ALA prez-elect vs. uppity bloggers: The Dan Rather of the Library World?
Oh, no! Has civilization declined to the point where Michael Gorman, the president-elect of the American Library Association, must appear in Library Journal to respond to mere bloggers?
Here are a few naive questions in the wake of Gorman’s LJ article and an anti-e-book rant published earlier in the L.A. Times. Didn’t he seek election while pledging to work toward “equity of access for all library users?” Couldn’t the efficiencies of the new technology help bring more books to cash-strapped libraries? And what about the disabled? For some reason, my eyes haven’t been functioning as well these past few days as they usually do. I don’t know how I’d fare without the large-font capabilities of the Cybook and my ability to enlarge the characters displayed in my Web browser. Just why is Gorman so blind to the obvious benefits?
A Manchurian Candidate for library-haters?
People like Gorman need to get with the times. Imagine–an ALA president-elect who sneers that until recently he had “not spent much time thinking about blogs or Blog People.” Maybe Gorman is really a Manchurian Candidate planted in the bosom of the ALA by library-haters. In an era when library systems face cutbacks and maybe even shutdowns, why is this man so eager to detract from the ALA’s credibility as an advocate of 21st century libraries?
My sympathy goes out to more clueful ALA members, especially Gorman’s supporters, including the B People among them. What an embarrassing old fossil even by the standards of an antique Baby Boomer, me! Along with many thoughtful librarians, Luds and nonLuds alike, I share Gorman’s concern over the rise of McInformaton and the decline of sustained thought. But isn’t the best response to improve e-book technology in many ways and meanwhile digitize more books so that each can be read in greater and greater context?
The impeachment question
Yes, Gorman worries that e-libraries will serve up serious books out of context. But couldn’t devilish technologies such as blogs, Wikis, annotations and mixes provide more context if used in a library-style way? Has this man even heard of the invention of hyperlinks? As for the inevitable issue of only certain books showing up online, doesn’t it make sense to begin the digitizing at some point, starting with public domain works and others without copyright-related terrors? Just how familiar is Gorman with the technologies involved here? If not, has he committed the library equivalent of malpractice by fuming against various forms of new tech without familiarizing himself with it? In the L.A. Times article he complained of the terrors of reading hour after hour on a screen, but has he ever used at length the very latest kinds of electronic paper?
No, Gorman should not be impeached for questioning the use of e-books for reading serious literature, but if his methodology was flawed, that is another question. Is he willing to be fully accountable to librarians and educators who ask how much experience he has with the latest e-book technology?
The Dan Rather of the Library World?
If not, then Gorman is the Dan Rather of the library world–someone who’d rather Stand by The Story than keep an open mind. His conclusions flatly contradict my own experiences. Thanks to e-books and a suitable device for reading them, my reading fare these days is more serious, not less. Isn’t it a little reckless of Gorman to assume his limited experiences apply to everyone? And just how gifted is he as a technological seer in anticipating the future development of e-book technology? Has he consulted closely with those who know? If not, mightn’t he be violating Reference Desk Rule Number One–defer to the true experts?
Gorman as a writer
Not content to attack blogging and e-books, Gorman goes after bloggers as writers. He himself is mediocre at best if you judge by the samples I’ve read. I challenge Gorman to let book reviewers outside the academic and legal worlds evaluate the following sentence: “It turns out that the Blog People (or their subclass who are interested in computers and the glorification of information) have a fanatical belief in the transforming power of digitization and a consequent horror of, and contempt for, heretics who do not share that belief.”
I’m also amused by his references to typos in blogs. I’m all for copy desks–as well as do-it-yourself proofing–but in judging people on the blog circuit I’m far more interested in logic and originality of thought than in spelling skills. Perhaps Gorman should remember a line from the start of The Time Machine–a mention of a ” luxurious after-dinner atmosphere when thought roams racefully free of the trammels of precision.” Isn’t that what informal blogging is all about–an “after-dinner atmosphere”? But poor Gorman sees everything as an academic presentation, and even by those standards, the Library Journal article is a flop. As pretentious as he is, he fails to cite one great novel or even a scholarly work to back up his points. Maybe he’d be a better writer if he read more. Wait. Perhaps he reads widely but thought, “It’s a magazine article, so I’ll adjust to the medium and avoid all the trimmings.” If so, let him at least be consistent. Gorman shouldn’t rate Jane or Joe Blogger by academic standards or even journalistic ones. Blogs are blogs, not professional journals or the New York Times.
Related: Washington Monthly blogger: ALA should dump prez-elect Michael Gorman for anti-ebook remarks. While the comment appeared in a Washington Monthly blog rather than in the magazine itself, keep in mind that the Monthly is among the more respected of publications read by progressive policy-wonks in D.C. Oh, and for the latest, see ALA President Not Fond of Bloggers in Slashdot–as well as some sane reactions in LISnews.
(Thanks to my friend Rochelle Hartman for pointing me to the Gorman rant–and for her guts as an ALA councilor at large. Other ALA librarians, too, are speaking up. My favorite line is from Karen Schneider: “Nice. Really nice. Good use of the ALA presidential bully pulpit. No citations, of course.”)
Leave a Reply