Jim, the arguments you present are cogent, from the point of view of
the public. As a library user ever since I learned to read, I value
them highly. In fact, I would say that the establishment of a wide,
decentralized system of public libraries gave the US an enormous
advantage relative to other countries. It was and is a great idea, a
democratic idea in the purest sense of the word.
The point that Constantine makes in Bottom Liner Blues (I finally
remembered the title) through his Mad Russian character, is, well,
about the bottom line for writers. It is true that sometimes are the
main buyers for a book, in which case they would be the writer's most
prized customer. But the unequal treatment relative to music and film
continues to be remarkable. Yes, libraries are not for profit, but
nonprofit radio stations still have to license the music for broadcast
and a public showing of a film by a nonprofit film society still
requires payment.
It is a difficult calculus. I am not sure that the writer is always
the loser, but in some cases it may be. On the other hand, if I buy a
novel and lend it to twenty friends, I am doing the same as the public
library. You could say that the library lends to friends, too.
Lastly, the nicest thing about libraries is when they run out of space
and sell those old Wodehouse first editions for a quarter... some good
crime stuff, too. I swear that I saw a bunch of Patricia Highsmith's
hardcovers at a recent library sale. I bought the first edition of
Strangers on a Train, an old favorite. The book did not seem to have
had that many readers, it was in very good condition. I couldn't leave
it on the sale table.
Best,
mrt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 23 Nov 2008 EST