Best Books=Best Circulating?
The end of the year is fast approaching and critics’ Best Books lists are starting to litter the literary landscape. Our sister magazine Publishers Weekly announced its top 100 picks a few weeks ago, and yesterday the New York Times issued its 100 notable books of 2006 (Its 10 Best Books of 2006 will be announced tomorrow on its web site.) And we LJ editors are in the final throes of making our choices, which will be announced online next month and published in our January issue.
While I always enjoy seeing what my fellow critics have chosen, one of my reviewers, Teresa Jacobsen of Solana County Library, did raise an interesting question about best book lists when she admitted that she had only read one novel on the list (Anne Tyler’s Digging to America)! ” Is this what happens when you love thrillers and genre fiction?”, she emailed. ”Thankfully, the B & T collection development librarian put many of those titles on my ODC list this past year–and I did order them–so perhaps I’ll read a few next year. I’m curious to see if the folks in Fairfield, CA will want to read them or if they will stick with Robert B. Parker and Nelson DeMille?”
Is this the old case of you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink? For years publishers have debated the impact of literary awards on book sales; many don’t see much difference. Does the same hold true for library circulation? One librarian seems to think so. On his blog ChipK.com, Ohio librarian “Chip” noted that a “disturbing portion” of books his library purchased largely on the basis of positive reviews in LJ did not circulate at a rate that justified their purchase. His post implied that LJ reviews were a waste of taxpayer money.Â
So what is LJ supposed to do? Review only the Stephen Kings, Dean Koontzs, the Nora Roberts, and other authors whose circulation stats are guaranteed? That would make for a pretty shallow collection. Our young librarian friend also failed to take a good look at our LJ bestsellers column, which identifies the books most borrowed in U.S. libraries. Many of the titles making the cut had received strong or starred reviews in LJ: Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code, Kim Edwards’s The Memory Keeper’s Daughter , and Lisa See’s Snow Flower and the Secret Fan  .
While I hope our reviews played an important part in these books’ success, marketing was also key. In the case of The Memory Keeper’s Daughter, it only became a bestseller/best-circulator when the paperback edition was picked up by reading groups. No longer can librarians order books, shelve them, and hope that patrons will find them. Librarians have to take a more active role in promoting their collections through creative displays, readers’ advisory, book groups, and author programs. And the time to start is now with our 2006 Best Books List.  Â
Book reviewing, for this reviever, requires interaction between the reviewer and the librarians. I tend to praise many of the books I review because they are excellent books. Believe me, reviewers don’t want to read lousy books anymore than the public,for whom we recommend books, does. LJ editors are skilled at filtering out the schlock they receive so reviewers don’t have to read and review them and so librarians don’t have to read reviews of lousy books.
Librarians must rely on their own instincts as well as our verdicts. If you know your communities, you will know that a book that receives a rave review–based on its content–may not be popular with your clientele. Also, a bow-wow of a book, and I have seen plenty, such as the partisan political tripe that litters prime space in bookstores, should be bought because of the author’s name recognition.
Book reviewing, like book selection, is an art, not a science. While reviews should guide librarians in book selection, the ultimate responsibility for the decision to buy or not to buy, lies, as it should, with the librarians.
Comment by Karl Helicher — November 28, 2006 @ 2:00 pm
Book selection tailored for your patrons is indeed an art. But I disagree with librarians not reading reviews for bad books. Reviews should not be of all wonderful books. We have limited budgets and debating whether to get a book that sounds good from the publisher’s promo but is actually not the best investment for your collection is something that I think library selectors need to know.
Comment by Joy — November 30, 2006 @ 3:33 pm
Joy, thanks for your insightful comments. I often get questions from reviewers who dislike a book I assign them but worry about writing a negative review. I tell them that a review that points out a book’s flaws and explains why it might be an optional purchase for most collections is just as valuable to librarians with limited funds as a positive review.
Comment by Wilda Williams — December 1, 2006 @ 10:58 am
First of all, I think you may be the first person I don’t know who ever looked at my blog. So thanks, I guess?
Your “young librarian friend” isn’t so young, and in fact has reviewed for LJ in the past. My post was more of a note to myself to explore this topic in greater depth in the future. My impression is that my library (and by assumption many PLs, as we’re pretty typical) rely far too heavily on LJ for purchasing. You can talk about “depth and breadth” all you want, but Books Are For Use. I see a bunch of duds on our shelves with the “an essential purchase for public libraries” and similar concluding statements.
The “waste of taxpayer money” bit was probably too dramatic to include there. Sorry. Of course, LJ is not a “foe to taxpayers” and neither are poor librarians making imperfect selection decisions. Nonetheless, I really do think if you could run a report of items purchased in American public libraries on the basis of glowing LJ reviews that NEVER CIRCULATE…that dollar figure would be staggering.
Comment by Chip Kruthoffer — December 9, 2006 @ 6:53 am
[…] Wilda Williams at LJ’s IN THE BOOKROOM blog has responded to my previous post Library Journal - Foe to Taxpayers? Is this the old case of you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink? For years publishers have debated the impact of literary awards on book sales; many don’t see much difference. Does the same hold true for library circulation? One librarian seems to think so. On his blog ChipK.com, Ohio librarian “Chipâ€? noted that a “disturbing portionâ€? of books his library purchased largely on the basis of positive reviews in LJ did not circulate at a rate that justified their purchase. His post implied that LJ reviews were a waste of taxpayer money. First of all, bringing in the taxpayer bit was probably overly dramatic on my part, but I don’t think that I implied that “LJ reviews” are a waste of taxpayer money. As far as I know, and nowhere did I imply otherwise, taxpayers don’t pay for LJ reviews directly. But my inflammatory language invited that reaction. As I noted in my comment to Wilda’s post, LJ is not a serious “foe to taxpayersâ€? and neither are poor librarians making imperfect selection decisions. In any case, I stand by my reaction that there are a lot of crappy books with positive LJ reviews that sit on shelves without circulating. Cumulatively, those poor governmental procurement decisions cost taxpayers a large amount of money each year. Admittedly, it isn’t the biggest problem in government spending, but it is worthy of further examination. If I can only stop being a moronic child writing about baseball, and morph into the inquisitive, concerned professional I should but don’t really aspire to be, I hope to find time to pursue this issue. Especially now that “our young librarian friend” has been called out on it! [As far as I know, that was my chipk.com’s first experience in the blogosphere and it has me all tingly inside. Could just be this early hour and the effects of the loaded Subway sandwich I had last night, though.] […]
Pingback by chipk.com » Blog Archive » LJ reviews redux (+ Wilda thinks I’m young!) — December 9, 2006 @ 7:24 am
I have just finished an ebook, and was wondering how do you get someone to review it? Titled, Oh my aching hoofs.
Comment by Don — March 1, 2007 @ 4:39 am
[…] Congratulations to poet and reviewer Fred Chappell, just inducted to North Carolina’s literary hall of fame. Now he can play soft-ball with NBCC Sandrof winner Louis Rubin. NBCC member (and Library Journal editor) Wilda Williams blogs about what end of the year lists mean if the books aren’t read. […]
Pingback by » Around the World on Wednesday — March 18, 2007 @ 10:19 pm
Lexapro focalin xr….
Alcohol and lexapro. Does lexapro cause leg weakness….
Trackback by Lexapro. — May 20, 2007 @ 10:01 pm
Hello. May I rent your layout for my site?
Comment by pinnacle sports betting — June 9, 2007 @ 11:52 am
This is a great page. And the contents are really that worth reading. I will add this to my own library
Comment by cheap travel insurance quote — June 9, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! woyqfzimsxcr
Comment by efjytiotvw — June 11, 2007 @ 1:42 am
cnvnihop
Comment by qvuhtaragn — June 11, 2007 @ 3:19 am
myeadhhfm
Comment by eubujyfokx — June 11, 2007 @ 3:25 am
this+one+is+simple+%26+nice.s
Comment by Marilyn — July 20, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
excellent+texture.+
Comment by richard — July 26, 2007 @ 5:31 am
Thank+you%21d
Comment by Helga — August 3, 2007 @ 5:05 am
aebn myfreepaysite
Comment by Guruchel — September 28, 2007 @ 10:43 pm
Ephedra….
Fda approved ephedra for 2006. Hartford ephedra attorneys….
Trackback by Ephedra. — May 19, 2008 @ 10:41 am
Faxless payday loans….
Payday loans articles. Payday loans. Same day payday loans….
Trackback by Payday loans. — June 21, 2008 @ 8:19 am