Kriston’s upset that Fairfax libraries are using their shelf space for popular flashes-in-the-pan, rather than stocking classics like The Sound and the Fury. And I guess I agree with him. Mostly. But the thing is, libraries shouldn’t have to make this choice.
Before I go any further I should emphasize the considerable depths of my philistinism. When Kriston and I talk about art it usually goes like this:
K: Of course, all of the most important pieces from the last century have never actually been seen, in keeping with their creators’ wishes. Observation is rape.
T: I don’t understand why we can’t just print out the wallpapers that come with Windows, throw ‘em in some frames from Target and be happy with that.
I do side with Kriston on this one, though. But I think that the real problem here is the limit on ways in which you can get The Sound and the Fury. Assuming that nobody objects to a paternalistic approach to filling the library’s shelves (we’re all friendly liberals here, right?), this debate is really just a simple utilitarian argument over quality and quantity. How much of a shelf goes to infrequently used but valuable books, and how much to frequently used crap?
I think the way out of this tedious calculation lies in Kriston’s closing barb:
We could just set up YouTube terminals. Dick in a box! Dick in a box for everyone. Let’s throw italics around Dick in a Box.
I can’t say I remember whether AP style calls for italicizing the titles of YouTube clips, but, as you might expect (and as with all things), I think that “more computers” is roughly the right direction to take. On-demand-printing (or downloading to e-book reader) is coming — really, it ought to be in county libraries as rich as Fairfax’s right now. But there’s a problem.
In a saner world, the copyright on The Sound and the Fury (published 1929) would expire before 2032. The work could be distributed freely to whomever wanted it, instead of paying for the drunken Tijuana exploits of William “Wet Willie” Faulkner VI (I assume). Save the shelves for the modern stuff and its copyright-induced scarcity.
At this point I imagine some will object and start talking about how books smell. But many library users are already used to having to deal with more easily-compressed forms of media than the beloved hardcover — there’s microfiche for periodicals and electronic databases for scientific journals, for example. It’s a tradeoff that has and will continue to be worth making.
Digital technology now allows us to sidestep Fairfax’s dilemma entirely. And it’s a good thing, too: libraries have limitations that our technology does not. In fact, the only thing libraries really have going for them is that tradition allows them to exist outside the screwed-up intellectual property regime that governs the rest of our society. The best solution here isn’t to fret over patching up the library, it’s to set loose the internet. You’re reading this online, for god’s sake. Consider just how quaint the idea of rationing information has become.
UPDATE: Julian says the same thing, only more intelligently (and earlier). Also, he links to an online edition of TS&TF. Huh — I thought copyright was the author’s death + 70 years. Is it because the site is Canadian that this is possible?
It’s funny, on my way home from the bookstore about a half hour ago I was thinking about how books were probably the only media I’d never fully switch over to the internet for. Leaving aside how books smell, I just need to stop reading on a lighted screen sometimes, or have an even more portable format. Paperback are small and light and I like the experience of books. I think on-demand printing should definitely be employed though, especially if we could get to a standard format smaller than 8.5 x 11.
I certainly agree with you about the difficulty of reading books on LCD displays. But there are commercial electronic paper readers, and I expect we’ll soon see many more.
Have you seen Project Gutenberg? No Faulkner yet, but this seems to be the basic idea you’re going for.
As for The Sound and the Fury, works published between 1923 aqnd 1978 have a set of crazy laws that you need a cadre of lawyers to interpret.
cornell has a good guide to copyright terms and extensions. between 1923 and 1978 it depended on registration and renewal.
http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm
On demand is the future. I imagine there will be electronic displays of the works on hand, printers & receptacles for recycling returned printouts. Disposable books, baby! Expect electronic book reading devices to be lent out as well.