Week 8: Book Clubs & HCOD

This past week we had the opportunity to exercise what we’ve learned about book clubs and Socratic Seminars by leading our own!   What was most interesting about the book clubs was observing how the other four groups structured their talks. For instance, I really appreciated that some of the groups included icebreakers to get the discussion rolling and, in retrospect, wish that my group had included a similar activity. This observation/learning from others was probably the most valuable aspect of Monday’s class, although, in general, I enjoyed the book club readings and talking about them in depth.

In her article “Creating a Library Assignment Workshop for University Faculty,” Mosley also suggests the use of icebreakers in library workshops. Not only can icebreakers relieve some tension, they also can inform participants on important subjects. Mosley goes on to include other tips for librarians designing workshops—group exercises on finding resources, using role play situations to illustrate good practices, etc. Her focus is on academic librarians working in the college environment, but some of the suggestions can probably transcend library specialty.

Finally, this week’s readings encompass a sampling of readings related to the HarperCollins-OverDrive-eBook-limited-lending policy.  I started my HCOD readings off with Harper Collins’ official stance on the subject, “An Open Letter to Librarians” (http://harperlibrary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/03/open-letter-to-librarians.html). While their argument had some valid points (staying economically viable, etc.), it was far from compelling. Having worked in a bookstore for four years, I was particularly perplexed by this: “We have serious concerns that our previous e-book policy, selling e-books to libraries in perpetuity, if left unchanged, would undermine the emerging e-book eco-system, hurt the growing e-book channel, place additional pressure on physical bookstores, and in the end lead to a decrease in book sales and royalties paid to authors” (emphasis added). How does selling an eBook to a library directly impact bookstores? In the letter, HarperCollins seems to be pitting librarians against booksellers and authors, which I don’t completely agree with or understand.

After reading the letter itself, I particularly enjoyed reading all of the user comments, many of which came (not surprisingly) from librarians. An anonymous user commented on the HC letter that other publishers (namely, Simon & Schuster and Macmillan) don’t lend to libraries in eBook format at all—I am curious if this is true and what other publishers’ eBook policies are, for the sake of comparison.

To be balanced, I followed the HC letter up with blogger and librarian Jessamyn West’s take on the subject. Basically, her position is that HC’s new policy “is not at all okay.” HarperCollins OverDrive policy is greedy, and as a result, HC is damaging its longstanding relationship with libraries.

I also decided to look at what two HC authors, Neil Gaiman and Marilyn Johnson, thought about this situation. I assumed their perspective might be unique, considering their precarious position between staying loyal to their publisher and wanting to please their readers. I was somewhat surprised to find that they both seemed in favor of more open access to digital versions of their books. Gaiman’s argument is that increased access to his works actually leads to more purchasing of his books by customers. Johnson, meanwhile, notes that she wasn’t consulted by HarperCollins about their new policy so the publisher’s claim of protecting author rights is less than valid. Her argument also seems to mirror Free-Range Librarian’s to an extent (http://freerangelibrarian.com/2011/02/26/harpercollins-memento-plan/). That is: it is not the place of the publisher to impose how long a book should “last” for; libraries aim to preserve—a difficult task when something disappears the 26^th time it’s looked at; and books are works of memory that authors want to keep around forever.

Personally, I do think it’s somewhat silly to arbitrarily limit the use of a product. It seems to me that HC is pretty much removing one of the main technological advantages of the eBook itself—the long lifespan. An eBook is not a physical book, so to model an eBook policy after the supposed lifespan of a physical book is flawed. Obviously, eBooks present a significant challenge to the traditional book lending model, and publishers (and librarians) need to respond accordingly. It will be interesting to see how this debate plays out in the weeks ahead.

Finally, I think it’s important to consider how this debate will affect patrons. After reading ABC News’s article on the boycott (and visiting http://boycottharpercollins.com/ and seeing that the boycott is still on), it’s clear that the choices being made by librarians in response to HarperCollins decision will have an impact on patrons. Also, reading the ALA Code of Ethics is a reminder that above all, librarians exist to serve their patrons, which makes me wonder if the boycott is the most user-friendly way for librarians to get their message to HarperCollins across.