So I don’t have much familiarity with French public libraries, mainly because I find the BN to be enough of a soul destroying experience that I have no desire to come back for more and try other options. Despite that, I've just learned some pretty incredible details regarding the French library system and how it works. French librarians are so...well, French. Get ready, American logic will get you nowhere on this one.
The background story is that I'm involved in this PhD workshop on the sociology of culture, and each month one member of the group presents his/her dissertation research. I'm actually up for the April presentation. This month's presentation is tonight, and the girl who is presenting is doing her work on the Paris public library system. We always read some sort of document in preparation for the presentation, and this time she gave us a chapter from her diss, which is on the "non-publics" of the Paris libraries (ie, who doesn't go and why). To get to the heart of the question, she looks at all the factors that might convince a certain population demographic that the library is not for them (the way the library is set up and the hours it's open, the kinds of books they have, etc). Anyway, the chapter is fascinating and very solidly researched, and even better, I learned sooooo much from it. Much of which is absolutely shocking. Here are my most salient discoveries (get ready, they're good):
1) There is an actual charter for French librarians that they are NOT ALLOWED to make book recommendations! Yeah, you read that right. WTF??? The justification for this is so incredibly French: according to the party line, reading is a distinctly personal and solitary endeavor, so what I like might not be the same as what you like. And since book selection should be pure and disinterested, it is not fair to the reader for a librarian to make a recommendation. The girl doing the project has all of these shocking citations from direct interviews with librarians where they're like, "of course we would never dream of suggesting a book, that's so unprofessional!" Needless to say, a few sociologists have conducted interviews with potential library patrons, and many people make the comment that they're overwhelmed by the selection and don't know what to do so they end up deciding that they're not smart enough to use the library. The symbolic violence of not making suggestions just reinforces the idea that if you don't already know at least a minimum about literature and what you like, then the library isn't for you. But even when people specifically ask for help on what to read, librarians aren't supposed to make a suggestion because that would impose their own views on the patron. Right.
2) The interior design of libraries are intentionally designed to discourage students from coming to work there or others from spending too much time. The only "good" kind of patron is the one who comes, browses, and checks out books (and thus increases circulation statistics). People who either come and pick up books to read in the library or else people who bring their own material to work are not considered good patrons. Because space can be limited, they don't want squatters. So god forbid you come to actually work in a public library!
3) Editions. The researcher also looked at what kinds of editions the libraries buy for classics where multiple versions are available. There are of course cheap paperback versions, fancy scholarly editions, and often student editions with helpful footnotes for younger or weaker readers. And guess which ones the libraries buy, almost exclusively. You got it, the fancy scholarly editions. So a random middle schooler or less educated adult who is curious to read Zola, for example, only has access to a fancy version with scholarly prefaces and essays and stuff like that. Talk about intimidating. Thus many people self-select themselves right out of the classics, since they think those books aren't accessible. These librarians even specifically said that they don't buy student editions because that's not their responsibility, school libraries should have them. The thought never crosses their minds that some adult readers might appreciate some reading help too.
4) No pulp fiction. The researcher sat in on an acquisitions committee meeting, and one book was particularly trashed. The evaluator said it was "indigne d'une bibliothèque," or "unfit for a library." She of course took a look at it and was expecting something scandalously bad, but she said she was not at all offended. She found it to be a fairly average work of regionalist historical fiction, not exceptionally well written but also not exceptionally poorly written either. She went online to look at other readers' comments on it on bookseller sites like amazon, and they were quite positive. So for readers who like that kind of book, it was considered quite good. Librarians may not make suggestions to patrons, but when they select books for their collections, they apparently apply their own (university-trained) conceptions of what makes great literature. So I guess you won't be finding Twilight in a French library system, HAHA. Sociologists have made the point that perhaps librarians should be thinking differently, that just about any reading is better than no reading at all, but apparently the French public libraries only want to provide their patrons with books of a minimum (and relatively high) quality. Libraries aren't for you if you don't like high-brow reading!
So yeah, there you have it. I just had to post this because it strikes me as so ridiculous, haha. I can't wait for the presentation tonight, I'll be really curious to hear what else I learn!