To be shocked the librarian was so poorly read?

[bendmeoverbackwards]

In the library recently reserving some books for dd. Librarian had not heard of A Handmaid’s Tale and did not know that As you Like It was written by Shakespeare.

These are not exactly obscure books!

AIBU?

Handsmaids tale? I've heard of it

The book of the tv programme?

@ohforarainyday Sadly it doesn't surprise me.

One of my friends is a librarian. No offence to her but I don't she's exactly "literary". But that wasn't a requirement of the job.

Her role is to book books out, log books back in, sort out reservations, computer booking, give some computer advice to people struggling to log on, be able to direct people to different sections of the library.....I'm sure other stuff as well but she's not there to give book reviews or make recommendations of other stuff to read. If she can then that's a bonus and I'm sure in some genres she probably can.

But even though her job title may be librarian (I'm not sure, maybe it's assistant but there's nobody more senior than her) she isn't a professional librarian like they used to be. She doesn't have an English Lit a level or degree.

@ohforarainyday

My eldest is 15 and hasn't studied Shakespeare at school. Would be surprised if he could list more than 3 or 4 Shakespeare works.

I really don't understand the mentality that of course people can't be expected to have heard of anything they weren't taught in school.

I was mostly home schooled/unschooled and had no education at all past the age of 12 (went to uni as a mature student). Yet I've always actively sought to educate myself and to inform myself about the world.

I read Macbeth by myself when I was probably 10 or 11. No one told me to or gave it to me, I just found in on my mother's bookshelves and thought it looked like a cool scary story about witches. Children should learn via being helped to pursue their natural intellectual curiosity, not through being spoonfed knowledge. Of course not everyone is interested in books, some kids are more drawn to science and nature, but IMO all children are born with an innate curiosity about the world and an innate desire to learn and grow.

But to self learn there needs to be an interest. He doesn't enjoy fiction. Why would he spend time reading things he doesn't have an interest in? Politics, current affairs and sport on the other hand he is very knowledgeable on and reads a great deal on these subjects.

I'm much the same to be honest. Hated Shakespeare at school so certainly didn't seek out other works of his to read other than what was required for school. But will avidly read things that interest me - both fiction and non fiction.

Shakespeare plays are supposed to be watched, anyway, not read. You miss a lot by just reading them.

So you have no evidence, then?
That will be why you are resorting to insults: ‘snob’, ‘arrogant’, and so on.
Aka please don't point out that some people are arrogant and snobby.

Incidentally, in response to your questions upthread, do you agree that it would be reasonable to expect an English teacher to have heard of phonetics, Anton Chekhov, old English, Middle English, rhetoric and Lewis Carroll? You’ve gone silent on that one
Haven't gone silent at all. As I said already, I think English teachers should be specialists in their own area and beyond that have appropriate knowledge to teach the curriculum well.

Making a list of authors to tick to say "I know this author exists" seems a bit of a waste of time to me. I await your gasps and claims that education needs saving.

If your sole expectation is that staff have heard of something, but aren't expected to have any knowledge then it seems a little pointless to me.

In terms of broadening a child's understanding of literature in lessons, I'd argue it's by far more beneficial for an English teacher to read up on some of the major theological, social, historical and political issues around the era of the texts they are teaching, than be able to superficially reference whatever books/authors some random person says is important.

Shakespeare plays are supposed to be watched, anyway, not read. You miss a lot by just reading them.
I agree. It's why I always get several productions of the plays I'm teaching so my students can watch them and we can discuss the different performances.

@CovidCorvid

One of my friends is a librarian. No offence to her but I don't she's exactly "literary". But that wasn't a requirement of the job.

Her role is to book books out, log books back in, sort out reservations, computer booking, give some computer advice to people struggling to log on, be able to direct people to different sections of the library.....I'm sure other stuff as well but she's not there to give book reviews or make recommendations of other stuff to read. If she can then that's a bonus and I'm sure in some genres she probably can.

But even though her job title may be librarian (I'm not sure, maybe it's assistant but there's nobody more senior than her) she isn't a professional librarian like they used to be. She doesn't have an English Lit a level or degree.

Yes this! Part of my role in a university library is to equip students with the skills to be able to search for resources themselves. Demonstrate how to use the library catalogue, access the e-resources, locate their reading list etc.... I do know the classification subject areas so if a student came in and asked where the teaching books I could say the 370's. Staff in public libraries should be able to direct customers in the same way but it's unrealistic to expect them to make be able to make recommendations and the like. Of course if they have read something and enjoyed it then they can share this information with customers but it is not part of the role. When training to become a qualified librarian you learn about information management. It's not an English Literature course. There's lots of misconceptions about librarians and what they do. This thread just demonstrates that.

[quote ChoChoCrazyCat]@tigger1001 I'm not particularly interested in Shakespeare either and have only read/seen a few of the plays. But I'm still aware of the names of the major ones at least. I also have no interest in football but know the names of major footballers. Ditto famous composers, politicians, actors, artists etc. None of those are things I'm specifically "into", but if you consume any media and pay attention to the world then surely you'd have a knowledge base beyond your immediate interests.
I'd be embarrassed if I wasn't familiar with my own country's cultural heritage. [/quote]
Depends on what you class as your countries cultural heritage.

Am certainly not embarrassed that I could only name a few of Shakespeare's works. Don't know why I would be. It doesn't interest me. Certainly only major works were taught at school - think the only ones we studied were midsummers night dream and Macbeth. And my lord I found them dull. And could tell you little about them now (sadly it's been a few years since I left school)

However a book we studied in early secondary school which has stayed with me all these years was Across The Barricades by Joan Lingard. I remember thinking about what life was like for people in Northern Ireland during the troubles. I've always had an interest in current affairs so this fit right in with that, and fed a genuine curiosity to learn more about what was happening there and the history behind it. Having great grandparents from there and grandparents who were brought up in the west coast of Scotland and learning about sectarianism was far more relevant to my cultural awareness.

Personally would rather have that knowledge than knowing more of Shakespeare's works.

I'm Scottish so have a little more knowledge on Rabbie Burns than Shakespeare but only just. Hated learning the poems for burns day at school.

I would be surprised that a library assistant hadn't heard of the Handmaid's Tale, simply because it has been on TV recently, and that used to cause a flurry of requests for such a book. As a library assistant, I used to gain familiarity of what was currently popular reading through handling issues and returns at the desk. I suppose that's often automated self-service these days, in a lot of libraries (certainly my local one,) but you still have to do shelving, and that also gives you some familiarity of the stock. I used to know of lots of books because I hadn't read them, but I had shelved them. You also got to know which books got requested ahead of publication and so on.

We used to have a book version of similar authors, because, "I liked this book, did they write anything else, are there others like it?" was a common query, and then it didn't matter if someone hadn't heard of it - you could discover the answer with the reader. These days, you can look online for the same sort of info.

You don't have to have heard of everything, but you should know how to look things up, be it Google or in the catalogue.

Exactly. Being able to recommend books is a bonus. Not a job requirement.

I'm not sure I'm liking this attitude that because someone hasn't read a certain book they're certainly not a librarian and just a minimum wage library assistant. It comes across as quite snobbish and assuming that a minimum wage library assistant cannot be well read unlike a qualified librarian.

I read Macbeth by myself when I was probably 10 or 11. No one told me to or gave it to me, I just found in on my mother's bookshelves and thought it looked like a cool scary story about witches

And I read a book about Isambard Kingdom Brunel when I was about 6, that I found on my parents' bookshelves. Not reading Shakespeare doesn't make people inferior beings.

As I've said several times now, people have different interests, and have knowledge of different things. And rate things differently too. Who decides that Margaret Attwood is a more important author because she writes about feminist topics over Rosemary Sutcliffe , the writer of the Eagle of the Ninth who wrote a historical novel for children? Who gives MNers the right to make those value judgments?

@IrmaFayLear

I feel your pain.

I went in a while ago and asked if they had All Quiet on the Western Front. Blank look. "When was it published?" asked the librarian. I wasn't sure, but said probably late 1920s. "Ohhhh, it's an old book - no, we don't have any old books."

Mind you, nothing was worse than dd's English teacher saying she hadn't heard of Rebecca

That's grim. "We don't have any old books." This is what you're likely to get by way of response when most libraries are staffed by volunteers and untrained people. Librarians are very valuable!

I can't remember the last time I went into my local library, tbh (it was never fantastic). . . and reading this I don't know if I ever will.

Hope you got a copy of All Quiet on the Western Front: a wonderful book. Hitler banned it but, if my memory serves, its author did manage to live to a ripe old age, in spite of everything.

I don’t think anyone is claiming that an encyclopaedic knowledge of books is the only requirement to be a librarian but, even if some overall knowledge/awareness isn’t currently a requirement, don’t we think it should be?

if you consume any media and pay attention to the world then surely you'd have a knowledge base beyond your immediate interests

Well all I can say is that you obviously have an exceptional memory if you retain every new fact you ever learn. Sometimes when I am watching something I actually make a note in my head to try to remember the name of somebody but otherwise it's of interest at the time and then it goes again, unless somehow it's topical and it is mentioned again. If it's mentioned several times it might stick.

However a book we studied in early secondary school which has stayed with me all these years was Across The Barricades by Joan Lingard we read that one too! Probably much more relevant than As You LIke It.

poppycat10, sorry, just making conversation...!

I'm 100% with wombat on what English teachers should know.
Yes, they should know what phonetics are; have heard of As You Like It and know its author; have heard of Chekov (Jesus I hope they have); know what rhetoric is; be aware of old English and Middle English; have heard of Lewis Carroll or Mark Twain.
Lola, your response 'I think English teachers should be specialists in their own area and beyond that have appropriate knowledge to teach the curriculum well' does not answer the question wombat asks.

In terms of broadening a child's understanding of literature in lessons, I'd argue it's by far more beneficial for an English teacher to read up on some of the major theological, social, historical and political issues around the era of the texts they are teaching, than be able to superficially reference whatever books/authors some random person says is important.
I'm not seeing your point here. What do you mean by 'superficially reference'? I would expect an English teacher who has heard of Chekhov or knows who wrote As You Like It to have some knowledge of the context in which these works and authors exist. I don't see how the two don't coexist.

Shakespeare plays are supposed to be watched, anyway, not read. You miss a lot by just reading them.
No one said anything on this point about reading Shakespeare, just about knowing from the title of a play that he wrote it.

Those who express surprise at the 'ignorance' of 'librarians' ie library assistants and/or volunteers are basically showing their own ignorance about how the library service is funded, how it currently operates and the role that libraries play in communities.

Which is a far worse 'ignorance' than not knowing an individual title or author.

As for the Shakespeare angle, I certainly wouldn't expect someone in a library to have necessarily read "As You Like It" (how many people in ANY walk of life know all of Shakespeare's plays, after all?). But I would expect them (unless they are a very young assistant) to have at least heard of it.

I'm not sure I'm liking this attitude that because someone hasn't read a certain book they're certainly not a librarian and just a minimum wage library assistant.
Where is this attitude? It certainly doesn't appear in the OP, which is about having heard of books and knowing who wrote a play from its title.

@Blueemeraldagain

I don’t think anyone is claiming that an encyclopaedic knowledge of books is the only requirement to be a librarian but, even if some overall knowledge/awareness isn’t currently a requirement, don’t we think it should be?

We don't know that this lady didn't have an overall knowledge, she may just not have heard of the Handmaid's Tale.

A good general knowledge is very helpful as a library assistant - and good Google search skills are a must.

@Iamthewombat

The point being, of course, that not every casual worker is going to have an encylopedic knowledge of what other people take for granted and that is ok. As You Like it is well-known to people who like Shakespeare but many people don't like Shakespeare. And that is ok.

I don’t know how to convey this message any more clearly. The OP did not expect encyclopaedic knowledge from the library assistant. You don’t want to acknowledge this, of course, because it u dermines your ‘snob’argument.

And yes, I would think a person is a snob if they then went on to belittle casual workers as you and many on this thread have done.

Show us evidence that the OP, or anybody else, has belittled casual workers. NB expecting somebody to have a reasonable level of knowledge about the area they work in is not evidence of belittlement.

I don't know how to say this any more clearly:

A person working in a library on a casual basis should not, by any reasonable person, be expected to know every work by every author or playwright ever written. That would be stupid. Just because YOU think something is common knowledge does not make it so.

And the evidence is in the thread, fairly obviously.

poppycat10
I totally agree with you.

One seminar when I trained to teach looked at curriculum, specifically who decides what should and shouldn't be in the curriculum. It was fascinating, especially because it led to a debate on who decides what's great literature, who decides the value of literature. There's lots of discussions about curriculum at the moment, especially diversity in the curriculum, and it takes me back to that seminar.

I've sat in meetings where some English teachers have said they would like to see compulsory Shakespeare removed from Key Stage 3. I strongly disagree, but it's an interesting discussion.

If you took 10 English teachers and asked them which 3 texts every child should study, you'd get 10 different answers. If you asked the general public the same question, you'd get different answers. It doesn't make any of them right, or any of them wrong. It shows that we all value the knowledge and experiences we have, and think others should have them too.

Open minded people are aware of this. Closed minded and arrogant people tend to think their what they consider important knowledge is superior.

I would also expect school librarians to have excellent relevant subject knowledge. However, a lot of schools don't even have librarians. Think about that. There is a legal requirement for prisons to have libraries, but not schools.

@TurquoiseLemur

As for the Shakespeare angle, I certainly wouldn't expect someone in a library to have necessarily read "As You Like It" (how many people in ANY walk of life know all of Shakespeare's plays, after all?). But I would expect them (unless they are a very young assistant) to have at least heard of it.

While not a librarian, until this thread I had never heard of it! Certainly wouldn't have known who wrote it. And am mid 40's.