel Schneiderman's premise is off when she argues that “[i]f you look at [our various ethnicities] merely from an aesthetic point of view, the variety...is all part of what makes our country so strikingly beautiful” (“Navigation is tougher,” Feedback, LJ 3/15/07, p. 11). The problem is only made worse by limiting it to “our country.” If we are to get around this attitude, we need to stop thinking locally and start thinking globally. It would alleviate the problem if we all start thinking of our world as being “strikingly beautiful.”

—Dorothy Leukanech, Information Professional, LeRoy Collins Leon Cty. P.L., Tallahassee, FL

I have a response to Diana Greenbaum's “Dump that ILL fee” (Feedback, LJ 6/15/07, p. 12), regarding a $20 interlibrary loan fee charged by Ohio State University (OSU) library (Andrew Richard Albanese, “Pride of the Buckeyes,” LJ 4/1/07, p. 32–35). I am director of a public library in Connecticut. As a member of NELINET, since 1985 we have offered out-of-network ILL to our community to compensate for our inadequate collection, especially for people who need specialized information not likely to be in our collection or those of our network (Bibliomation, Inc.) member libraries. The two universities in our region don't extend service to the general public. We are the only access general readers have for unique materials.

Over the years, we ignored the high loss rates of ILL materials and paid for them figuring it into our “cost of doing business,” until it became clear that, as our overall budget stagnated, we could no longer afford to. We now require a $20 deposit for out-of-network loans. I don't feel especially apologetic about our decision. It is a matter of personal responsibility. Library services and materials are not free. Public libraries lend materials on a good faith basis to all their users without qualification. Every item is expected to be returned in more or less the condition it was loaned. Any item lost or damaged, whether from our general collection or on interlibrary loan to us, must be paid for....

—Ted Perch, Dir., Willimantic P.L., CT

One shouldn't be overly surprised at the axing of the job title “librarian” at the UK's Hampshire library service (“In UK Say Goodbye to 'Librarian,'” Front Desk, LJ 5/15/07, p. 15). Britain has long been overly obsessed with social class and the attendant labels it produces. The term librarian in the UK enjoys too many negative connotations closely associated with menial work within a rigid class structure.... Probably the local inhabitants can't bring themselves to see past that. Far simpler to change the label. “A rose” after all, “by any other name....”

Of greater concern is the axing of the need for the educational qualifications to perform the work of an information professional within a library context. That regressive...cynical move should cause concern to all, especially to the “rate payers” whom the Hampshire library service purports to serve.

—Kevin Aldridge, Pub. Svcs. Libn., Surrey P.L., BC