Every once in a while something really gets my goat. I try to have fun with it.

Awful. Just awful.

Published on August 20, 2018 by Marica 

Anna Mussmann has a piece up at The Federalist titled, “The Book World Is Getting Way Too Politicized. Here’s What To Do About That.” (Heh. Link says “trashier.” That’s funny.) It’s primarily about publishers and libraries and such, though she does emphasize the value of old books. Frankly, I did not find it all that insightful but that’s probably because I already know publishing is politicized and I value old books, too. But she does offer more than just criticism; for each there’s the what to do about it aspect. And there are some helpful suggestions in the comments, as well. So it’s worth a read.

The essay reminded me of a web site I visit from time to time, mostly when I have an overwhelming desire to get ticked off about something– which isn’t often but it does happen. Awful Library Books is written (I guess you would say) by two (for hire) Michigan public librarians, Mary Kelly and Holly Hibner. The web site features books that have been weeded (removed) from libraries, either by Mary and Holly (in their capacity of hiring out their weeding services), by other librarians, or submitted by readers of their blog.

I will grant that physical libraries are finite spaces, and further that books– and information– from a librarian’s point of view do become outdated. As they say,

Weeding is an essential component of library collection management.  … [W]e must continually make room for new materials.  Weeding is necessary to remain relevant to our users and true to our missions.  Remember – unless your library exists to archive and preserve materials for the ages, we are not in the business of collecting physical things.  We collect information and provide access to information.  We love books as much as anyone else, and sometimes hard decisions have to be made.

But that’s as far as I’ll go with these two snarky sanctimonious ignoramuses and their equally ignorant submitters and commenters.

Let us begin by asking what possessed these two to name their blog, “Awful?” Why not “Obsolete / Outdated / Weeded Library Books?” Or even “Now Awful?” I get it. It’s catchy. And it makes them appear ever so smart. So smart, in fact, that they do not know the difference between singular and plural possessive pronouns. (Holly: Whyyy? Why would any library in the world have this on their shelf in 2018?) But I’m getting ahead of myself.

Why is this awful? It’s gendering!! Listen up, Ms Submitter. In 1979 there was no such word as “gendering.” Nope. Wasn’t a thing. Just looked in up in my 1993 unabridged (which does include “gender bender”– slang). Not there. In fact, in 1979 the word gender referred most commonly to language, to categories of nouns. And along the same lines– who does the dishes in your home, assuming you have a spouse / partner? Who cuts the grass? Who lifts heavy objects? I ask as someone who owns her very own very nice cordless drill and whose husband does almost all of the cooking. Over time, couples fall into routines with each doing the things he or she most enjoys– or at least detests less. There’s no gendering about it.

Ms Submitters points #2 & 3 refer to these from the TOC:

(Holly & Mary need to learn where the white balance button is. So smart.)

#2. How many wanna-be writers are there out in the world? I don’t read those section headings as questioning that women would really want to write– and for crying out loud, it’s 1979, it’s not like there were no women writers ever in the history of mankind (that’s right; I said mankind)– I read them as asking legitimate questions regarding the wanna-be’s motivations and self-awareness.

Mussmann– author of The Federalist piece– is a self-described “stay-at-home mom who writes during nap time.” You think when she started out she didn’t ask herself these same questions? You think as she wrote and wrote and tried to keep everything together she didn’t wondered if it was all worth it?

#3. Why the hell do you expect your spouse / partner to care about your happiness, Ms Submitter? What a truly stupid question.

Here’s the problem as I see it. These people have little, if any, sense of cultural history– that book is only 40 years old. And because they have no sense of the past they try to get an ought out of an is. Everything is as it is today, and it is all as it ought to have always been. And that’s not true. Never has been. Only teenagers are ignorant and inexperienced enough to think that. Well. Only teenagers ought to think that.