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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.