* * *

And now my more critical thoughts (as first vented to my colleague immediately afterward):

Blowers is an excellent speaker and obviously really smart. However, there's still something so reactive in her thinking about the future. It's crucial to point out the need for libraries to recalibrate their missions for the coming decades (or years!), as she does very articulately, but to my mind Blowers's sort of philosophy is too much about getting library workers to incorporate the new (corporate, DRM-laden) technology that's coming out – rather than using this tipping point to really get to the bottom of the purpose of the public library in society and what among the new tech fits with such a purpose. One great concept she touched on is the speciousness of library collections as authoritative, especially in the 21st century. Did we public librarians ever do a great job of open-mindedly collecting the best works that embodied the true breadth and depth of human experience for our communities? (Just think how on the topic of politics, say, our gamut has been something like Ann Coulter to Michael Moore, as if they represent the poles of ideology.) And now that texts can be encountered so far outside library walls, I do agree that we need to seriously revisit the idea that librarians are any sort of authorities on "good" reading.

So Blowers is asking the right pointed questions here, but then I think that rather than limiting the discourse to the presence of e-readers and ebooks at the library, we need to consider what our values as librarians (information professionals, if you will) are in this area – given that we've got some open space in our 21st century mission that needs to be filled. Doesn't it need to be part of our role in society to speak out against DRM and conceptualize open ways to create, share and store digital content? (See e.g. this Tame the Web post.) Isn't this more "relevant" than just buying Nooks for patrons to try out?

Slides 74 and 75 crystallized what I was starting to find so problematic about the talk. Clunky, full library shelves (devoid of human life) transforming into a vibrant gaggle of people holding sleek little personal devices. (This was also part of the section on creativity and libraries as spaces for production, not just consumption.) Okay then. But what does Blowers picture on the screens of those happy people's phones that they will be using as part of their creation process? Might it not well be long-form texts, newspaper and magazine articles, images from stable digital repositories — items that libraries collect and/or point to, as well as other vestiges from struggling industries such as journalism? It's not all tweets and texts and other short personal ephemera. I'm sure that she doesn't think so, either, but I saw this part of her talk as lacking analysis and context. Also, there was the usual avoidance of the fact that electronics and their rapid obsolescence have a huge environmental impact. Conflict minerals, labor issues surrounding production of such equipment...I really do think that people speaking about devices and paperless options are not doing due diligence if they don’t at least mention this.

I also have to admit to finding Blowers's enthusiasm for this "personal circulation" (via "LendMe" functions on e-readers) concept rather strange, but then again I'm not an ebook user (yet?), so...

Weirder was her seemingly-uncritical embrace of the idea of opening up your catalog to patrons' self-published electronic texts. This would be super cool in some ways, of course, but what's going to happen the first time someone wants to upload their racist diatribe or libelous piece? And are these titles going to be classified in any way, or will patrons be left to wonder if a narrative is novel or memoir, or if that seemingly sober book about WWII that reads as nonfiction is in fact full of misinformation? (Yes, I'm aware that we already rely on occasionally dubious criteria for authority and classification of materials in our collections, such as supposedly unimpeachable reviews in the "professional" journals, and media hype.)

So I was in a somewhat distressed state of mind by the time the talk concluded. Then there was a Q&A. The first comment from the audience was from one of the few other non-NYPL employees, a librarian at one of the CUNYs who said something acidly about how Blowers's library has "rich people problems," which is a reaction I might have been sympathetic to if phrased in a more productive manner. As it was, I found his attitude even more problematic than hers, especially when he went on to criticize his working-class students for "spending $300 on sneakers" and not directing their money towards more productive and learning-enhancing purchases. Sigh...I would recommend Jessamyn West as someone who works on issues of digital access (see e.g. "Without a Net: Confronting the Digital Divide") and is a much more well-rounded thinker on this subject.

Later someone asked Blowers about her feelings about self-check and removing circulation desks, which is happening at my library and whose mention is never going to put me in a better mood. Her response was enthusiastic, though she did start with a line about she shares the philosophy of her employer, which is to take out the desks, etc.

So that was my morning with Helene Blowers. To end on a positive note, I did love the "libraries are about knowledge production" stuff, especially as that really ties in with my new position at my work. And the talk was genuinely thought-provoking – I had an internal dialog going on during the whole thing. It's not often that that happens when I'm viewing or listening to someone. So thank you, Helene.