I did enjoy the lecture and I wish I could address it better, both the good and the bad. As I said in a few places, I was quite surprised about some of the positive and balanced things he had to say about tech, amongst other things. But I also flinched quite a bit, not particularly at the larger points that he was making–I loved most of those–but at the arguments he used to support them.

1. Some of us elders positively beg to be questioned intelligently. That’s how we learn. (But, of course, I’m not a “respected” elder.)

2. I would never suspect you of labeling MG as anti-tech because I know you know better. If he actually said that about digitizing and IP, well, that’s one of several areas where I think he’s gone astray–which is quite different than being anti-tech in general. But, as I say, I don’t believe you regard MG as anti-tech.

3. My guess? If I’d been there, I would have enjoyed the lecture because MG is one of those orators on a level that I’ll never be… and I would have winced about a few remarks.

Oddly enough, I’ve spoken at UIUC–but a VERY long time ago (1988!) during a tech-related clinic that was 25 years old at the time and has since ceased to exist. My topic: “The online catalog in the real world: Making the necessary compromises.” It was, as I say, a long time ago…

I’ve calmed down.

No, my comments in my blog were not directed at you. I’m not sure why you thought so in the first place, Mark. Did I seem upset at the lecture?

My comments were directed at the people I addressed. You weren’t on Twitter. You have never accused Gorman of being “anti-technology,” as far as I know. If you have, then, ahem, yeah, um . . . you’re wrong.

Saying you disrespected Gorman does not make you a “hater,” and I never said as much. I was very taken aback by your response to Stuart, and yes, I took it personally.

I’m am extremely sorry that we’re at odds. That’s as personal as I plan to get here.

Be well.

I thnk you’ve made it abundantly clear that you’re not a simplistic hater and that your concerns are rooted in disagreement over theory AND its subsequent implementation. No doubt much of the presentation was superficial at that level — tired old truisms that don’t engage what you see as the necessary issues at hand.

At a broader and more general level of discourse(remember, this wasn’t billed to us as the Michael Gorman Seminar for Cutting-Edge Information Theorists), much of what he had to say is what we need to be reminded of, at an adminstrative level. Our provost who controls the pursestrings has her degree in an applied science — not pure science or the humanities. Her priorities (as filtered down the info chain to me by my betters) concentrate on the immediate vocational needs of undergraduates, at the expense of other patron classes and other disciplines — the latest 5 years of research in technical fields online and screw everything else. (Dr. Katehi, if your peers and colleagues are distorting or simplifying your messages in transmission, please accept my apologies for misrepresenting your views here).

I wouldn’t trade our current director of Technical Services for Michael Gorman — on the testimony of those I trust to know, Gorman’s weak in key areas where we need explicit guidance for implementation. As a University Librarian, he’d be a vast improvement over our incumbent in his general vision of what a library ought be, to provide the broadest range of services to a diverse body of patrons.

I’m not sure where you’re getting the “pissing Tracy off”. My clumsy opening to the clumsy Jeremiad above reflects nothing more than my Luddite clumsiness with this newfangled picter-box way o’ writin’. Fortunately, my whippersnapper wife showed me how to CHANGE the default mail and e-mail setting for posting, so I didn’t really need to distinguish my views from hers as I did. Live and learn. But if you have other reason to think that Tracy’s angry with you (as opposed to having heard a different presentation than you did), perhaps it would be best to discuss it privately with her in a different forum or medium, as friends do. Dragging her name into a forum where she hasn’t even posted to clear up a merely putative misunderstanding smacks of the hit-and-run, however inadvertently. I know you wouldn’t want to treat Tracy like that deliberately, just as she wouldn’t (and to the best of my knowledge, hasn’t) done to you.

I do hope that you aren’t including me in with those saying Gorman is anti-technology as I did not, in any way. I also have no doubt that I’d flinch at some of the back channel conversation if I was privy to it. I wold probably even take some of my friends to task for some of it. I am an equal opportunity critiquer.

I must say that I was seriously impressed with many of his comments on technology, and even with the conclusions of some of his arguments; such as, format is secondary.

But one does not need to be some kind of Postmodern lit theorist to know that it simply is not as simple as “a text is a text is a text.” On one use of language that is correct. It is an an priori analytic statement; that is, it follows from the definition.

But. He is being willfully simplistic making that argument and the critique of his view is fully present in his comments yesterday on e-books and other things. Engagement with a text varies with the format in which the text is encountered, and he knows it. Does that imply that format is transcendent, which was his critique? Of course not. So I like the conclusion of his argument, just not how he gets there, nor all of the implications that he draws from it.

As for the highly dismissive Dungeons & Dragons slur, well, I’ve yet to meet a stupid, non-inquisitive D&D player. In fact, I’d argue that games such as that are far better at driving a desire to learn–about medieval architecture, religions, anatomy and physiology, weather patterns, navigation, etc.–than most things a librarian can dream up.

I could go on and on, but I don’t think (and hope) none of that was directed at me.

But if you can write this and not be pissed off at me then good for you as you are a better person than me: “since a beloved colleague had just horribly disrespected him ….” Well, if that was horribly disrespectful then I intend to keep it up. You say he doesn’t suffer fools; neither do I. He is no fool! But he is certainly playing the part of one. And that makes me sad.

So much in, and around, these issues makes me sad. Maybe I expressed that horribly; in fact, I believe that I probably did. I’m not so good at the immediate and extemporaneous and my passion seems to come out as anger. I am upset. But I have no energy for anger anymore. The deep soul-crushing sadness leaves no energy for anger.

But my whole critique of him, and the larger–much larger–situation we find ourselves in in this so-called profession is that we talk past each other, we use simplistic arguments–due to lack of understanding, willful and otherwise–we call each other names, and we are afraid to call a spade a spade. What the hell is professional about any of that? And how are we to find a way forward with that kind of behavior?

Maybe if I had the qualities of Data or Spock (Star Trek) I could better play the role I want to in my field. And with no emotions I wouldn’t have to feel as I do; I could just get on with it. But I, too, am human.

wtf?

But see. Pretty much everything Stuart wrote validatesexactly my critique of Gorman’s simplistic presentation of the issues.

At one point in the talk he actually said something along the lines–I believe in regard to “proper” digital resources–that they will be “chosen carefully and cataloged accurately” like the print resources we have done so with in the past. WTF? Please, goddess above, let any incompetent or naive fool who believes that that is what we have done in the past, or are even doing currently in our so-called shared cataloging environment, come work with me for 2 hours. Just give me (or Stuart) 2 hours with them! Honestly, we can do it much faster but I’d really like it to sink in.

I am far more in Gorman’s camp than many would suspect. But because I offer a critique of his arguments I must be a hater. Jesus fucking Christ, people! Grow the hell up. I am going to critique anyone’s argument. What about that do people not understand? No one’s arguments and/or rhetorical style are perfect. I may love what you are arguing for but think your argument is weak, or I may not like what you are arguing for but think you have a strong argument but for the wrong reasons, or ….

This is what I do. It is (one reason) why I am valuable. Sadly it is not a skill much valued in our field. “Tow the party line and don’t insult the elders by questioning them.”

The world is a sad place indeed. And if I am one of those making it so for you then I apologize. Sincerely. But know one thing. if that is the case then the feeling is mutual.

[Stuart, please know that none of this is directed at you, except for my agreeing with you and that your comments support the specific critique (or half of it) I was trying to make. And sorry for pissing Tracy off.]

I get the feeling Mark and I watched two different presentations. Which is as it would be — Mark is a highly gifted critic of information theory; I’m a grunt who implements high-minded policy sent from above, which is often deeply grounded in theory but innocent of real-world effect on mundane, soon to be irrelevant matters like circulation and access.

To me Gorman’s speech sounded largely like a recapitulation of the obvious… and refreshingly so. It’s rare to see a librarian actually engage the obvious. The obvious is of no use in padding a C.V. or crafting witty bon mots to be exchanged over margaritas at conferences.

I’m glad Mark stressed relevance in his first response;
that’s another topic too often glossed over in decrees of the stately library of the future. But the devil is in the details — how shall we craft the 2.0 library of the coming golden age out of the .25 library of the present? Let’s face it, folks — when it actually comes to doing the work — “Accomplishing the Mission”, as opposed to flying tacky banners — we haven’t even caught up to the recent past yet.

Is it relevant to tout metadata and digitization in a library that weeds and discards only remaining copies because they say c.2 on the spine and no one has the time to check Voyager to verify actual holdings? (Refer “My Life as a Dog” — the original novel, not the screenplay. It does make more room for Grand Theft Auto 4, though.)

Is it relevant to say that the vaunted Mellon load produced “only two” bad records when years of staff and faculty time have been spent rectifying these two, um, hundred thousand misleading records in the online catalog?

Is it relevant to consider a remote storage project as a glowing success when a significant portion of selected texts are still sitting in a backlog, needing years of staff time to rectify the neglected cataloging? (Remote cataloging on pieces not in hand has led to, um, interesting results). The selection process, by-the-way, publicized as handled only by the most qualified of subject specialists… Kittredge himself consulted via Ouija to give the Chaucer studies a once-over…well, maybe. Sometimes. A goodish portion was done by junior high students with sugar buzzes and handfuls of streamers, having good All-American fun running around getting rid of all the boring crap. “This Braudel d00d SO underestimates the influence of Arab and Indian regional cultures on Venetian trade statutes. Cap him, bro!” No worries — it’s all on Google as of yesterday.

Incidentally, a highly-placed librarian at the institution where Mark and I both work recently commented, mildly enough: “Gee, the time to switch over to LC from Dewey would have been with Oak Street (the aforementioned remote storage project). I mean, if ya gotta open a million or so records anyway…” God save his innocence if he thinks any more than 5-10% of those records were ever touched by a staffer or faculty. Most were handled by students who were as diligent and careful as one can expect for $7.50 an hour and quotas to be met. We have no fucking clue what we have over there, shelved by size and identifiable only by barcode, which more often than not made it onto the right piece/record.

I left the presentation early ‘cuz I had to piss (does that sound sufficiently stereotypically paraprofessional?). One of my students — an 18 year old junior in biochemistry — asked how the lecture was. I said a bit boring… (that’s how early I left), but it sounded to me like this Gorman guy was concerned that there be a library for him and his kind to use and enjoy, as well as for the core constituency we’re currently marketing (or whoring) after: the 19 year old chug-and-puker with ADHD.

Oh, and Mark? I shouldn’t worry about your future at this institution. If your grounded and nuanced criticisms can be even remotely misconstrued as anti-print, anti-reading, avant-garde for its own sake, trendy, hucksterish, or mere marketing, you’ll be mistaken for the kind who will fit right in.