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?

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

That would make an interesting new thread

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.
.......
Really? Is that how it is nowadays? When I went to big school at eleven we started Shakespeare straight away and did two, maybe three, of his plays every school year until we chose options. I didn't on the whole enjoy school but I absolutely loved that. We used to read it in parts in the classroom and obviously write about it. I can remember a group of us from school, plus a teacher, going to see a couple of productions too. Chaucer was also on the menu.

I saw a Shakespeare with my husband in the late 1980s, at Stratford upon Avon - 'Anthony and Cleopatra' with Frances de la Tour as Cleopatra. It was great. I also went to see 'MacBeth' (can't remember where but it was in a London theatre), and the 'Dream' at Regents Park in which Bottom was played by Paul Bradley. I used to love theatre.

My favourite is 'Julius Caesar', I enjoyed reading the part of the 'lean and hungry' Cassius.

We learn so much from Shakespeare. It's a shame if he is sidelined now, he is so firmly part of our culture.

The "I can't believe someone didn't know about this book/play/music album" doesn't actually mean someone can't believe it. It means "I consider this to be a piece of knowledge others should have, and I'm going to take this opportunity to pat myself on the back and laugh at the person who knows less than me".

Yup.

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?

Well, it's hardly an either/or situation, is it? But on this specific issue, while I think Eagle of the Ninth is a wonderful novel, and Sutcliffe a brilliantly talented author, I think the sheer reach of The Handmaid's Tale what it has to say about religious fundamentalism and control of women's bodies, its adaptation into other modes (there's an opera, a ballet, several stage and radio versions and a film, as well as the TV series) and the way in which protests about women's rights, abortion law, access to contraception, free speech etc have often used the red-gowned, white-bonneted figure of the handmaid as a political shorthand would make it more culturally important.

poppycat10
It's a regular discussion in English departments up and down the country every time the government decides to announce large scale changes.

My views have certainly changed between the first time I thought about this as a trainee to now. I think that probably contributes to my irritation with snobby attitudes towards literature and who decides what people should/shouldn't know.

When I was little I said I would like to work in a library when I was grown up. My mother sensibly pointed out that the job didn't involve sitting around reading all day.
I didn't read The Handmaids Tale because it was feminist literature; I read it because because I like Margaret Attwood's books, and that was long before it was on TV.

@poppycat10

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.

Really? Surely you can't expect them to have an in depth knowledge of every subject. That's just impossible. Many universities have subject specific librarians because they can't be experts in all areas.

Come on, The Handmaid's Tale is a seminal work of fiction by one of the world's most famous living authors, one of only a very, very few writers to have won the Booker Prize on more than one occasion (though not, ironically, for THT).

It's quite incredible that someone – whether qualified or not – who spends their working day around books has never even heard of it, especially since its sequel (which did win the Booker) was out just last year.

I don't see any expectation from the OP that the library worker should have read it, merely that she should have heard of it. In no way is that unreasonable.

Really? Surely you can't expect them to have an in depth knowledge of every subject. That's just impossible. Many universities have subject specific librarians because they can't be experts in all areas

Sorry I didn't mean in depth for every subject, I just meant enough to know what is on the curriculum and what the teachers will be sending the kids in to find out.

@poppycat10

Really? Surely you can't expect them to have an in depth knowledge of every subject. That's just impossible. Many universities have subject specific librarians because they can't be experts in all areas

Sorry I didn't mean in depth for every subject, I just meant enough to know what is on the curriculum and what the teachers will be sending the kids in to find out.

Ah right ok well yes that would make sense. You'd hope that there would be some collaboration between the teachers and the library.

YANBU, but it’s actually The Handmaid’s Tale. That said, the brilliant Margaret Atwood and William Shakespeare, as excellent as they are, are not the be all and end all of the best of English Literature, so perhaps the librarian is much more well versed (pun unintended) in Dickens, Gaskell, Austen, Chaucer and Orwell. Or even Physics, Geology and History. The library is not just about fiction, although there is a lot of it. 😊

@Maggiesfarm

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. ....... Really? Is that how it is nowadays? When I went to big school at eleven we started Shakespeare straight away and did two, maybe three, of his plays every school year until we chose options. I didn't on the whole enjoy school but I absolutely loved that. We used to read it in parts in the classroom and obviously write about it. I can remember a group of us from school, plus a teacher, going to see a couple of productions too. Chaucer was also on the menu.

I saw a Shakespeare with my husband in the late 1980s, at Stratford upon Avon - 'Anthony and Cleopatra' with Frances de la Tour as Cleopatra. It was great. I also went to see 'MacBeth' (can't remember where but it was in a London theatre), and the 'Dream' at Regents Park in which Bottom was played by Paul Bradley. I used to love theatre.

My favourite is 'Julius Caesar', I enjoyed reading the part of the 'lean and hungry' Cassius.

We learn so much from Shakespeare. It's a shame if he is sidelined now, he is so firmly part of our culture.

In my own schooling we didn't do many Shakespeare plays either. Think maybe 2 in my class.

I was grateful for that as it's not something I enjoy reading.

It's quite incredible that someone – whether qualified or not – who spends their working day around books has never even heard of it, especially since its sequel (which did win the Booker) was out just last year

I know there's a sequel but without googling it I don't remember its title.

And I'm sorry to disappoint you, but while libraries do get small batches of Booker and other competition short-listed books in on short-term loans, most of the punters want Jack Reacher and GoT books, and the kids wants Wimpy Kid and Daisy Meadows (I might be out of date with the kids now).

Crinkle77
In my experience, where schools still have librarians they tend to have a good working knowledge of popular children's fiction, and are good at signposting to similar books. One of my former colleagues did a lovely piece of work based on "If you liked... then you might like..." Librarians also tend to run projects such as book clubs and link with local libraries if you're lucky to have a good local library service.

It's really not - much - about Google.

It's about being able to search/use the library's own cataloguing system/software.

And sometimes sites like Fantastic Fiction which are good for looking up books that are part of a series.

It's maybe a little unusual but I'm not all that surprised.

Sadly there are not always many people going into libraries these days looking for Shakespeare.

Libraries are evolving and now they are often used to all kinds of purposes like community groups, coffee mornings, people using the internet, support with jobs/CVs etc.

The staff are more likely to be hired on their customer service and people skills than anything else and there will be very few librarians qualified to degree level working there.

I know there's a sequel but without googling it I don't remember its title.

That's fair enough, poppycat10, nor do I . But that kind of reinforces my point – we are both aware of it without actually knowing much about it. Which I think is what OP was saying…

Most people have only heard of "The Handmaid's Tale" because they have watched a popular TV show and it has become mainstream. There were nowhere near as many people aware of the existence of the book before that.

Perhaps the librarian doesn't watch TV and just happens to have not come across that book. As others have said, it doesn't mean she never reads. It's a very arbitrary expectation. She might hole herself up every night in a flat without a TV or internet connection and read exclusively non-fiction.

Does it really matter as long as she can search the library database?

I am a trained and qualified librarian. I did intend to work in public libraries but there were no jobs. Some very short contract relief worker jobs but that was it. I ended up working as a college librarian and I've been there for nearly 10 years. The job has changed a lot. I do have a working knowledge of my stock but my job is far more about information literacy, contracts, all the behind the scenes computer stuff. Enjoying reading is a a nice hobby but it doesn't really bear any impact on my actual job.

Jobs worth outlook maybe hence no real interest in literature.

@IntermittentParps

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.

It's not come from the OP but several other posters

The "I can't believe someone didn't know about this book/play/music album" doesn't actually mean someone can't believe it. It means "I consider this to be a piece of knowledge others should have, and I'm going to take this opportunity to pat myself on the back and laugh at the person who knows less than me".

Yup.

Nope, not really. This conversation really seems to have touched a nerve with some people. Whatever happened to acknowledging one's own ignorance without being all defensive about it?

The job has changed a lot. I do have a working knowledge of my stock but my job is far more about information literacy, contracts

I’d be interested in knowing what information literacy and contracts are in terms of your job. Thank you.

@Gembie

Totally unsurprised. When I finished uni I joined a local council library only to find it was rammed with pulp fiction. Depressing but I guess that’s what’s popular

I find it weird that people see reading as "improving" or something.

It's not medicine! It's entertainment. It's just TV on paper. There's room for all kinds of books and people are allowed to read what they like, and not know about things they aren't interested in!

I don't think the OP knows what a librarian does these days.

As someone has pointed out, a qualified librarian doesn't need to know about books, it's about cataloguing, keeping online resources up to date..basically everything apart from stacking shelves. Someone working in a library doesn't even have to check books in and out now.

Think of the potential questions someone in a library must get now :

" Do you have House of Sleep by Jonathan Coe "

" Do you have old maps of Yorkshire "

" Is the latest Stephen King book in yet "

All questions that you just look on the computer for. No interest or knowledge of books needed. Just the ability to work the libraries enquiry and reservations system.

They also need some IT Skills, for the customer PC's, need to know how the photocopier works etc..again, no book knowledge required.

I think the OP is thinking of an enthusiastic old school volunteer who is passionate about literature and that is why they are there.