undefined

points

[-]

Probably because there is demand. Could be that there was very deep waiting list at some point. Or there has been deep waiting list for specific author before. Fulfilling these demands does require multiple copies or it could take years for people to get popular book.

by anigbrowl2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Sorry, I don't think popularity should be a factor in library decision-making. Extremely popular books driven by massive marketing campaigns predictably translate into the same book being available for only a few dollars months later. This all sounds like it's driven much more by the needs of publishers than library users; consider that the more reduced the selection, the fewer people will come to use the library because they can't find enough interesting material to read.

My local Half-Price Books (a second-hand bookstore chain) has a vastly better selection than my local library.

by phil211 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

This is a great way to lose what's left of public support for libraries. Going (more?) elitist is really not the way to go here. Your average person should be able to find utility in a library.

University libraries of course might be a good exception to this rule. But your local public library should be a way to make reading accessible to the average middle to lower class family. And that means providing the materials they want to read - not what you think they should.

It's always going to be a balance for librarians. They don't get to operate in ivory towers disconnected from those local taxpayers whom fund them.

by jubilanti3 minutes ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

> I don't think popularity should be a factor in library decision-making.

How dare librarians... give the people the books they want to read???

by wat100001 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

The point of libraries is to help people access the books they want. If someone wants Oprah's book then why should the library not help them access it? If a lot of people want it, then why should the library not stock many copies so that more those people can access it? They don't exist to gatekeep books and ensure people read whatever you think are the right kind of books.

by bashmelek45 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

I have a bit of a problem with the all or nothing framing this discourse usually has. I think that libraries should make an effort to stock evergreen classics in addition to the recent, hot, and in demand. The new ones will be checked out a lot, then fall off, and then the library eventually gets a new batch of new hits.

They do serve a lot of people with this method, but am a different cohort. If a library is to serve a diverse group of people it should also remember book snobs like me. When I visit my local library it is as if anything remotely classic is hidden in a secret area, you can’t find hardly any of them.

by wat1000035 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

I totally agree. People who want evergreen classics count too, and the library should do its best to ensure they can get the books they want as well. They shouldn't stock nothing but bestsellers, any more than they should stock no bestsellers at all.

by ghaff10 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

And, with the Internet (e.g. Gutenberg), evergreen classics are less of an issue. Speaking for myself, I've gotten rid of most of my books in the public domain unless they have other characteristics like illustrations that make me want to hold onto them.