The Good Library Blog

Tim,
In this regard you might be interested in the "five laws of library science" by the great librarian and mathematician S. R. Ranganathan. They have been well shaved by Occam!

1. Books are for use.
2. Every reader his or her book.
3. Every book its reader.
4. Save the time of the reader.
5. The library is a growing organism.

According to Wikipedia "most librarians worldwide accept them as the foundation of their philosophy".

Adrian

I have been and looked at Mr Ranganathan's book. As you certainly know each of his 5 laws is accompanied by (about 70 pages) of lucid explanation and exhortation. But I find those brief summaries to be difficult to understand unless you read the book.

Our Occam-esque statements should make sense on their own. I'm not sure if they do to anyone else.

Peter (K) please could you post your comment again; i pressed the wrong button as it came in. apologies. tim

Tim,
Pressing the wrong button is the story of my life....

I was agreeing with Adrian in that Ranganathan's "laws" are as valid today as when they were originally formulated. Though his language may now appear rather quaint or old-fashioned, his ideas are enduring and should appear in some form on every library's mission statement.

Regards,
Peter

Would you like to write them in a form that is workable now?

Tim,
this is my attempt:-

1 Books are to be read, so any collection should appeal to people
2 There is a book out there for everyone, so collections should seek to serve as wide a range of people as possible
3 For every book there is someone who will want to read it
4 That book should be as easy to find as possible, which (sad as it may be ;) ) means some form of cataloguing is needed, alongside good signs and helpful staff
5 The library should always be getting in new books and responding to its community

5 has been interpreted more recently to allow for other services, e.g. internet access

Here's my take on them:

1. Libraries are a welcoming, inclusive and safe environment. Anyone can join with the minimum of fuss; able to access the collections and borrow books.

2. Libraries contain a wide range of books to suit everyone's tastes.

3. Libraries develop collections that are both broad and deep, to educate, inform and entertain.

4. Helpful and knowledgeable staff, clear signage and cataloguing make finding items easy.

5. The library is forward looking, embracing new technologies, yet with reading and the love of books at its heart.

Regards,
Peter

Pretty good-- but reading Mr Ranganathan's book I think he also explains, in the case of each law, what a library is not. You have to do that, too, in order to make sure your statements are definite.

For example I think law 1 says-- the purpose of collecting books in a library is so that people can read them; it is not for preserving them, (which could lead to people not reading them)

Yes Tim, but I want the statements to be positive, rather than negative. Too many "nots" about libraries.

Regards,
Peter

Books are to be read, cherished, discussed and passed on. A public library is not a mausoleum.

There are books to be read on all topics, so where possible a library should have as many books on as many topics as possible. A public library is not the preserve of any one group.

There is someone out there interested in something a book covers. A public library does not exist in a vacuum.

Books need to be found in order to be read. Systems should be designed to make that happen. A public library is not an exercise in classification philosophy.

Libraries need to be aware of whom they serve and adapt their services and collections accordingly. A public library is not a mausoleum.

My worry is that many libraries, following good insitincts, will become mausolea, mere book depositories.

In serving its broader function, which is to support *the use of books* (not the mere gathering in of them) the library service will need sometimes to spend time (and perhaps) money on services which seem not to be 'core'-be that IT to give people access to book discussion groups, or the running of said groups in the library.

Pete

you've given me an opportunity to tell a story (which is only suitable for low down on the blog and not to be copied or broadcast)-

This summer we moved house and duly joined the local library. It was difficult to do because at the first attempt we didn't have the right utility bills and the person was unhelpful and unpleasant. The second visit saw us through.

My wife joined a reading group-- just as you encourage people to. The first book for her was not one she would buy, so she asked the library to reserve a copy for her.

She also asked, practically, how long it would take because the reading group meeting was on a date several weeks away. The library person was able to tell her that there were several copies in the borough, but not able to say how long it would take to get one.

Two weeks later we asked the same question-- time is now running out. The library person was still not able to answer the question and could offer no alternative route for obtaining the book in good time. It seems reasonable to ask when it might come.: one would expect to do that in most places. We now have no idea whether it will be possible to read the book in time for the event.

This is, I know, among the most expensive library services in England, but only a very very small amount of the money we pay is allocated for buying books. A substantial amount, on the other hand, is spent on leaflets advocating the values of diversity and access.

My point is that if only this library service would concentrate on doing the job it is there for-- finding books for readers in an efficient and agreeable manner-- instead of spending resources preaching about 'access' - then we would have a much better library service.

I have no idea if any or all of these people are qualified librarians-- as far as I can tell they are all completely hopeless and lacking in initiative.

But that of course, is one person's anecdotal experience and I'm sure such lousy service is not common.

I am reduced to the suggestion that if we buy a copy, we can always give it to my cousin for Christmas. Is that the way?

I don't *encourage* people to join book clubs Tim- I merely mention them as one way of sharing the enjoyment of reading. And 'privately' run book clubs are just as good at that, to be sure. Personally I'm not a book club person, but each to their own.

Running a book club shouldn't be too tricky or indeed expensive. Helping people set up a book club ditto. Running a service to get people to books/books to people ditto.

And whether such poor service is common or not, it is poor for you and you should seek a remedy within the local service.

A lot of leaflets etc isn't the answer to diversity or access, no. A diverse *collection* is, as I believe you have noted elsewhere with regard to a certain London library.

The problem is that there is a lot of 'preaching' about access but very little done about it; very little meaningful anyway.