Slashdot Mirror
Neil Gaiman On Why Libraries Are the Gates to the Future
Neil Gaiman spoke Monday for the Reading Agency's annual lecture series. His talk centered on the importance of libraries and of reading for pleasure. His talk was transcribed and posted by The Guardian. Quoting:
"Fiction has two uses. Firstly, it's a gateway drug to reading. The drive to know what happens next, to want to turn the page, the need to keep going, even if it's hard, because someone's in trouble and you have to know how it's all going to end that's a very real drive. And it forces you to learn new words, to think new thoughts, to keep going. To discover that reading per se is pleasurable. Once you learn that, you're on the road to reading everything. And reading is key. ... The simplest way to make sure that we raise literate children is to teach them to read, and to show them that reading is a pleasurable activity. And that means, at its simplest, finding books that they enjoy, giving them access to those books, and letting them read them. I don't think there is such a thing as a bad book for children. Every now and again it becomes fashionable among some adults to point at a subset of children's books, a genre, perhaps, or an author, and to declare them bad books, books that children should be stopped from reading. ... It's tosh. It's snobbery and it's foolishness. There are no bad authors for children, that children like and want to read and seek out, because every child is different. They can find the stories they need to, and they bring themselves to stories. A hackneyed, worn-out idea isn't hackneyed and worn out to them. This is the first time the child has encountered it. Do not discourage children from reading because you feel they are reading the wrong thing. Fiction you do not like is a route to other books you may prefer. And not everyone has the same taste as you."
Traditional libraries are not the future. The dead tree archives will here after be a curiosity.
That said, repositories of books and stories etc will remain very important. They will however be increasingly a digital experience.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I Lrn 2 Read good thru technology
You go to a library to look for books. .... Oooh shiny thing
You go onto the internet to look for
A dead tree book beats a text on a monitor, and even e-ink readers. A book you can take with you and doesn't need power (although you do need a light source).
An e-reader is great (use it myself a lot), but for quickly flipping back to a certain bit to check/read it again, a paper book wins hands down.
I found more interesting books/authors by browsing the books on the bookshelves in a library than online.
You go onto the internet to look for .... Oooh shiny thing
I just logged on to check the weather. That was twelve years ago...
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
Is this garden-variety schizophrenia or some other syndrome?
He is just an assficionado.
Computers are in essence information copying machines. This means you'll end up having to pay for anything written after 1922 because of a law called copyright. Dead tree libraries use a loophole that avoids problems with copyright by allowing patrons to read a single book one after the other without requiring the making of new copies made.
The internet didn't kill the library. Library patronage was declining long before the internet. Libraries, sprang into existence because books were expensive and most people struggled to provide shelter and food for their families. Post WWII, at least in the US, things began to change and people had more disposable income. As people climbed the economic ladder, they were in a better position to purchase their own books, particularly paperbacks, trading money for convenience (as is the case with most consumer goods). This trend continued through the 1960s and 70s and really accelerated in the 1980s and 1990s as book clubs took off all over the place. It was fashionable to be reading the latest best seller and the serial model of the library couldn't support that.
All the internet did was change the purchase mode from paper to electronic versions of the media. It didn't impact the use of the library because that change had already manifested itself based on the economic wherewithal of the patrons. Interestingly enough, both the Philadelphia and New York public libraries reported significant increases in usage during the last two recessions. It would seem that even with the plethora of electronic devices to read e-books, when money is tight and one has to watch expenses, one gives up the convenience and goes back to the library.
In short, it's not technology that is causing the demise of the library, but increased disposable income.
Indeed, his whole speech was in defence of libraries and of fiction... Actually, I think, in a broader scope it was defending people's possibilities to imagine. You could (partly) do that with (moving) pictures and theatre as well but he laid emphasis on written material - both the writer and the reader side of it. I think that's a justified emphasis because written material leaves more to the imagination and there is more of it.
One of the most basic ways to be able to fulfil that, people's possibilities to imagine, is through physical libraries. If everyone was born with a (mobile) internet connection, free of censorship, small enough in cost that it is affordable even in hard times and of liberal capability, a virtual form of libraries might be able to take over (some combination of e-reader, wikipedia and specialized chat system inhabited by the readers and 'virtual' librarians might do the job). Do remember, currently, young people first need to have some capability to navigate the internet, learn to handle a device capable of acting as an e-reader and learn some things about e-books and how to get them on their device before they can start reading them. Compare that to libraries for which they only need some push to actually pass that 'scary' librarian at his/her desk and their own two feet to walk to the library in the first place. Also, while there are still people in developed nations (not to mention the nations that are still developing) that have no easy access to internet, physical libraries have a very substantial role to play.
I read Mr. Gaimans (edited) lecture on the website of 'the guardian' from the link in the article. It made me remember all the emotions and wonder I felt while reading through all those fantasy and science stories I have... and the times I (try to) put something on paper as well (try to, because there are too many things I am interested in, including reading and therefore I mostly lack the time. Maybe that will change one day. The day I will stop imagining probably is the day I stop living).
I didn't hang out a lot in libraries as a child... but I did every now and then... and always loved the stories I read. At the end of (equivalent) high-school I still had a few reservations about reading due to the mandatory reading lists I had for the foreign languages I chose as subject (English and German. My native language is Dutch). But it didn't withhold me from also finding pleasure in reading. Also in much of the literature I had to read for those language subjects. It was at my early twenties that my interest in fantasy reading really took off and at that age I had enough income (savings form a Saturday job in earlier years, then student, then regular jobs) to buy the books I wanted to read, second hand and I had the internet to search for reviews and interesting authors. Still I buy most of the stories I read in physical book form. I find that form of reading superior for all situations except when mobile and weight-restricted. I do have a smart phone and I do have a very capable tablet. I'm very familiar with computers and the internet... still I find, for stories, hard copy a joy to read above all others.
Of course this is very much my own opinion and I do think everyone is entitled their own. When reading the lecture, however, I found myself both logically and emotionally agreeing with it and I hope more people will.
For it is the politicians mostly concerned with making the decision to do so, my opinion is that a policy involving the closure of public libraries is one of the worst things a politician could do apart from outright lying or doing something criminal.
I have to say, I do get a little fed up with pedestal upon which we place books. Don't get me wrong: it's a worthwhile pastime, but people develop such elitists attitudes towards reading. People judge others, and judge themselves, by the quality and quantity of their reading material. They lament how people are reading less, and how this will destroy intelligence in the average person. If you don't read, or worse, don't enjoy reading, then it means that there's something wrong. Your imagination is underdeveloped or malformed; a product of all the worst bits of society.
The fact is, while reading is indeed an intellectual activity, it's an intellectual activity that appeals to people to varying degrees. Some people simply do not find intellectual nourishment from books. Now, perhaps it's because they are stunted in their intellect or imagination, but often, there are other ways they stimulate their brain. Indeed, social situations can be very mentally stimulating, requiring complex thought processes to navigate successfully. I myself have found that mathematics holds far greater mental stimulation than reading (and I used to read all the time). Juggling apparently is a very good way to improve your brain, and caters for the more kinaesthetic learners.
I'm glad you enjoy books Neil, but please don't make the mistake of thinking they're for everyone.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.