Charleston Conference 2012
-
n
e2012 Charleston Conference — 32nd Annual
c
nIssues in Book and Serial Acquisition
rcall For papers, ideas, conference Themes, panels, Debates, Diatribes, Speakers, poster
eSessions, preconferences, etc. ...
2012 Theme — Accentuate the positive!
Idiscuss a particular topic, please let us know. The charleston conference prides itself on creativity, innovation, flexibility,
f you are interested in leading a discussion, acting as a moderator, coordinating a lively lunch, or would like to make sure we
and informality. If there is something you are interested in doing, please try it out on us. We’ll probably love it...
The Conference Directors for the 2012 c harleston c onference include — Beth Bernhardt, principal Director
(UNCaGreensboro) <>, g lenda Alvin <>, Adam c hesler <adam.
>, c ris Ferguson (Furman University) <>, Joyce Dixon-Fyle
in(DePauw University Libraries) <>, c huck Hamaker <
[email protected].
tedu>, Tony Horava (University of Ottawa) <>, Albert Joy (University of Vermont)
<>, Ramune Kubilius (Northwestern Health Sciences Library) <r-kubilius@
anorthwestern.edu>, c orrie Marsh <>, Jack Montgomery (Western Kentucky
kUniversity) <>, Audrey powers (UFS Tampa Library) <.
. edu>, Anthony Watkinson (Consultant) <>, Katina Strauch
(College of Charleston) <>, or www.katina.info/conference.
w
Send ideas by July 31, 2012, to any of the Conference Directors listed above.
w
or to: Katina Strauch, MSC 98, The Citadel, Charleston, SC 29409 • 843-723-3536 (voice) • 843-805-7918 (fax)
w843-509-2848 (cell) • <> • http://www.katina.info/conference
Little Red Herrings — Ten Reasons Revisited
Part 3 Conclusions
by Mark Y. Herring (Dean of Library Services, Dacus Library, Winthrop University) <>
IReasons Why the Internet Is No Substitute for
n parts one and two I reexamined my “10
a Library” (http://bit.ly/5oYnQb) in an effort
to see where I went wrong, or right, as the case
may be. On balance, critics notwithstanding, the
article holds up well against the empirical data,
less so against what one hopes the Internet will
be (but isn’t yet). Herewith, are some concluding
remarks about this brave new, digital world.
conclusions
While I still believe the Internet is no
substitute for a library, I understand that I am in the
minority in that belief. But believing that doesn’t
make me, or anyone else for that matter, a
Luddite. Unless one is a makebate who holds to an
either-or view of things, one can see the Internet
for what it is, and still see libraries as, for now
anyway, infinitely better as a full-service shop for
research and resources. As the dean of a
mediumsize academic library, I cannot ignore the rise of
the Web and the digitization of everything. For
this reason, we have ebrary, loan ipads, Kindles,
Sonys, and laptops. With rare exception, nearly
all our article information is digital. At the height
of print, we subscribed to some 3,000 titles.
Today, that number is less than 600, but our students
have access to more than 30,000 titles. Additions
like multispectral imaging (http://econ.st/s1X5iI)
Against the Grain / September 2012
that delve more deeply into manuscripts to solve
mysteries that heretofore remained unknown add
up to positives on the Web side of the ledger, and
make it a more robust tool for the future.
But none of these things are free. No
individual could subscribe to the resources a library
does all by herself. Meanwhile, library budgets
remain static at best. I hoped that my article
then, and its reassessment now, would make the
case that print books are not the enemy, and large
libraries are not the devil in disguise. Sure, they
are costly and yes, there are ways we can make
them ever less so. But let’s not throw the cake out
with the cake box. If we do, we’ll likely never get
libraries back. Moreover we’ll have nothing that
is a viable ersatz. My objections to the Internet
are valid ones against a change that is not, not yet,
the panacea for everything.
Print reading hangs on only because most
serious readers are over forty and are not yet sold
on the eBook reading experience as the exclusive
alternative. Even young people half that age are
not entirely sold on it for scholarly reading. More
than this, however, is the fact that print publishing,
the cash-cow of many publishers, will fade only
when another equally-profitable model replaces
it. Until then, expect digital delays. (And please,
don’t ask again for c ongress to fix the copyright
problem. That’s part of this problem even now.)
Let me remind you that eBooks have been around
now nearly three decades. We should be within
eyesight of the paperless horizon, but we have
yet to reach its border. And now news comes that
eBooks are on the way out in five years (http://bit.
ly/N86JSu).
Even granting the rapid rise of eBooks, my
2000 text stands up better than my critics are
continued on page 10 (...truncated)