The not really "bookless" library

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Apparently people are freaking out over Stanford University's announcement that they are building a bookless library. But the Book Bench points out that Stanford isn't making a statement on paper vs. digital books. Rather, they're dealing with the logistical nightmare of having too many books:

Books aren’t obsolete; they’re so ubiquitous that they can’t even fit into a traditional campus and, like mushrooms, branch underground to cover entire states. In that light, reactions to the “bookless” Stanford library seem to be missing the point. They’re more a sign of how Manichean gut-feelings about literature are these days—either the digital world is an insidious devil, reluctantly acquiesced to or assiduously avoided, or the Internet is about to usher in a renaissance of reading, and digitization is a kind of messiah shedding light and learning on the world. Everyone knows there’s a middle ground but, when the whiff of a word like “bookless” floats about, no one ever seems to be standing on it.

Actually, it's not a "bookless" library anyway; Stanford and other universities are moving little-used books to storage facilities. The library then becomes more of a storefront where students search for the books they need, which may or may not be stored on site. It's not doing away with books, it's just changing the delivery mechanism.

Tags: