Reading #2 - If Public Libraries Didn't Exist, Could You Start One Today?
Considering our work last class with McLuhan's tetrads, I want you to imagine introducing a public library today. It doesn't exist in any incarnation yesterday: there is no borrowing of books, no public building, no shh-ing of people by a librarian. Then, read the reading using the link above. In 150 words, post a reply to "Reading #2 - If Public Libraries Didn't Exist, Could You Start One Today?". Within your reply, summarize the article and propose a question or critique regarding the article, keeping in mind your assumptions/imaginations with the consideration at the beginning of this prompt. Try to keep STEEP (Scientific, technological, ecological, economical, and political) perspectives in mind while synthesizing your responses.
Authors and publishers make profit when libraries purchase their books but don't make any more money when the books are put into use within the library. Dozens of strangers will have read the author's works but the author himself won't gain anything except for some publicity from those who have read his works, given to others to read his works as well. If libraries didn't exist however, there's a bigger chance that a lot of authors would not be as widely known since libraries give us the extension to explore books and different writers. Regular book stores don't have the same overall affect. Majority of the public refrains from purchasing novels either because of the price or the variety of the books presented to them doesn't suit their desires. Should libraries continue to pay the authors of the books they have shelved an annual fee to further compensate for the lack of profit from the strangers who borrow their works? Or better yet, the author could receive money each time his book was signed out to read, but that wouldn't be much different than the reader buying the book for himself. Yet, this is a better way of paying the author for his writings rather than a fixed annual income regardless of how many people actually read or borrowed his book.
ReplyDeleteIn this reading the author states that the logistics of a library or the way that a library works would be completely and utterly different if proposed today opposed to when the idea was first introduced. I personally believe that libraries are very inclusive in the sense that you don't have to have money to be educated, something that is very different than the norm for society today. However, I also believe that if the idea of a library was introduced today it wouldn't take off, people have access to articles and books online as it is right now, and if libraries were never a thing then the online versions of literature would be even more popular than they are thus making the idea of a library pointless. Free literature? We already have that, the only thing we don't have is the physical appeal of a book that readers love, however the people who look for that are usually also the people who would rather own a book rather than share it. I believe that if libraries weren't introduced until today, they would never take off the way they initially did.
ReplyDeleteThe article tells us that if public libraries didn't exist, there wouldn't be much impact to writers and publishes even if public libraries existed. A public library can allows numerous individuals to come and borrow a book, generalizing the fact that only around a span of 50 people would ever read it. This method is an huge loss for the publisher and writer because they only received the money for one book, where 50 random people borrow and read it. Though in debate, libraries allow individuals to sign out books, exposing them to varied authors which may catalyst them to actually buy the book and even more of the authors work. And in addition, public libraries allows an atmosphere of constructive criticism of the novels, allowing people to give their perspectives, understandings and insights. Yes, it may be unfair for the author to sell one book unknowingly for the purpose of sharing it with a number of others, but at the same time public libraries allow individuals to grow and be introduced to different perceptions indicated by the style of language. Thus opening doors where the individual can be in contact with new ideas and new interests. The growth of a human being insightfully is greater than the discrete amount of money received by a single human. But in counter argument, the individual is the creator. The creator of the book, should the full package (in money terms)? right? Well I don't know....but soon I shall understand, with time comes answers.
ReplyDeleteThe article regards, if we started libraries now it would be very different, because publishers ad authors would be angry that they would only have to sell their book once. And however many times it would be read, that is how many sales they could have had,but instead lost. If we started it today we wouldn't have the benefits or we would probably have to pay to be at a library so they could pay the others each year for their book rather than once. What about the people who will not buy a book until they read it at a library, or people who just borrow from other people they know rather than a library. Those people who can't afford books and go to a library for them. or the people who go to a library for safety and comfort. Those things would be diminished if we started them now, they would be a big controversy with everyone so would it really be all about the authors and the publishers?
ReplyDeleteThis Freakonomics article details the questions, if libraries never existed and there was no public organization that allowed people to borrow books, what would the reaction be like if someone proposed such a system? The article then goes further to say that there are pros and cons for a public library system. The pros listed are geared towards the reader/consumer. The cons listed are geared towards the publishing/writing industries.The first thing I thought of when reading this article was, "how different would the world be without the library?" In many ways, the concept of the library represents the spreading and sharing of ideas. We cannot look back on history to say, "let's not do this," without libraries. Different philosophies and ideologies would not be so widespread without an easy and accessible way to obtain them. Revolutions would not occur had there not been a way for people to see the error behind other people's actions and intentions. Technology would not be so advanced if people we not able to see others work from a time before them and improve upon the concepts. The article doesn't go into too much depth on these topics, because they seem to assume the world would be exactly the same, just without libraries.
ReplyDeleteAmro
ReplyDeleteThe author, Stephen J. Dubner suggests that a new public system library would not adhere to the standards in today's public libraries as publishers would revoke their practice of selling books to public libraries. The overall concept at hand is money as it is a debated subject on what the publisher and the author should earn compared to libraries allowing people to access these intellectual properties without having to pay for them, given that a new public library would redistribute solely one book. The author of the article, however, presents arguments that public libraries do in fact help publishers and authors alike. Stephen J. Dubner provides the counter-arguments that libraries help to train youth to be readers, which in turn allows them to buy books in the future. Also counter-argued is the fact that libraries can help expose works to readers that would otherwise have not been read and the fact that libraries, in general, foster a culture of reading. It is without a doubt that books would've been less accessible, given that the circumstances of there being no public library held true, however, we will never know the true reality of that world. Amidst this entire debate, the question can be asked - Would humanity have been aware of the events of the past and if so, using what methods?
ReplyDeleteThis article proposed a strange idea, which was thoughtful in a sense that is was all about the economics.Stephen J. Dubner began off, by asking who hated libraries, he concluded that a lot of book publishers didn't. The library hands out books for free, which doesn't agree with a lot of the authors because, yes you read the book, but you read it for free. He then flipped the perspective by saying that in the long run, libraries could be see as an investment because libraries helped train minds of young people. Who would then in turn grow older and buy more books. He also stated that the exposure given by libraries helped the author's books reach the hands of many people. Today's library culture is very different from library culture back then, and although its a depressing thought, ultimately if we were to have libraries be newly invented and implanted into every city we would be seeing libraries in a very different light. The library would be considered a higher market and the books would be considered as stocks. So if libraries charged for books, and If you did not have the money to buy a book does that mean you do not have the right to read?
ReplyDeleteLibraries allow practically anybody to read and explore different books, from various different authors. If libraries did not exist, then it would be a lot harder for authors and publishers to get word out and stand out from competition, since there are so many authors. They would have to spend a lot more money just to market and advertise their books, and even then have no guaranteed buyers, whereas, with libraries, they could at least sell a few. And it could be possible, that people who really like the book after borrowing it from the library, might buy it for themselves, or promote it to others. If libraries were to be introduced in today's profit seeking world however, I believe that not all books would not be for free, simply because there is a potential for profit. The hurdles of waiting for a hold on a book could be removed by the user by using eBooks, but at a cost, and some exclusives might be offered at a cost as well.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I disagree with the author saying that if youth are trained and cultured to read for free, then when they are adults they will buy books. I think that when they become adults, they will stick to just borrowing books for free.
DeleteIn the freakonomics article "if libraries didn't exist, could you start one today?" the author discusses why book publishers dislike libraries. Publishers lose lots of money because the library lets everyone borrow their book and people don't buy it and book publishers lose money. It also discusses that if someone rich like Bill Gates was to build a bunch of libraries across the United states that there would be a backlash from book publishers. Books are made to educate people and are meant to be read, no one should have to pay a price to read books. Book publishers should understand this and if they want money they should change their profession and get a new job that pays them the amount that they would like. Libraries can collect a small fee and give it to the publisher of the book this way they make some money and everyone has easy access to books.
ReplyDeleteThe article discusses the issues around borrowing books from the library, as well as the economic downsides of this. I definitely agree that a new library system today would look vastly different than the one currently due to digital technology, especially if it hadn’t existed at all before. If a system was set into place to increase revenue for authors and publishers by increasing advertising through libraries, or by a raised book cost for said libraries, pitching to these institutions might be worth it. This could also in turn reduce the sales from libraries because of the increased effort and purchasing cost. A noteworthy point would be the fact that I could buy a book and lend it to all of my extended family and friends for the cost of one copy that single time, as proposed by the article. If we were to set an economic exchange for the book per year, people would be less likely to continue to purchase the physical copy of the book or at all, especially with modern advancements in digital technology. With this new technology, people are continually less likely to purchase the hard copy anyway, making it increasingly important for libraries, authors, and publishers to make the switch from physical book copies to digital, as they have been doing. It would be an interesting world if literature and libraries were treated like K-12 education, supported by the government(provincial), and free for the consumer, excluding a fee for additions, extras, variety in the libraries, that could be used to support authors and publishers(?),to better our citizens and society. A clear solution is increasingly difficult to reach with the integration on ebooks and media sharing, with all of the factors to consider I could not start a library today. For the article, I would have liked to see more in-depth considerations for potential solutions regarding the economic support of authors/publishers in relation to libraries. I would also like to see more connection to the impacts of scientific and technological improvements on book printing and selling, and how we could progress and alter the current situation through a new library set up that could embrace these advancements while supporting writers.
ReplyDelete