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?

I work in a library - there are 10 members of staff, we all love to read, but as you would expect very different genres.

We also need to be able to help with local studies information, family history, carry out children's events and story-times, assist borrowers with computer use etc. We are all rounders and try to help everyone with everything.

Not everyone on our staff is a trained librarian, but there are always librarians available for more detailed queries.

The library catalogue is extensive and books can be searched for and found on our system (by staff or borrowers themselves) if not on that county's catalogue, then books can be reserved from outside the county (or from university libraries for instance)

If a member of staff does not know the book you want, a quick search will find it. I'm sorry you felt the member of staff let you down by asking the authors name.

Quite frankly you sound a bit unkind and like hard work - don't worry though, library staff see it all and are used to dealing with tricky types

Having worked in a public library, I can report that the great British public can be unbelievably rude and patronising.
My favourite, from a vile regular, said in the most patronising way possible: “I’m after something by Dickens... I assume you’ve heard of him?”
Me: “Yes actually, I have a degree in English Literature”.
Another low point was discovering fish skin that had been used as a bookmark, retch... In any library about 80% of the staff are low paid / volunteers who may or may not know a lot about books. They may also have been transferred from another area of employment within the local council.

I think you are biased towards English literature

That’s the thing; at a main public library less than a quarter of the stock will be fiction. I’m shocked that OP thought all library staff were qualified librarians. I don’t doubt most library assistants like reading, but libraries also offer part time work and casual work which really suits some people whether they like reading or not.

And while I’m surprised that the assistant hadn’t heard of the Handmaids Tale, it’s because it’s been on the telly, not because I’ve read the book!

And ok, that particular person might not have heard of that particular book, but without volunteers giving up their time we wouldn’t even HAVE a public library service at the moment

I'd be more worried about an English teacher who didn't know George Eliot (posted on here a while back).
Why though?

If they are specialists in their area, read books that they are interested in, and have the appropriate knowledge and skills to teach the curriculum, why would you be 'worried' about them not knowing a particular author?

So far the only responses to this seem to have been:

• They just should know them (because I think they should)
• It doesn't count if they know lots about their specialist areas, they should know the authors I consider important
• It's depressing if they don't know authors I think they should, but if their grasp of the curriculum is good and they've read widely across related disciplines
• If they don't know authors I think they should then they clearly don't know much about their subject (this was after it had been explained twice that English teachers come from a range of specialisms)
• Anyone who disagrees with this attitude must hate general knowledge, be anti-intellectual and it's all terribly worrying

As yet nobody's successfully explained why their list of must have authors are better or more important than someone else's must have authors, or the benefit of being able to name drop particular authors (because up thread it's apparently only expected that staff know the author exists, not any useful knowledge beyond that).

It's depressing if they don't know authors I think they should, even if their grasp of the curriculum is good and they've read widely across related disciplines

@HeartshapedFox

And ok, that particular person might not have heard of that particular book, but without volunteers giving up their time we wouldn’t even HAVE a public library service at the moment

Yes!

And ok, that particular person might not have heard of that particular book, but without volunteers giving up their time we wouldn’t even HAVE a public library service at the moment

It's irrelevant what expectations people have of librarians (that elusive breed) really, THIS unfortunately is where we're at. And that won't change anytime soon.

If they are specialists in their area, read books that they are interested in, and have the appropriate knowledge and skills to teach the curriculum, why would you be 'worried' about them not knowing a particular author?

You seem fixated on the idea of people being 'specialists' meaning they don't need or won't have decent knowledge at overview-level.
Before someone becomes a specialist they have to be a good generalist (that's partly how people discover the area they want to specialise in!). I'd hope an English teacher had a good generalist education (and I mean in the sense of cultural/political/historical points as well as in literature itself).

This is exactly what 'having the appropriate knowledge and skills to teach the curriculum' looks like. It doesn't mean not having heard of major works of literature or being able to match them to their authors.

And ok, that particular person might not have heard of that particular book, but without volunteers giving up their time we wouldn’t even HAVE a public library service at the moment

It's a disgrace. Libraries ought to be properly funded.

The Handmaid's Tale really isn't widely used in literature courses. I didn't come across it at GCSE, a level or degree.

It's dystopian literature so may be on specialist courses or recommended with wider Reading for 1984.
As you like it is often not covered itself and is mentioned wider reading.

IntermittentParps
The fact people come from different specialisms matters when you've got some people who think what matters is whether a member of staff has heard of (insert author they think is important).

As you say, a good generalist education is good, and I 100% agree with you on the cultural, social and political breadth as well. That doesn't equal "must know of author A, that I think is important".

Like is said up thread, it makes no sense find it worrying or depressing that someone hasn't heard of Author A even though the person is a specialist in their area, have read widely across a range of topics, know the curriculum content to a high level and be a highly skilled teacher.

Another person might decide Author B is the must have author, and the teacher (who is apparently awful for not knowing A) might know Author B very well, as well as C and D.

Unfortunately the first person is a mumsnetter who thinks that not knowing A is a worrying sign because they're so wrapped up in their belief that their chosen knowledge is essential.

The point is if someone works in a museum with dinosaur exhibits for example and a member of the public asks about an exhibit , the reply ‘I don’t know much about dinosaurs and I’ve never heard of a Tyrannosaurus Rex’ might be greeted with incredulity. You do expect the person working in a specialist area to know about what they’re dealing with. That’s not snobbery.

It might not be snobbery, but it’s utterly ridiculous.

Around 700 dinosaurs have been identified, and I would imagine that any dinosaur exhibition would have X amount of fossils on display.

There are just under 130,000,000 books. Should an individual who works in a library be aware of all of them?

LolaSmiles, the simplest way I can think to put it is:

Shakespeare's plays (their titles, at least) are canonical (we could have a big discussion, I know, about who decides the canon/why/etc, but that's another thread).
The Handmaid's Tale is a major and culturally important work by an author who dominates modern literature.

They are both bigger than a discussion about MNetters 'deciding' what people should have heard of.

THT is on the current A Level syllabus, SunnydaleClassProtector99.

IntermittentParps
They are, but upthread people are saying they expect English teachers to know Chekov. It very much is about whatever people think other should know.

I've worked in several departments with a range of staff from different backgrounds. Some know lots about Shakespeare, some know a handful of plays, some know less (for an English teacher) and have had to brush up on texts that are in the curriculum. Nothing there makes them better or worse teachers, unless the marker of them being a decent teacher is whether they can list Shakespeare plays.

Handmaid's is an A Level option text that, for the spec we teach, is only an option text within oone of the option blocks. If someone enjoys reading war poetry, or science fiction, or travel writing, then I don't see how them not knowing a particular text is problematic, given they may well know countless other canonical texts.

That's the point, who decides that you must know these canonical texts, and that it's worrying if you know A, B, C, but don't know D ? It really is a case of whatever someone thinks is important, regardless of the person's actual knowledge base.

SunnydaleClassProtector99.
It's an option text in one of the option blocks for the AQA A Level specification. I'm unsure about other boards as we do AQA.
Whether students study it depends on which route through the specification the college chooses.

@IntermittentParps

LolaSmiles, the simplest way I can think to put it is:

Shakespeare's plays (their titles, at least) are canonical (we could have a big discussion, I know, about who decides the canon/why/etc, but that's another thread).
The Handmaid's Tale is a major and culturally important work by an author who dominates modern literature.

They are both bigger than a discussion about MNetters 'deciding' what people should have heard of.

I think some Shakespeare plays are less well known than others, but As You Like It is well known. I've never seen it or read, but everyone's heard of it, surely? Same with THMT. Hasn't everyone at least seen protesters in red capes even if they haven't seen the TV series or read the book?

They are, but upthread people are saying they expect English teachers to know Chekov. It very much is about whatever people think other should know
I just can't fathom an English teacher not having heard of Chekhov. 'not having heard of' being the operative phrase; I'm not saying all English teachers should have in-depth knowledge of him or even have read him.
I mean, I did an English degree at a red-brick uni years ago and I've heard of Chekhov. Surely it's hard to get through an English degree without coming across him; he's a major modern dramatist.

Also, much of his work has been adapted for stage/TV/film, so as these things go he's quite mainstream.

Hasn't everyone at least seen protesters in red capes even if they haven't seen the TV series or read the book?

Maybe most people have, but won't know why they're in red capes if they haven't seen the drama series or read the book. I don't know why you think that people in red capes will magically transmit knowledge of the book to anyone who sees them.

I don't know why you think that people in red capes will magically transmit knowledge of the book to anyone who sees them.
TV and print news usually captions/accompanies these pics with a line to the effect that the protesters are wearing Handmaid's Tale-style clothes.

@IrmaFayLear

THT is on the current A Level syllabus, SunnydaleClassProtector99.

As one of six potential core texts on the AQA spec for 4.2 Option 2, only one of which has to be used - the school/college has to make the choice to use both the particular course option for Modern Literature and then that particular book; when you look at the number of decisions that have to be made in order to pick Atwood over Hemingway, Williams, Keasey, Alice Walker (who also has the advantage of providing a more inclusive, not so white centred view of female experience) , Winterson, Heaney, Hughes and Plath, even just in that subsection of the course you've got a lot of A Level students who would never have had it inflicted upon them it featuring in their course.

Although at least they've abandoned the sodding Wasteland now. That was even more depressing after doing Othello, The Handmaid's Tale, The Color Purple, The fucking Rainbow, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest. At least we had the Canterbury Tales (General Prologue at the time) as a bit of light relief from the Men Are Shit course before we came crashing into TS Eliot's dire fucking misery for the last few weeks.

@IntermittentParps

They are, but upthread people are saying they expect English teachers to know Chekov. It very much is about whatever people think other should know I just can't fathom an English teacher not having heard of Chekhov. 'not having heard of' being the operative phrase; I'm not saying all English teachers should have in-depth knowledge of him or even have read him. I mean, I did an English degree at a red-brick uni years ago and I've heard of Chekhov. Surely it's hard to get through an English degree without coming across him; he's a major modern dramatist.

Also, much of his work has been adapted for stage/TV/film, so as these things go he's quite mainstream.

Great navigator on the Enterprise, too.

That's what having a broad range of knowledge does for you - you can see outside the confines of 'literature' and to things that the average library user is more likely to have heard of.

That it's an option is kind of the point.
My point being that you could reasonably do an entire literature education up to masters and not encounter it.
I did dystopian novel 'Daz 4 Zoe' for GCSE. I don't expect people to know it though as it was one of many options and the syllabus has changed since then.
Not knowing either novel doesn't mean you're not well read. It just means you haven't read that text yet.

In fact, my university course deliberately set all non Shakespeare texts for the early modern course. Shakespeare was mentioned in wider reading but wasn't an important part because they were more interested in how texts progressed and evolved from the enlightenment and Shakespeare would only show one genre/writer's perspective.
What you're talking about here is popular culture and not literature. Shakespeare and Handmaid's have made the screen. That's what makes it familiar in a way Marlowe's work hasn't to the same extent.
It doesn't make reading Shakespeare any more valid than Marlowe, More, Dante etc.

If you're going to be snobby knowing Shakespeare because there are a lot of films doesn't make you high brow.

@IntermittentParps

LolaSmiles, the simplest way I can think to put it is:

Shakespeare's plays (their titles, at least) are canonical (we could have a big discussion, I know, about who decides the canon/why/etc, but that's another thread).
The Handmaid's Tale is a major and culturally important work by an author who dominates modern literature.

They are both bigger than a discussion about MNetters 'deciding' what people should have heard of.

Yes!!

I will never forget being in a classroom with a H of D in English who said to the class ‘We all know Shakespeare is boring don’t we but we have to study him unfortunately.’ My heart missed a beat.