h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A leading UK children's author has come out against libraries.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/feb/13/libraries-horrible-histories-terry-deary

Some quotes:

'This is not the Victorian age, when we wanted to allow the impoverished access to literature. We pay for compulsory schooling to do that'

'People have to make the choice to buy books. People will happily buy a cinema ticket to see Roald Dahl's Matilda, and expect to get the book for free. It doesn't make sense. Books aren't public property, and writers aren't Enid Blyton, middle-class women indulging in a pleasant little hobby. They've got to make a living. Authors, booksellers and publishers need to eat.'

'The libraries are doing nothing for the book industry. They give nothing back, whereas bookshops are selling the book, and the author and the publisher get paid, which is as it should be. What other entertainment do we expect to get for free?'

'People expect to pay for entertainment. They might object to TV licences, but they understand they have to do it. But because libraries have been around for so long, people have this idea that books should be freely available to all. I'm afraid those days are past. '

So. Are libraries obsolete?

"Is borrowing a hammer from one's neighbours obsolete?

People who borrow tools give nothing back to the toolmaker. People will happily pay to watch a movie in which someone uses a hammer, but when it comes to hammers they expect them to be public property.

This is not the Victorian age. We pay to relocate our manufacturing industry to China, so that hammers can be used. Hammer-makers are not Enid Blyton."

A number of things strike me:

1) Authors do make money from libraries lending out their books. Not enough to make Stephen King sit up and take notice, but enough for some to make the difference between paying the bills and going into the red.

2) If a country has a public library in every town, and someone in each one borrows a book, recommends it to friends, and perhaps *buys* a copy because it's so good - Well, you're looking at the bestseller lists. "Doing nothing for the industry"? Right. The goose does nothing for the golden egg either...

3) Libraries often hold book readings and talks by authors - who are either keen, or reluctant, to take part. But take part they do, and it seems to be none-to-harmful when pushing a new novel.

4) Of course they aren't obsolete. Do you think every student can afford a subscription to Nature, The Lancet, Scientific American, National Geographic, and the complete OED and more? No, they read them in libraries.

To paraphrase Kafka, if libraries did not exist
Man would have to create them.


~jwf~

Libraries are great inventions! And I have bought things that I never would have known about if I hadn't seen it while browsing the shelves or borrowed it from the library in the first place. This individual is just blatantly wrong.

Also, I see loads of movies and TV for free. Totally legally. You just have to know where to look.

I first read Robert Rankin's "Brentford Triangle" in a library. I bought it... and another two dozen of his books.

I first read Larry Niven in a library. I have, I think, every word he's ever written about Known Space, which is dozens of books, and a good deal more besides.

That said: there is a cap on what authors get when books are lent, and this guy has bust through it. He can legitimately say that library lending has cost him something like £174,000 in lost sales, although that is something like the artists claiming lost revenue for albums I've downloaded illegally, listened to once, considered utter crap and deleted. That's not lost revenue, that's me avoiding wasting my money on a product it turns out I don't want.

I can see the guy's point. I do hope someone introduces him to the 21st century by scanning all his books as pdfs and uploading them to .torrent sites. He's so right - we need to move with the times.

As a child, I read four books a week from a library - there is no way I would have been bought one book a week, let alone four.

Now I use second hand book shops more - he's probably against that as well.

I think he's firing at the wrong target here.

sprout

There are two separate and very different questions. One is that he feels aggrieved about people lending things to each other rather than buying them.

A second is whether libraries are obsolete.

I think he is living up to his horrible histories persona. A completely self-absorbed old fart.

When I write about a topic, I like to look for books on the subject for background research. Not every subject has a book recently published that is on sale in the local bookshop, or second-hand bookshops. There's a good chance that a book I want to read was published 20 or 50 years ago. Book shops won't sell it. Where should I look? Why, the library.

I often visit the University library, Southampton City Library and Hampshire County libraries. And when I borrow CDs and DVDs from there, I'm happy to pay.

Both my children have library cards and we take them there regularly.

Libraries aren't obsolete!

<BB< - A big fan of libraries

(This reminds me that I must get round to finishing the Carnegie Library article - if there's a Carnegie Library near you, let me know here: F19585?thread=8294658)

since the abolition in the UK of the net price agreement for books just about everyone I know has bought more books than ever. Especially paperbacks.

But - paperbacks aren't seen as worth keeping by many (me not included) so they either pass them on to friends (after all, even when they are cheap, why not give them to someone else?) or passed to charity shops.

From reading the article my impression is that he is complaining that the writers and the publishing industry just aren't making enough money out of books and he sounds aggrieved about that.

As far as I understood it, authors are paid when their books are loaned from a library, although I can't imagine that it is much. I don't know if the publisher also gets a cut?

The way I understand the publishing industry is that since JK Rowling retained so much control over her work, and earned shedloads of money from it, the publishers are more pushy about getting writers to sign away their rights and want to pay less upfront. But there are a few star authors who still get huge advances. (arguably: the ones who least need it since they have already earned enough money to live on.)

I can understand a writer being a bit miffed that they don't earn anything on second hand sales or the recycling of books among friends, but I have never been under the impression that writers went into writing as a way to get stinky rich. Or even earn a living.

Publishers are an industry all they have to do is maximise profits and from their perspective I could understand if they were all asking for libraries to close, or that they get a cut of the loan fees.

As for libraries: I'm a book buyer. I do libraries no favours at all by that, but my mum uses her library a lot, and the staff are great at what they do. Perhaps what libraries need to do is develop into something else (which they are doing as far as I can see) and not just a book loaning service.

There is something special about going into a library though, that moment of "mmmhhhh" when you get through the door and smell all those books. Especially when someone is reading a story to a bunch of children in the corner. I love them - but for me, at least, it's all bound up with the nostalgia of all those library visits as a child.

From his wikipedia page

"Deary is an outspoken critic of schools, which he believes serve no function above keeping children off the street. Deary has commented: "I've no interest in schools. They have no relevance in the 21st century. They were a Victorian idea to get kids off the street. ... "

Which is basically the same argument he is using against public libraries. The guy is a complete nutbar.

I was an avid reader as a child but there's no way my parents could have afforded to buy me books. In fact, the only books I recall being in the house when I was a bairn were 2 bibles and my mother's occasional pulp romance. Libraries introduced me to books and nourished my love of reading, basically shaping me into a keen consumer for authors like the one in the OP.

Libraries are the dealers turning kids into book junkies.

my very first date was with a boy out of my class and we first went to the library together then we went to the bookshop.

That guy is a total nutbar. I'm going to ask a couple of my friends what they think - one is an author who goes into a lot of libraries to do talks and one is a librarian. They are bound to have strong views.

"Perhaps what libraries need to do is develop into something else (which they are doing as far as I can see) and not just a book loaning service."

Yes, that's precisely the point. They are so much more than a book loaning service. Let's take the library closest to where I'm sitting. This month they have:

- an exhibition if Italian photography
- a series of events marking the 400th anniversary of the city's charter
- an exhibition about local writers
- an "exploration" of the archival resources relating to archaeology and the history of human settlement in Ireland
- a reading group reading "Sons and Lovers"
- walking tours of the city dealing with its history, architecture etc
- talks about the history and practice of local government

...I could go on. They also have music and drama performances regularly.

Now, the important part about this is that lots of the archives and resources they are making available to the public aren't even available anywhere online.

And when they *are* online? It's probably on the website of a library that you'll find them.

You must admit, that's some pretty damn good obsolescence.

I reckon terry dreary must be a closet thatcherite or something - anyone know what his politics is? Alternately it could be all part of a self-publicity campaign. There is nothing better than stirring up a bit of controversy - is he planning a new series of books?

After 'Horrible Histories', 'Lousy Libraries' presumably...?

I agree that libraries are far, far more than book lending services. They are galleries, tourist information offices, museums, theatre booking agents, video rental shops and much, much, much more.

<BB<

That's so true, BB. My local library functions as all of those.

They also regularly clear out old stock, so I'll add 'second-hand bookshop' too. Oh, and internet cafe.

Sho


Be careful of passing to charity shops especially Oxfam as they pulp a lot of books. Thye are no longer the palces that will sell anyhting they only go for stuff that makes their shops look like proper shops and junk anything else.

I have read that some places will pulp books that they can't sell for more than a certain set price.

what people do with books after I pass them on is up to them

there is a company that I buy second hand books from, Awesome books, who bulk buy the books that charities can't sell. They give some of their profit to charity which seems like a good thing.

Why do I suspect that this Dreary fellow is a big fan of Ayn Rand?


He reminds me of Metallica in how they are staunch advocates of strict copyright enforcement and long lasting extensions to copyright terms. They're a big band who have a good contract with the label. They make a good percentage on the proceeds of their record sales. Other, smaller, up & coming bands who don't have great contracts and only get a small percentage of sales from the label don't mind a bit of sharing of their music as it exposes them to a larger audience.