Well, I've survived my first challenged book. I'm not going to mention it specifically as this post is more my thoughts on the process. This challenge was unanticipated because the work was a non-fiction and the challenger felt that it had no historical value. I was at a loss because I am no history buff and the book was huge. I did find several Amazon.com reviews that listed, with page numbers the historical errors, which I was able to verify whether or not the book did indeed have (and even note changes from the print to the digital editions) and then I would fact check using outside sources.
I remember being at the desk with the challenger approached a co-worker regarding the book. The librarian had suggested he contact the publisher and he responded, "you are the librarians and it is your job to make sure the books in the [non-fiction] collection are accurate." He has a point. Collection development is all about making sure informational works come from authoritative sources with editors that do the fact checking and make sure the copy is grammatically correct. Editors are supposed to make sure a work "flows" logically and that the writing style matches the intent of the work as a whole.
Then come the reviewers. I can't tell the number of times a selector has asked me if a book I'm recommending or requesting on behalf of a patron has been reviewed, and if so, from which publication, because they ask me every time. The selectors are fanatical about it. And as it turned out, the two big reviewers that we use, Publisher's Weekly and BookList, did not have a review of the book, whether good or bad. Nor did Library Journal. Now it begs the question (from me), this was a popular book, it was on the best seller list a few times, why didn't it get reviewed? I mean, come on, it's a history book. (That's not to say the book didn't get any press. It did. But getting press is different from being reviewed.)
So, I had no guidance from the professional literature. I had a bunch of gripes from some Amazon reviewers who at best could be considered history buffs (I have nothing against them, it's just the "Wikipedia question", you know?). I began reading. Wonder of wonders I learned something. And yet, the errors existed! WHAT DO I DO? I had the conundrum of what expectation should a reasonable patron have of the books in the collection? Is it reasonable to think a book could have say 10% errors? Or should a book have less than 1% errors?
This was a popular history book, in that it was written for the mass market and not written for academia. Should the book stay on the shelves, errors and all, as this public library collects popular works? What about if we were the type of librarians who "edited" a book. (This was known to happen "in the day." I've seen books that librarians have edited.) Would we keep the book with errors annotated and corrected? What professional obligation do I have to both the history buff and the newly curious to ensure the book I provide on my shelf has merit to their information need? What professional obligation do I have to the author that the public have access to his work? In the words of Charlie Brown, arghhh!
I submitted my recommendation. It haunts me to this day. It's only been two days.
No comments:
Post a Comment