Libraries

[bunn]

 Caught a section on the radio earlier today about the library closure protests. They were saying: use them or lose them. 

This is a call to action that works well for, say, local pubs or milkmen.  I don't think it should necessarily apply to libraries though. I live in a rural area, and am currently,  relatively time-poor and shelf-rich.  It makes sense for me to buy books rather than driving to a library during opening hours.   I am not a customer that particularly needs a library at present: in fact, using one would be something of a pain. 

However, I have certainly been shelf-poor and time-rich (or more conveniently located) in the past, and very likely will be again in future.  The fact that I am not using the library much *now* should not be interpreted as a vote to close the place!  

 I'm not using the local primary school, police station, hospital or prison either, but nobody thinks that means I never will.   Surely public services should be used primarily by those that need them, not by those that merely think that they should remain open...?

Comments

[jane-somebody.livejournal.com]

(pardon late comment, I'm always behindhand with lj. Also OTT really.) " Eg when deciding which books should be got rid of, if they've been borrowed less than a certain number of times in a certain period, they get withdrawn." LOL, I remember working that out when I was 10, when I deduced I was the only person ever withdrawing my then-favourite library book (bear in mind this was pre-computers, so all they had to go on was the number/recentness of date-stamps in the front of the book.) So I made a heroic effort to stop getting it out, waited on tenterhooks, and sure enough it eventually turned up on the 'withdrawn books for sale' trolley, whereupon I pounced! And it's still in my collection today :-) (I figure this wasn't bad for the library since it freed up some stock room/shelf space for a book that would be borrowed by more than one person.)