What is the role of a library?

I've begun to wonder about what the role of libraries is supposed to be and what their future will look like. Libraries have taken it on the chin in recent years budget-wise and are squeezed for money and space, even though most libraries, at least those in Ohio, have built new facilities in recent years to accomodate more materials and computer banks. Still, with tight budgets and limited shelf space, libraries seem to have decided to forgo the idea of being cultural icons that preserve old books and instead are pitching them at an alarming rate in order to keep collections current with what the consumer wants now, which is hot titles of both audio-visual material and hot book titles. With more and more books downloadable either as .mp3s that you can listen to on your iPod or read on a Kindle, libraries aren't feeling as compelled as they once were to keep the old classics, so out they go, consigned to the dustbin of history as consumers don't have the desire or the will to read them anymore. I just read an article in the Washington Post online about a library in suburban Washington that did away with all of its classics and stocked only current up-to-date stuff that patrons were clammering for, hello John Grisham, farewell Ernest Hemingway. It saddens me that libraries seem to want to contribute to a sort of dumbing down of society by removing classical literature from their shelves, making it unavailable to those readers who are ambitious enough to delve into works by authors like Homer, Melville, Steinbeck, Dickens and others that seem daunting to the average reader but hold appeal to those of us who still want to plumb the depths of classics for timeless wisdom. But in a sense, I do see the point that libraries are now forced to compete with big box bookstores and electronic media and as such, have to change with the times, but if they get rid of the old out-of-print books that are hard to find as it is, then we who want to read them will be forced to spend big bucks on web sites like Abebooks.com, Alibris.com and others in order to buy them ourselves, thus filling up our own limited space bookshelves at home. I'd rather check them out from the library and return them when I am done.

I have to wonder if some of the insipid stuff that kids are clammering for these days will last beyond a certain phase. So much of what kids want to read are these series books that are very short in length and not at all challenging in content and in paperback format. Are we training, in particular, little girls, to be future Harlequin Romance readers, addicted to light mindless reading that doesn't require any intellectual process to digest? Why aren't teachers requiring kids to read more challenging material that will expand their intellect? I know, we all had to suffer through teachers force feeding us classics that we all thought were dry as dust, and no one wants to be forced to read something that may be too hard or seemingly not relevant to our lives now, but the reason that classics are classics is that they have timeless themes that can be enjoyed by every generation regardless of when they were born. There are themes we can all relate to in nearly every old classic book. But kids aren't encouraged to stretch their imaginations beyond the mindless series stuff they are pitched on cable TV shows via cartoons. Sir Walter Scott, the author of that timeless classic Ivanhoe said it best: ‎"There is no harm, but, on the contrary, there is benefit in presenting a child with ideas beyond his easy and immediate comprehension. The difficulties thus offered, if not too great or too frequent, stimulate curiosity and encourage exertion." It may well be that the fact that kids will read at all, even if it is thin, light insipid paperback series stuff, is considered a small victory in the battle to get kids to crack open a book, but I think that part of what is wrong with our country's declining achievement in classrooms is too much dependence on media driven, flash-in-the-pan crap like Hannah Montana books instead of challenging kids to read timeless classics and to find a way to actually enjoy the themes presented in them. Help kids to find out how these books are still relevant to what is going on around them today. Let them see the connections from past to present and to see that people in the past weren't really that different from who we are today. People are people, we all laugh, cry, grieve, hope and struggle pretty much the same as people always have throughout history. Teachers have to want to challenge kids and themselves to tackle this sort of thing and not to be afraid of trying to ask kids to read old books and enjoy them instead of just being glad they are reading at all, even if it's lightweight literary junk food. Time for people to step up and make sure that libraries will still keep classics on their shelves and to make sure they get read by future generations. It's up to teachers and librarians to encourage young people to give them a try and not to be afraid to read them. After all, if we lose our literary classics to the dustbin of history, we lose a significant part of our culture that once forgotten cannot be retrieved. Our literary heritage must be preserved, even at times when library budgets and shelving space are at a premium. Media driven, flash-in-the-pan stuff and lightweight junk food paperback books that last only a few circulations before falling apart can be gotten rid of a few months after the hype and demand for it has died down, but for heaven's sakes, let's not rid libraries of the great authors whose works have survived the test of time. Melville, Hawthorn, Welty, Dickens, Tennyson, Homer, Thucydides, Lady Murasaki and others deserve a place on library shelves along with great works for childen and young adults. A hundred years from now, I hope people are still reading the great literary classics and enjoying them, but if libraries cease their mission as being the storehouses of great minds and great works, then I'm afraid we're in for a very dim future as a people and a society.