Wilda Williams at LJ’s IN THE BOOKROOM blog has responded to my previous post Library Journal - Foe to Taxpayers?

Is this the old case of you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink? For years publishers have debated the impact of literary awards on book sales; many don’t see much difference. Does the same hold true for library circulation? One librarian seems to think so. On his blog ChipK.com, Ohio librarian “Chip” noted that a “disturbing portion” of books his library purchased largely on the basis of positive reviews in LJ did not circulate at a rate that justified their purchase. His post implied that LJ reviews were a waste of taxpayer money.

First of all, bringing in the taxpayer bit was probably overly dramatic on my part, but I don’t think that I implied that “LJ reviews” are a waste of taxpayer money. As far as I know, and nowhere did I imply otherwise, taxpayers don’t pay for LJ reviews directly. But my inflammatory language invited that reaction. As I noted in my comment to Wilda’s post, LJ is not a serious “foe to taxpayers” and neither are poor librarians making imperfect selection decisions. In any case, I stand by my reaction that there are a lot of crappy books with positive LJ reviews that sit on shelves without circulating. Cumulatively, those poor governmental procurement decisions cost taxpayers a large amount of money each year. Admittedly, it isn’t the biggest problem in government spending, but it is worthy of further examination. If I can only stop being a moronic child writing about baseball, and morph into the inquisitive, concerned professional I should but don’t really aspire to be, I hope to find time to pursue this issue. Especially now that “our young librarian friend” has been called out on it!

As far as I know, that was chipk.com’s first experience in the blogosphere and it has me all tingly inside. Could just be this early hour and the effects of the onion- and pepper-loaded Subway sandwich I had last night, though.