This quote illustrates that libraries do, for the most part, reflect the areas in which they reside. Libraries are supposed to be places where someone feels accepted and comfortable, certainly not "insignificant" as the author puts it. So putting myself in the shoes of the author, I can most definitely understand how going to a much nicer library from what I was accustomed to would make me feel extremely inferior. I would wonder why the people in this area are so much more important that their "public" library is nicer than my "public" library. When I hear the words "public library," I think of a place that is open to all races, classes, and groups of people. But the fact that the nicer library makes many people feel "inferior" shows that this library may display the word public, but in reality gives off the feeling of being private. The clear distinctions observed between the two libraries mentioned in the article makes me wonder if the public money was distributed fairly. The simple fact that the nicer library is found in the nicer area illustrates that it wasn't, and this seems to be a problem today.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I agree with you. The very word public makes it seem as it should be equal to all the other public libraries, which should be the case. I don't believe that the money is being distributed fairly. Areas with a larger amount of people should be getting more money, I do not think it should be solely based on circulation, because a nicer library will probably almost always have high circulation than a library that is falling apart, even if there is a higher population in the latter.
ReplyDelete