• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trudeau library watch

LibraryLady, that is the kind of viewpoint I would hope and expect librarians to have.

Can you think how it applies specifically to the Trudeau book?

Actually, let's make it hypothetical:

Book X purports to tell a controversial, oppressed truth. It sells many many copies.

However, book X is in obvious and direct contradiction of well-established science.

Does the library have grounds to not stock it at all?

If they stock it, what is the leeway in deciding in what section to stock it?
 
I will admit my position here:

Given the lack of a clear answer one way or another, I think the default position is "stock it."
 
I think all libraries should carry this book for a couple of reasons. First, libraries should be able to carry whatever books they want. Though I despise Kevin Trudeau, I'm all for freedom of speech.

The second is this: I would honestly like to read this book just to see the crap he's spewing firsthand. However, I do not want to give this guy any of my money. Therefore, if I were to read this, I would check it out of a library. I would also hope other people would, too. Let's say that, in a certain town, there are 40 people who want to read this book. If the library buys two copies and everyone who wants to read it checks it out of the library, then Trudeau has only profited off the sale of these two books. However, if the library didn't stock it, and each of these people had to buy it in order to read it, he would profit off the sale of 40 books. Therefore, I believe libraries carrying this book is a good way to (try to) stifle his profits. Since he's obviously in this business for the money, I bet he hates libraries. :D
 
I don't want to sound all conspiracy theorist, but I would rather read the book at a book store i.e. Borders or Barnes and Noble, without buying it or at the library without checking it out. That way there's no electronic trail of more people (woos) interested in the book. Granted I have absolutely no evidence that books checked out at library are tracked by the publisher/author and used for any type of statistical analysis. At any rate, the less popular the book is perceived by the publishers, the less likely they will be to publish his next book (that is if he doesn’t have his own publishing company in which case he will just have less money ).
 
All right, so out of curiosity, I checked www.lapl.org (Let it be known that Los Angeles has a fabulous library). The LAPL uses the LoC system, if I'm not mistaken. Having grown up with the Dewey Decimal, I have can't read a LoC call number at all.

But it'll tell you which branch of the central library it's in.

It's in the popular section.

Oh, and the Science & Technology department.

Almost all are listed as Checked Out or In Transit.

Of course, 615.5 could be LoC for "*coughcrackpotfraudcough*" (I'm not hopeful at all.)

I do agree that it should be stocked, but under "fringe science" or "conspiracy theories" or "Ok, seriously. The (rule 8). No, seriously. What is wrong with your brain."
 
After some thought I agree that the book should be in the library. It pisses me off to no end but it's a dangerous precedent to start banning books at libraries. Put a damn sticker on the thing.
 
You can borrow a copy of Penn & Teller's BS from many libraries. I can't imagine how many people are annoyed by that.
 
Oh gosh, where do I start with this.

This is going to sound very high falutin', but one of the main reasons I am a librarian, aside from the fact that I get a paycheck from it, is that I firmly believe that one of the foundations of democracy is the free and open access to information and knowledge. Without this freedom to know, which I think Roosevelt should have included in his famous speech, http://www.libertynet.org/~edcivic/fdr.html, I cannot see the democratic and open society survivng. Providing this information is my contribution.

Please note that for me, fiction is included in "information."

This, of course, appears to beg the question, what if the information you are providing is inaccurate, inflammatory, ephemeral, evil, or just plain ridiculous. Should I hand to a young and impressionable patron The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? http://www.holocaust-history.org/short-essays/protocols.shtml If someone I suspect to be a terrorist asks for a book on bomb making, do I provide it? Do I give Kevin Trudeau's book of arrant nonsense to an obviously ill person?

The answer is yes.

Bear in mind that I have additional options open to me. "If you are interested in this book, you might also want to look at...." "Would you like to see some reviews about this book?" "This book has an interesting history; would you like to look into this?" This is actually a library technique called "Readers' Advisory."

If the patron isn't interested, that isn't my business. My business is to supply the information they have requested. And if I started making it my business, I become an arbiter of information, not a librarian.
 
I appreciate LibraryLady's view. I expect Fairfax County PL's response will be similar. (And I was quite conscious of the ominous sound of "library watch" -- I'm glad she picked up on that.) I admit I was somewhat disturbed by my own recommendation of something resembling censorship. I guess what took me aback was the sheer quantity of copies of this guide to quackery available. The good news is that I seldom have difficulty finding copies of books on true science and skepticism at the FCPL whenever they come up in the Commentary or anywhere else.

I must agree, too, that having copies of charlatans' works at the local library can be useful in the quest for truth. I find myself regretting the lack of a free source for another disturbing work, "A Promise Made, A Promise Kept", by James Chappell, who, as of 28 December 2005, was still hawking his supposed cure for diabetes on The Science Channel here in the U.S. I wanted to review it so I can make a fully informed complaint to the FTC, but I must currently rely on secondhand quotes, which undermines such a case.

As far as labelling Trudeau's book "fiction", I'm sure LibraryLady would agree that the "Fiction" category (in either Dewey or LoC) doesn't represent "books whose contents are not true", merely those published as self-proclaimed fiction. If we were to put "Natural Cures" under "Fiction", we'd have to add most modern political treatises and quite a few other impassioned works of supposed non-fiction that are heavy on rhetoric and light on (even contemptuous of) facts. In the incredibly complex world of human communication, the only clear "non-fiction" is double-blinded, repeatable, peer-reviewed scientific investigation, and JREF fans know just how hard a sell that can be! I can hardly blame libraries for focusing on providing all documents rather than attempting to vet them for accuracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom