The editors at Library Journal, Booklist, Publisher's Weekly, and Kirkus, the book review journals most commonly used by public librarians when selecting adult books for their collections, sift through pre-pub submissions to decide which titles to review based on merit or potential interest. I had never considered how well the journals are doing as far as aligning with popular interest until our current era of hotly contested subject matter.
As a test I performed an online search of twenty-six bestselling but potentially controversial titles (either due to the content or the author) to see if they received journal reviews. The results suggest that collection development librarians, if they want their collections to reflect patron demand, should consult various bestseller lists for titles they might otherwise miss, either because they were never submitted to the journals in the first place, the journals chose not to review them, or the journals gave them a negative review. While popular books currently embraced by progressives are often the target of outright censorship campaigns by lawmakers or the public, titles popular with contrarians and/or conservatives appear to be more frequently neglected or dismissed by the review system.
Of the twenty-six titles I looked up online, thirteen titles received reviews in the standard review journals:
Thank you. Censorship from the left is nearly invisible compared to that from the right. On the left it happens inside publishing houses, journals and libraries themselves- institutionalized authoritarianism. This ripples into the hearts and minds of authors and researchers. Hard to overstate how dangerous this is.
When I was a young librarian at a Catholic university I had to submit 2 reviews along with a recommendation to the Collection Development Librarian (CDL) to consider purchase. I was interested in developing a demonstration collection of small press books and, of course, none of them were ever reviewed and I was unable to convince the CDL librarian to purchase w/o reviews in LJ, NYT, etc.
Eventually we contracted with a jobber for an approval plan. Of books sent I still had to find the 2 reviews but it was much easier as the books sent on the approval plan had all been pre-selected in collaboration, it seemed, with review sources. In those days it was the alternative press on the left that was difficult to acquire.
Today the same dynamic is in play. As you point out, the alternative press is mainly on the right now and conservative books don't get reviewed. So the cycle shuts down. No reviews, no purchase.
What is different today is that social media promotes books (to both sides). So, while libraries may have fewer conservative books there is more direct sell by social media and the library is by-passed by people (and there are many) who would like these books.
Because I am the widow of a disabled veteran who met annually with his old unit I participate in some online discussion groups to keep up with them. That is a fairly conservative group. I learn a lot. Because they know I am a librarian I've been asked about the lack of some of the books listed above. I explain that if the books aren't reviewed they likely aren't on approval plans. Of course then I'm asked, "why not?" I explain about the reviews. Then I'm asked, "So, librarians let NY publishers decide what will be reviewed and then librarians choose library books based on reviews" "Pretty much," I say. So, they say, "it is New York's reviewers' decision to ignore books we might want to read that is why these books are not in the library?"
At that point they tell me they just buy the books they have heard about on social media because the library doesn't care about anyone not in that loop.
I always thought we would draw people in and they would find so many things that would help them see the world from different vantage points. It may be that the non-reviewing, non-buying of conservative books is becoming so well known that we will lose this group of patrons.
The review requirement can be a hurdle but most library's collection development plans also include something about buying books due to "popular interest," so a title being on a bestseller list could fit that bill (or a title being requested by a patron). Sometimes libraries are also on automatic order plans for bestsellers. But if not, and collection development librarians don't look beyond review sources, they won't even know some of these titles exist (or they won't order the titles with negative reviews even though there is lots of interest). Many of those types of titles from the list above are checked out at my library with holds lists on them.
I remember the days of having to search out "leftie" books because they were ignored. Or we would buy things from Loompanics because those books were popular.
I remember using the Alternative Press Index to make the case. But of course theses days many libraries have handed over collection development to approval plans.
Since I no longer do collection development I am unsure as to whether our vendor puts these titles in the recommended carts, but I am guessing that if they aren't reviewed or are negatively reviewed, probably not. Although "anticipated sales" might also be taken into account.
I don't know if you remember Jenna Jameson's 2004 biography "How to Make Love Like a Porn Star," but it was a bestseller so my library received it although there was a big censorship campaign against it. I was interviewed on the news about it as I worked in collection development. I looked it up out of curiosity and it did receive a pretty positive review in Publisher's Weekly. A lot of these conservative/ contrarian books are currently "beyond the pale" it seems.
I wonder if any of the political books (on either side) are widely read. I was weeding my personal collection and realized I had what are now called "campaign books" from a lot of candidates (including a signed one by John Edwards). I know libraries buy them, but wonder if they are really read or circulate much. I tended to buy them to support the candidate, not to enjoy their prose. I think the main market is libraries. If we buy one party's campaign books, do we buy the other's?
Something I have found *very* illuminating is checking out public library waitlists. Linda Blade's book _Unsporting: How Trans Activism and Science Denial are Destroying Sport_ (published last year, physically definitely exists because I have a copy) is still "on order" at the Edmonton public library and even so, already has 9 holds waiting. Of course they heavily promote books that are all in for gender ideology, put them on special display shelves at every branch, etc. etc.
Consistently, tomes that are in one way or another critical of "the currrent thing" have long waitlists in the public system, despite the obvious efforts of librarians to get the public to read stuff that librarians consider far more au fait.
I do try to review the holds lists as well to determine demand. My feeling is that librarians are free to recommend the books they want to push (or select them for book clubs) and try to influence what gets read that way, but they should cover the gamut when it comes to what they order for the collection. We don't want to become like some of the mainstream media outlets who are losing audiences to people like Joe Rogan. We already struggle to remain relevant against the information onslaught.
Jun 16, 2022·edited Jun 16, 2022Liked by S. Anderson
20+ years ago, right-wingers bristled when Chomsky said that censorship in an open society could be effectively done simply by the media tacitly agreeing to ignore something and that the government need not be involved. "Chomsky's crazy! If people don't know about the Cheju Massacre, it's because they CHOOSE not to know. It's in books!" they said (I'm paraphrasing my example.) As media narratives and publishers ride the pendulum of the latest generational swing towards progressivism, the Censorship of Tacit Ignoring suddenly doesn't seem so ridiculous to the right anymore.
It's no fun living through it, but I do think this era is going to be incredibly rich for future scholarship about censorship and dissent. How effective is "tacit ignoring"? In one way, hugely effective. In another, RFK Jr.'s book _The Real Anthony Fauci_ tops best seller lists despite the polite classes pretending it doesn't exist.
I wrote a paper in college about John Henry Faulk vs. AWARE and the outcome. The parallels with cancellation stories from the last few years are like repetitive farce or homage.
True. I often picture a stampede of feet trampling over the gatekeepers.
Also, if I get a reconsideration request for a title like "This Book is Gay," it is so much easier to defend it if I can truthfully say we don't practice viewpoint discrimination and collect books from across the political and viewpoint spectrum.
It is why I proudly am creating what I refer to as a "conspiracy theorist's library". Ignorance kills, so I think it is better to provide people access to controversial information covering "both sides" of an issue, as well as a deeper dive into how both sides are still on the same coin - meaning they're still using the same narrative. Response has been very positive so far. Regardless of whether you're "waking up", "woking up", or staying asleep...a collection should have something to support, oppose, and be apathetic towards your views.
Nothing is more discouraging than the hypocritical hubris of our profession, even if the majority truly believe they are on the right side of the issue because it is what was taught and published in our literature.
My question then is - what will change? When the profession, through its proclamations, publications, conferences, and I assume education, promote only one narrative - is there hope for a library that can truly be a library for ALL people. Or, just all the people who think as we do?
I think it would be interesting to hold a "conspiracy theory" book club, but it would work best if the people attending were not coming in with pre-determined views "for" or "against" but with an open yet critical mind to really discuss a theory.
I guess we should all look at our selection policies. Usually they state that good research and reputable publishers are required. As I public librarian I was asked regularly to buy medical/health materials that promoted unsafe practices and I explained all that about reviews and jobbers. I'm sure that turned off many who did not trust the medical profession as well.
We are pretty good about buying most patron requests at my library. I think bestseller standing order plans are a good idea in theory but in practicality there can be issues with books remaining on the list, bouncing on and off, or being on more than one list and getting ordered repeatedly.
If you think there are "many who did not trust the medical profession", and they were interested in using your library to further their learning/understanding...how is that not in keeping with our selection criteria? If I thought vampiric romance stories were abhorrent, should I exclude all Feehan books?
Instead of dismissing their understanding and world-view as wrong, perhaps acquire counter-arguments, in addition to some of the ones they want, to provide a fuller context?
Well, I'm thinking about the snake oil level of medical advice. But you make a good point. My question would be where/how do we draw a line? Are we arbiters or simply suppliers?
Informed facilitators of access to some information. Just like much of what some would consider drivel that are on our standing orders that are of questionable authority or value...without the simplicity of standing orders, would we have purchased them? And, some of the biggest snake oil salespeople are in the mainstream.
Alas, yes, it does take more time and some research, but I think it is well worth the effort for your collection and your patrons. And, if you look at how much money your library likely spends on information for the "other side", spending some money to counterbalance it could well be money well spent. At least as long as your library doesn't shelve them "in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.” :)
Whodathunk that being a librarian would be so challenging, right!?
I do have to add, many popular health books from "reputable publishers" likely contain dubious information. Think of all the bestselling diet books, as an example.
That's a good point. Health trends come and go. I am thinking of that guy who is probably in jail now who was very popular...promoted crushed coral or something for a cure-all. He published lots of books . I"m mostly thinking about the snake oil end of quackery.
A beloved professor of mine once said, “A library should have something to offend everyone.” What a simple principle to assure serving all. Fundamentally it is the ethics of tolerance and intellectual freedom, what the elites are allergic to.
This list definitely resonates with my experience teaching collection development lo these past 20 years at some information school or other. The pernicious role of technology can't be discounted, though. One of my research streams is the quack-health material referenced in the comments below (which I also teach about in a different class). I've heard several times in interviews in different library systems that automatic ordering kicks in once a pre-set threshold for requests from patrons has been reached--not just for bestsellers, but for anything that is ordered a certain number of times. At this point librarians' hands are tied. (At this point in the interview I'm thinking "And I'm teaching them to search for reviews why??)
P.S. The quack-health guru being remembered by S. Anderson and K. Phenix is Kevin Trudeau, who did indeed go to jail for it. According to Wikipedia he was released on January 15, 2022.
We also order additional copies for titles that have a certain number of holds, but of course those titles have to be in the system already for that to kick in.
Interesting and suggestive! This would warrant further exploration in an academic article, one that would also connect few/no reviews to actual presence in public or academic library collections.
Thank you. Censorship from the left is nearly invisible compared to that from the right. On the left it happens inside publishing houses, journals and libraries themselves- institutionalized authoritarianism. This ripples into the hearts and minds of authors and researchers. Hard to overstate how dangerous this is.
You do have to laugh at the books about authoritarianism that are "not reviewed."
When I was a young librarian at a Catholic university I had to submit 2 reviews along with a recommendation to the Collection Development Librarian (CDL) to consider purchase. I was interested in developing a demonstration collection of small press books and, of course, none of them were ever reviewed and I was unable to convince the CDL librarian to purchase w/o reviews in LJ, NYT, etc.
Eventually we contracted with a jobber for an approval plan. Of books sent I still had to find the 2 reviews but it was much easier as the books sent on the approval plan had all been pre-selected in collaboration, it seemed, with review sources. In those days it was the alternative press on the left that was difficult to acquire.
Today the same dynamic is in play. As you point out, the alternative press is mainly on the right now and conservative books don't get reviewed. So the cycle shuts down. No reviews, no purchase.
What is different today is that social media promotes books (to both sides). So, while libraries may have fewer conservative books there is more direct sell by social media and the library is by-passed by people (and there are many) who would like these books.
Because I am the widow of a disabled veteran who met annually with his old unit I participate in some online discussion groups to keep up with them. That is a fairly conservative group. I learn a lot. Because they know I am a librarian I've been asked about the lack of some of the books listed above. I explain that if the books aren't reviewed they likely aren't on approval plans. Of course then I'm asked, "why not?" I explain about the reviews. Then I'm asked, "So, librarians let NY publishers decide what will be reviewed and then librarians choose library books based on reviews" "Pretty much," I say. So, they say, "it is New York's reviewers' decision to ignore books we might want to read that is why these books are not in the library?"
At that point they tell me they just buy the books they have heard about on social media because the library doesn't care about anyone not in that loop.
I always thought we would draw people in and they would find so many things that would help them see the world from different vantage points. It may be that the non-reviewing, non-buying of conservative books is becoming so well known that we will lose this group of patrons.
The review requirement can be a hurdle but most library's collection development plans also include something about buying books due to "popular interest," so a title being on a bestseller list could fit that bill (or a title being requested by a patron). Sometimes libraries are also on automatic order plans for bestsellers. But if not, and collection development librarians don't look beyond review sources, they won't even know some of these titles exist (or they won't order the titles with negative reviews even though there is lots of interest). Many of those types of titles from the list above are checked out at my library with holds lists on them.
I remember the days of having to search out "leftie" books because they were ignored. Or we would buy things from Loompanics because those books were popular.
I remember using the Alternative Press Index to make the case. But of course theses days many libraries have handed over collection development to approval plans.
Since I no longer do collection development I am unsure as to whether our vendor puts these titles in the recommended carts, but I am guessing that if they aren't reviewed or are negatively reviewed, probably not. Although "anticipated sales" might also be taken into account.
I don't know if you remember Jenna Jameson's 2004 biography "How to Make Love Like a Porn Star," but it was a bestseller so my library received it although there was a big censorship campaign against it. I was interviewed on the news about it as I worked in collection development. I looked it up out of curiosity and it did receive a pretty positive review in Publisher's Weekly. A lot of these conservative/ contrarian books are currently "beyond the pale" it seems.
I don't but remember that is a great example.
I wonder if any of the political books (on either side) are widely read. I was weeding my personal collection and realized I had what are now called "campaign books" from a lot of candidates (including a signed one by John Edwards). I know libraries buy them, but wonder if they are really read or circulate much. I tended to buy them to support the candidate, not to enjoy their prose. I think the main market is libraries. If we buy one party's campaign books, do we buy the other's?
Something I have found *very* illuminating is checking out public library waitlists. Linda Blade's book _Unsporting: How Trans Activism and Science Denial are Destroying Sport_ (published last year, physically definitely exists because I have a copy) is still "on order" at the Edmonton public library and even so, already has 9 holds waiting. Of course they heavily promote books that are all in for gender ideology, put them on special display shelves at every branch, etc. etc.
Consistently, tomes that are in one way or another critical of "the currrent thing" have long waitlists in the public system, despite the obvious efforts of librarians to get the public to read stuff that librarians consider far more au fait.
That would be a great study--wait list analytics.
I do try to review the holds lists as well to determine demand. My feeling is that librarians are free to recommend the books they want to push (or select them for book clubs) and try to influence what gets read that way, but they should cover the gamut when it comes to what they order for the collection. We don't want to become like some of the mainstream media outlets who are losing audiences to people like Joe Rogan. We already struggle to remain relevant against the information onslaught.
20+ years ago, right-wingers bristled when Chomsky said that censorship in an open society could be effectively done simply by the media tacitly agreeing to ignore something and that the government need not be involved. "Chomsky's crazy! If people don't know about the Cheju Massacre, it's because they CHOOSE not to know. It's in books!" they said (I'm paraphrasing my example.) As media narratives and publishers ride the pendulum of the latest generational swing towards progressivism, the Censorship of Tacit Ignoring suddenly doesn't seem so ridiculous to the right anymore.
It's no fun living through it, but I do think this era is going to be incredibly rich for future scholarship about censorship and dissent. How effective is "tacit ignoring"? In one way, hugely effective. In another, RFK Jr.'s book _The Real Anthony Fauci_ tops best seller lists despite the polite classes pretending it doesn't exist.
I wrote a paper in college about John Henry Faulk vs. AWARE and the outcome. The parallels with cancellation stories from the last few years are like repetitive farce or homage.
I will have to look that up-- I used to work for Austin Public Library, home of the John Henry Faulk Central Library
True. I often picture a stampede of feet trampling over the gatekeepers.
Also, if I get a reconsideration request for a title like "This Book is Gay," it is so much easier to defend it if I can truthfully say we don't practice viewpoint discrimination and collect books from across the political and viewpoint spectrum.
It is why I proudly am creating what I refer to as a "conspiracy theorist's library". Ignorance kills, so I think it is better to provide people access to controversial information covering "both sides" of an issue, as well as a deeper dive into how both sides are still on the same coin - meaning they're still using the same narrative. Response has been very positive so far. Regardless of whether you're "waking up", "woking up", or staying asleep...a collection should have something to support, oppose, and be apathetic towards your views.
Nothing is more discouraging than the hypocritical hubris of our profession, even if the majority truly believe they are on the right side of the issue because it is what was taught and published in our literature.
My question then is - what will change? When the profession, through its proclamations, publications, conferences, and I assume education, promote only one narrative - is there hope for a library that can truly be a library for ALL people. Or, just all the people who think as we do?
I think it would be interesting to hold a "conspiracy theory" book club, but it would work best if the people attending were not coming in with pre-determined views "for" or "against" but with an open yet critical mind to really discuss a theory.
I agree, though believe it would be the acme of foolilshness to expect that many would come in with open, yet critical, minds.
Still, something on my "to-do" list.
If people came in with an "investigative" mindset it could be fun.
I guess we should all look at our selection policies. Usually they state that good research and reputable publishers are required. As I public librarian I was asked regularly to buy medical/health materials that promoted unsafe practices and I explained all that about reviews and jobbers. I'm sure that turned off many who did not trust the medical profession as well.
We are pretty good about buying most patron requests at my library. I think bestseller standing order plans are a good idea in theory but in practicality there can be issues with books remaining on the list, bouncing on and off, or being on more than one list and getting ordered repeatedly.
If you think there are "many who did not trust the medical profession", and they were interested in using your library to further their learning/understanding...how is that not in keeping with our selection criteria? If I thought vampiric romance stories were abhorrent, should I exclude all Feehan books?
Instead of dismissing their understanding and world-view as wrong, perhaps acquire counter-arguments, in addition to some of the ones they want, to provide a fuller context?
Well, I'm thinking about the snake oil level of medical advice. But you make a good point. My question would be where/how do we draw a line? Are we arbiters or simply suppliers?
Informed facilitators of access to some information. Just like much of what some would consider drivel that are on our standing orders that are of questionable authority or value...without the simplicity of standing orders, would we have purchased them? And, some of the biggest snake oil salespeople are in the mainstream.
Alas, yes, it does take more time and some research, but I think it is well worth the effort for your collection and your patrons. And, if you look at how much money your library likely spends on information for the "other side", spending some money to counterbalance it could well be money well spent. At least as long as your library doesn't shelve them "in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.” :)
Whodathunk that being a librarian would be so challenging, right!?
I do have to add, many popular health books from "reputable publishers" likely contain dubious information. Think of all the bestselling diet books, as an example.
That's a good point. Health trends come and go. I am thinking of that guy who is probably in jail now who was very popular...promoted crushed coral or something for a cure-all. He published lots of books . I"m mostly thinking about the snake oil end of quackery.
We don't buy self-published books unless it is a local history topic, so that would rule out a lot.
A beloved professor of mine once said, “A library should have something to offend everyone.” What a simple principle to assure serving all. Fundamentally it is the ethics of tolerance and intellectual freedom, what the elites are allergic to.
Many plebs are allergic to them, too.
This list definitely resonates with my experience teaching collection development lo these past 20 years at some information school or other. The pernicious role of technology can't be discounted, though. One of my research streams is the quack-health material referenced in the comments below (which I also teach about in a different class). I've heard several times in interviews in different library systems that automatic ordering kicks in once a pre-set threshold for requests from patrons has been reached--not just for bestsellers, but for anything that is ordered a certain number of times. At this point librarians' hands are tied. (At this point in the interview I'm thinking "And I'm teaching them to search for reviews why??)
P.S. The quack-health guru being remembered by S. Anderson and K. Phenix is Kevin Trudeau, who did indeed go to jail for it. According to Wikipedia he was released on January 15, 2022.
We also order additional copies for titles that have a certain number of holds, but of course those titles have to be in the system already for that to kick in.
Interesting and suggestive! This would warrant further exploration in an academic article, one that would also connect few/no reviews to actual presence in public or academic library collections.
That would be the next step!