This is the second part in an essay that I wrote about media curation and the role of public libraries in Sweden, as well as how it can be handled differently. I discuss the concepts of quality and quantity in this chapter, as well as the implications these definitions have on media curation, both in current public libraries, as well as in my imagined Library of things.

Quality and quantity

I will begin my arguments with the most straightforward, but possibly one of the more controversial aspects of the Library of things. The idea that media can have quality, and that someone by default, needs to decide what that quality is. The concept of quality is by its very nature a subjective form of measurement, and one that does change over time and space, culture and public.

The term quality will in this chapter primarily be used in the differentiation between nice and mainstream media. With nice media I am here referring to things that stand out from the rest in its category, be it from awards, professional and academic acclaim or by the uniqueness of its presentation and content. This definition is not to be confused with the term good, but rather as a way to single out certain texts from a broader context. 

This definition is in contrast to mainstream media, that is made to be broad, approachable and in many cases, disposable. Here would find the masses of feel good novels and thrills written to be read and then forgotten. Likewise here is where you will find cookbooks, tv dramas, action and horror films of all kinds. Note that I do not use the term quality here as a direct notation of what is good and what is bad, as that is frankly a topic that is too wide, and too complex for this text to cover in any meaningful way. I am also fully aware that these definitions are strenuous at best, and often blend into each other in complex and fascinating ways.

For the interest of this text will this definition be used to define between texts that the library can count on being borrowed, and texts that, while not being as popular, are more likely to leave a larger impression on the patron that do borrow it.

Besides quality, must the question of quantity be taken into account. The quantity of texts, or the number of items that a library can have at a single moment is ofcourse limited by its physical space. There is only so much room that one library can fill with texts before something needs to be removed in order to make room for something new. It is an unfortunate result that every piece of media that is bought in a modern library does need to take the place of another piece of media, each purchase and removal of a text much as a result be argued for.

The physical space of bookshelves and other storage devices must also be taken into account when planning for what form a library’s collection will take. A current public library tends towards having a small variety of media available, books, audiobooks and movies for example. This approach allows them to maximize the space available for these collections, as well as minimizing the curation time needed, as they all follow the same general workflow. This allows the library to take a quantitative approach to media collection, leading to a  large chance of the patron finding the item they are looking for, as long as it is not too obscure or old.

In this form of library, can the librarian be a bit more lenient with how much the library buys, especially if they are under no obligation to keep the media in question for posterity or future research. This means that texts of both mainstream and more nice material can quite often easily find their place side by side. There are still limitations however, especially considering the libraries limited, and sadly often restrictive budgets. This budget still makes sure hard choices must be made about what to buy and not to. I discuss the librarian’s role in curating a collection in more detail in a future chapter.

In the form of the library that I am describing, will this question become even more important, as the nature of the collections means that different areas will need to be set aside for each collection, and more complex and varied storage forms will need to be put in place. This would sadly mean that the librarians would need to be even more discriminatory in the forms of media that they choose to take in. This, I would argue, will be one of the biggest limiting factors, but also one of the biggest assurances of quality for the library’s services.

When creating a collection it is always important to keep in mind why this collection is created, what form of problems they are meant to solve and for who. The current driving forces behind many purchases that I have been purview to have been based on the concept that we should buy them, because people want to borrow them from our collection. In my experience will these collections gravitate more towards mainstream media, unless there are librarians present with a special interest or dedication to a certain media form or genre.

By Evan-Amos – Own work, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=12814264

In comparison would the Library of odd things need to be even more discriminatory with what they buy in, and as a result does the question of nieces versus mainstream become even more important.

In this scenario will the work of curating become even more important, as the space and time is even more limited. This means that the questions of what and why certain media is included or excluded becomes even more important. When for example, a library decides to include a series of Nintendo 64 cartridge games from the popular and groundbreaking gaming console with the same name, what should be included?

Do we include titles that we know were popular, like Super Mario 64, do we only include those titles that were critically acclaimed at the time, like Goldeneye 64. Do we aim to search out more obscure titles that later became cult classics, or that may be remembered fondly by our patrons?

I do not claim to have any easy answers to these questions, as they are complex and deeply rooted in each library’s situation and capabilities. I would argue that a balance is to be strived for, between high and low culture, nice and mainstream, obscure and well known, in this way will the library of odd things best serve its purpose of exposing their patrons to the largest amount of new and novel experiences, as well as old and potentially nostalgic ones.

With the implementation of more Libraries of odd things can this problem be alleviated somewhat by allowing cross library loans, much in the same way that Swedish public libraries are today able to borrow books from other public libraries as well as some university libraries.

While this is not a perfect solution, is it one that can be readily applied with already existing infrastructure. 

This chapter is meant as a beginning to the discussion rather than the be all and end all solution to a series of very complex and somewhat controversial problems within the contemporary library world. Next chapter will discuss the needs and wants of the library patron, as well as how these concepts can be defined and used in everyday library work, especially when it comes to the question of curation.