Morning Coffee – 20 January 2020
Here are a few stories to read this Monday morning.
- The state of Missouri wants to stop kids from reading (or bring back book burning).
- Library Journal reports on a survey that shows the youngest generation are not "avid" readers (this is a subjective opinion and thus valueless as survey data).
- David Gaughran has a list of 12 free design tools for authors. And here’s a list of ten I put together.
- PRH has pulled their titles from several smaller "netflix for ebooks" services.
- One SF fan’s sixth attempt to read "Dune" is going well.
- Guy LeCharles Gonzalez: "Corporate publishers have found themselves in a street fight they provoked but their business model wasn’t prepared for."
- There are now so many library systems boycotting Macmillan that its ebook sales have actually fallen.
Comments
Disgusting Dude January 20, 2020 um 10:29 am
Sounds like MacMillan is winning its library gamble.
Only 8% of libraries are daring to stand up to their move.
Allen F January 20, 2020 um 2:24 pm
By the numbers reported the MacMillan boycott is already costing them more than it’s making them, expect more libraries to join as the snowball rolls downhill.
And the Guy LeCharles Gonzalez piece was good for a chuckle. 😉
Harmon January 20, 2020 um 9:34 pm
What’s happening in Missouri is what happens when people lose trust in their institutions. In this case, people don’t trust libraries and librarians to make decisions that take into account the concerns and values of parents.
Consider the arrogance of claiming that "blocking minors from access to books" (conveniently omitting "unless there is parental consent") should be a matter of an individual librarian’s conscience, rather than the desires of the parents who are raising the children.
When you lose trust, you get Trumped. That’s what’s happening to librarians in Missouri. Apparently, they’ve earned it.
Nate Hoffelder January 21, 2020 um 5:59 am
LOL, no?
Gal January 21, 2020 um 6:23 am
..So, are all of Mark Twain’s books available in all libraries now?
Allen F January 21, 2020 um 8:17 pm
Ah, no.
This is some jokers wanting to be able to tell others what 'their' kids can and can’t read.
They have no rights to be able to keep my kid from reading something – which is what this does – remove the ability to find/read that book at the library.
If they want to 'protect' their idiot children from what they consider to be 'bad books' then they can go to the library with their child and dictate what they can read – and they can leave the rest of those kids alone!
Sorry for the rant, but this is just another badly thought-out case of some idiots trying to childproof the world – rather than trying to the harder job of world-proofing their children.
Tim H January 25, 2020 um 7:09 pm
I totally agree with Allen F. It is the parent’s responsibility to censor their child’s access to books, if they want it censored. It’s not the job of the library, which is to serve _all_ citizens. Removing books from the shelves hurts the patrons and their children who do _not_ agree with censorship.
Kate January 30, 2020 um 6:08 pm
One of the things I’m most grateful for in otherwise very strict religious upbringing was that I was allowed to read anything I wanted to. I read 'age inappropriate' books all the time! It made me both wiser and smarter.
This bill absolutely horrifies me.