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?

And to complicate things even further our English teachers also teach Scottish books

Oh don’t be ridiculous. Of course English teachers teach authors other than just English writers.

But English teachers teach English books, not translated books. As a German graduate I would not expect English teachers to be familiar with Goethe or Heinrich Boell

That's a joke, right?

That's like expecting a till assistant in Tesco to know everything about every product in the store. YABU

Do you think everyone knows Titus Andronicus then?
As I feel like I've said a million times: no, but I'd expect someone with at least some grounding in literature studies to know, if the play was named, who wrote it.

But English teachers teach English books, not translated books. As a German graduate I would not expect English teachers to be familiar with Goethe or Heinrich Boell.
loop, I'm asking this genuinely: is that a serious statement?

So Shakespeare is the line then? Or would you expect said worker to identify the author of Dr Faustus and Tamburlaine too?

Is the focus just on early modern or would you expect familiarity with Greek classics, gothic literature and post war in equal respect?
Some universities have got rid of Shakespeare and early modern English to make way for a broader range of authors, which is interesting.

@Tessabelle74

That's like expecting a till assistant in Tesco to know everything about every product in the store. YABU

No it isn’t. It’s expecting them to recognise the items going through their check out and know where they can be located.

So Shakespeare is the line then? Or would you expect said worker to identify the author of Dr Faustus and Tamburlaine too?

I'm repeating myself, again, but OK.
Rightly or wrongly, Shakespeare IS 'the line' (if by that you mean in the canon/more well-known), whereas Dr Faustus and Tamburlaine, as I'm guessing you know as that's why you chose those two, are not so much.
But in answer to the question, if someone had had an average education in literature then yes, I'd expect them to have a glancing acquaintance with Marlowe, if only because he's often mentioned in the context of teaching about Shakespeare/early modern literature and society.

No it isn’t. It’s expecting them to recognise the items going through their check out and know where they can be located.

I asked an assistant in Tesco where something was the other day. She said she was sorry but she didn’t actually know. I said no worries and went to look a bit further. I found it. We both continued with our lives happy and content. I did not judge her for not knowing something about her job, I’m sure she has lots of other amazing work qualities.

@IntermittentParps this is a genuine question, I’m not being goady - is Shakespeare still the line though? Is it possible that the line has shifted somewhat and that future generations have a new line? Or do you believe that no matter what, Shakespeare should still be the line? And why Shakespeare, why not, say, Chaucer? Who had a HUGE influence on our language.

Why Shakespeare? (Genuine question, just curious! )

Sorry, meant to add
Is the focus just on early modern or would you expect familiarity with Greek classics, gothic literature and post war in equal respect?

Again, someone with some kind of education in literature would come across, either directly or as part of the broader context, ancient Greek plays, Gothic literature (I did Jane Eyre at A level, admittedly hundreds of years ago, as part of which we learned about the Gothic genre more broadly) and some postwar writers: works by and the lives of people like William Golding, Doris Lessing, Dylan Thomas and Samuel Beckett are pretty well known and again, you'd come across them as part of any sort of education in literature, along with 'star' critics like Frank Kermode and F. R. Leavis.

@SunnydaleClassProtector99 - your previous responses to me suggested you also think there is a line. When I mentioned Romeo and Juliet and a STEM specialist being unaware of the solar system you were very quick to say these things were not like AYLI. Agreed. The solar system comment was deliberately extreme. So if you agree there are things it would be absurd for a given person not to know, you must also agree there is a ‘line’! Depending on context, yes, and fuzzy, but some sort of a line.

And not just a line, but a scale. Quite clearly Shakespeare is better known than other playwrights of his time. Some people you’d expect only to be vaguely familiar with Shakespeare. Others you’d expect to know a few of his works. Someone who’s done a phd on his work you’d hope would have much more detailed knowledge, including, yes, a working knowledge of his contemporaries.

is Shakespeare still the line though? Is it possible that the line has shifted somewhat and that future generations have a new line?
Well, people on this thread have said it's changing. Maybe it is. But someone who is post-school/-uni at this point in time would surely have studied Shakespeare, whether or not future generations are doing and will do.
And why Shakespeare, why not, say, Chaucer? Who had a HUGE influence on our language.
Chaucer IS widely studied/known about. It's not either/or as he dates from an earlier period than Shakespeare.

Why do librarians have to have read Shakespeare or Margaret Attwood? Is it in the job description? I thought "librarianing" involved "shushing", glaring and pushing trolleys of books about.

Another common misconception

@IntermittentParps but that person may have studied Shakespeare, but still not know AYLI? And if the librarian had not known Troilus and Criseyde I highly doubt people would be making the same statements on here....

Library assistant....

Captain, I honestly find it hard to believe that someone who studied Shakespeare would never have come across even the title of AYLI? (which is all we're talking about really, not 'knowing' it).

And if the librarian had not known Troilus and Criseyde I highly doubt people would be making the same statements on here....

I'd say in the general population Shakespeare is better known than Chaucer (again, if you've studied Eng Lit. at all you'll have come across Chaucer in some way). So I don't disagree about Troilus and Criseyde. But I don't see what your point is here.

@IntermittentParps where are you getting the fact that the Librarian has studied Shakespeare from? We know nothing of this library worker whatsoever, that’s the point, why assume they know a play of his which is mid-range? My point is I still don’t understand why or how people are demanding this person knows AYLI. It makes no sense to me at all. Why this Shakespeare play?

Your point is becoming rather blurred too @IntermittentParps

Knowing what you know now about a library assistant's job description, why exactly do you expect a library assistant to know this?

As I said previously, I would be more sympathetic to the OPs surprise if it had been Romeo and Juliet and Wind in the Willows or something.

I can't get that worked up about tht.
I see it as less of a line than more of a squiggle. I'd expect different people to have different pockets of knowledge. Omitting either of these texts imo is not a huge deal. Neither are 'big' enough to ensure exposure. Depending on the sex and age of the person involved I would expect a different familiarity with texts. I certainly wouldn't judge someone for not knowing the lesser known Shakespeare plays when they might be well versed in Tolkien or something.

And to be honest I think a little gratitude to volunteers would be more in order than feigned shock.

Captain and MaMelon, I've said all along I'm talking about someone with some education in Eng. Lit. Along with a lot of people here, I'd thought (and hoped) that someone working in a library would fit that description.

@IntermittentParps Yes but they don’t, so isn’t it a moot point? You can think that they should have that background, but we have no idea what background this person has, what skills they have, what interests, all we know is that they currently dedicate paid or unpaid time to a library and they haven’t heard of AYLI or THT. It’s a big leap to demand they have a formal education and know those texts.

And to be honest I think a little gratitude to volunteers would be more in order than feigned shock.
I think this is the heart of the matter, actually. And it has been brought up on here.
Librarians are highly trained and knowledgable professionals and replacing them with volunteers who may or may not have an interest in/knowledge of the written word is frankly insulting. And yes, I do know volunteers (in any area) are giving up valuable time and doing good, and I'm not saying we don't need to be grateful in principle.
It just seems to me to be part of the gradual creep of anti-intellectualism/competitive educational ignorance, and of what started with David Cameron's 'Big Society' –eroding skills and services that are properly funded and supplied and replacing them with underfunded or non-funded and inferior skills and services, for the purpose of saving money.

Bit tired of this thread now so am off.

@IntermittentParps
I know you've said you think that...you just haven't been able to articulate particularly well why you think a lib assistant's JD should specifically include a knowledge of those texts over others (esp the more popular works of fiction that library users are more likely to request at the issue desk)