About a week ago, I was interviewed by Kara Jesella who was writing a story for the New York Times. She told me she was writing about how librarians are becoming more tech-savvy and how they are using technology in libraries. While talking to her, it became clear to me that she wasn’t particularly interested in what I was saying. I’ve been interviewed before, and it’s usually pretty obvious when you’re not giving them the quotes they want for the article they’ve probably mostly already written. When I saw the article on Sunday, I was very relieved that I wasn’t quoted anywhere in it (my friend Jessamyn, who is way too cool for that article, unfortunately was).
The basic gist of the article, “A Hipper Crowd of Shushers,” (if the title wasn’t bad enough) is that these days, librarians are more than bun-wearing spinster book-lovers who hate to have their quiet and orderly library disturbed by human beings. Librarians can be hip, though still in a geeky tattoo of the federal depository library logo, trendy granny glasses and mixed drinks classified by Dewey numbers kind of way. And shockingly, librarians aren’t just women… there are “guybrarians” out there too. And we’re not just about books anymore, we’re also “about organizing and connecting people with information” (I guess I have to wonder when the profession wasn’t about these things). It felt to me like the author hadn’t been to a library in a long time, had never known a librarian personally prior to researching the article, and thought she was making an important discovery in finding that librarians are not how they’ve been portrayed in movies since the 1930s. I should have guessed the article would be more like this when I Googled Ms. Jesella last week and found a whole bunch of article she’d written for the style section (though her book on Sassy magazine — one of my faves growing up — sounds pretty cool). Just when I was thinking of subscribing to the Sunday New York Times again (after a lapse of 8 years) I am again reminded of how completely out of touch they usually are. That’s money better spent on the Wii Adam and I have been wanting to buy for our anniversary next month.
I strongly agree with Sophie Brookover Melissa Rabey who argues that by embracing the New York Times’ portrayal of librarians, we are only trading one stereotype for another. Just about every profession has been stereotyped by Hollywood and some stereotypes have stuck more than others. Few members of any profession are as painfully aware of and as uncomfortable with that stereotype as librarians are. It goes back again to the collective self-esteem thing. Like any profession, there are all sorts of people who decide to get involved in it for all sorts of reasons. People from all walks of life end up in this profession and the vast majority of them do not fit either the Hollywood stereotype nor the New York Times stereotype.
Perhaps I should write an article that exposes the fact that not all journalists fit the stereotypes portrayed in Frank Capra films and replicated in so many others throughout the years (like The Hudsucker Proxy):
the energetic, opportunistic reporter who would do anything for a scoop; the cynical big-city newspaper editor committed to getting the story first, even if it means strangling his reporters to do it; the tough, sarcastic sob sister trying desperately to outdo her male competition; or the morally bankrupt, ruthless publisher who uses the power of the press for his or her own ends.
I’m glad we have hipster librarians and tattooed librarians. I’m also glad we have baby boomer librarians, conservative librarians, techie librarians, activist librarians, librarians who are veterans, librarians who have come from other professions, librarians who are into sports, librarians who watch the same junk reality TV I watch, and much more. We all bring different ideas and experiences to the table and I’m damn proud to be a part of such a diverse and dynamic profession.
For some others views of this article, check out Karen Schneider (yeah, where are those $50K library jobs in NYC?!?!?), Gothamist (you mean my kindergarten teacher didn’t sleep in the gym?), Eric Childress, and Informationatrix.
Thanks for this, Meredith!
I’ve had many things on my mind lately about our profession and I must say that this article did nothing to help. In fact, it made them worse. I am neither young, cool, and certainly not “hipster.” While I may have some things in common with the old stereotype and some with this new one I certainly fit neither. As with many of us, there are things about me that could shatter either stereotype.
Either way, classified and typed however as whomever may feel the need, I’d still like to think that I’m going to be a good librarian.
Thank you.
You are going to be a damn good librarian, Mark. Even without hipster glasses and book-related tattoos. 😉
Thanks for the inclusion, Meredith!
As I said in my blog post, it was especially mortifying to see that this article seemed to uniformly portray those entering library school essentially right out of college (as I did) as having entered it primarily to mingle with other twentysomethings more enamored of the trappings of the profession than its actual mission.
Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy the whimsical, kitschy aspects of the librarian public image…I own Desk Set, for crying out loud. But it’s not why I joined the profession, and this article makes the “librarian image” out to be the end-all, be-all to these twentysomething librarians.
I entered library school because I was inspired by both of my parents, who are and were librarians (which would make one of them a “guybrarian”). I had seen from a very early age how both of their lives were interesting and intellectually fulfilling, and, like them, I wanted a job where I was constantly learning, reading, and helping people find the information they need and want.
The idea that my profession would be considered somehow cool by those outside the profession never entered into the picture…which is likely why this article annoyed me so much. It claims to tell the story of the Gen X/Gen Y librarian, and, at least in my case, fails pretty miserably.
Yep, I thought the same thing when I read that comment about organizing and providing information… That said, I wouldn’t mind being considered cool (whatever that may be). I believe the article arouses curiosity about libraries, and librarians and that’s a good thing. Perhaps this curiosity will get more bodies into the buildings?
Sometimes I wonder if we should take the advice I read in Information Today (can’t remember who gave it, but it was in an article on licensing) — whatever you call yourself, just don’t call yourself a librarian. What’s in a name anyway?
As a someone who works at the public library, I consider myself mostly a civil servant. Pretty soon, I will be working in a community college where I will consider myself a faculty member. I think if we want people to see us differently, we need to market ourselves differently. I can think of quite a few people who are successful in doing just that and have a great impact on our profession.
Hey, Meredith — thanks for the props, but they really belong to Melissa Rabey, who wrote the post you’ve linked to (Pop is a team blog).
I don’t have a big problem with the article, perhaps because I *am* an occasionally pink-haired, frequently granny glasses-wearing quasi hipster, and thought it was nice that an image other than the pearl-clutching, messy people hating shusher was getting some play.
Also, I suspect (or maybe I’d just like to think this), based on the excellence and well-roundedness of her Sassy book that Jesella might have written a piece that would have included perspectives like yours, like Jessamyn’s work with rural libraries, and like KG Schneider’s decidedly non GenX or GenY tech-savvy gadfly-ness.
Look, I agree that it’s not cute accessories or wacky hair color that makes librarians cool or interesting. (In fact, would really like to get away from “cool” altogether, because as I’ve said many times, coolness implies a blase detachment libraries & librarians don’t and shouldn’t embrace.) Librarianship is interesting because it’s an evolving, people-centered, intellectually stimulating profession full of people who care. And while I wish that Jesella’s article could have told that part of the story, I don’t think such an article would find a home in the Styles section. That’s a piece for the Magazine.
I hope this isn’t too ridiculously meta, but I’m going to post this to the comments at Pop, too, to continue the conversation there, as well.
D’oh! Sorry about the bad fact checking! Will fix immediately.
No prob! I just want Melissa to get her just props (and also to prevent head-scratching when I go around posting comments like the one above, which disgrees with Melissa a bit). 🙂
You and your split personality, Sophie! 😉
Ack! You’ve outed me! 😉
Actually, I do sometimes disagree with myself — usually on the way to figuring out what I really think about a given topic. Right now, I think it’s time to unpack from a weekend at the shore & shovel myself into bed.
As soon as I saw it was in the Styles section, I knew it was going to make me roll my eyes. I’d love to see an in-depth piece about librarianship in the Times but then, it’s the style section. It was going to be horribly superficial from the get-go.
You all can say what you want, I’m going to try to change my official title to “guybrarian.”
You know, being a “guybrarian” is the new black. 🙂
This article didn’t really surpsise me, but I do have to agree that we are one of the most needy groups of people when we need attention. “We’re so not frumpy! Please look at me!” It’s like the “new breed” of knitters…”oh, knitting is not just for old ladies, it’s cool to make ponchos and scarves”…it’s KNITTING!
I went to Library School from 89-91, and yes, there were even tattooed, funny haired folks back then (me being one of them). I was in my 20’s and of course gravitated social-wise to the other young-uns at first. But we quickly realized that we were nothing new, image-wise really. And we got over it.
Of course, the biggest issue I have with the article (aside from the isipid writing) is I kept thinking of all those hipster librarians living 4 to an apartment in Willimssburg because NYPL and BPL salaries are so horrible. I’m a former NYPL employee and I’m still in debt all these years later from those unliveable wages. But I was so hip in the East Village with my bar-hopping library pals (when we could afford to go out and drink!)
The title was hideous, wasn’t it? And pretty much defeated all that came after it–like the journalist still didn’t get the point she was supposedly trying to make.
The article reminded me of nothing so much as the astonishing media discovery, in the says of 1990s “lesbian chic,” that lesbians don’t all “look like men” (I’d also argue that an extremely small percentage of lesbians look like men–though some look like butch lesbians). I responded in cartoon form here:
http://shelfcheck.blogspot.com/2007/07/shelf-check-19.html
best,
em
People are just more comfortable if they’re able to categorize and label, especially when it comes to identity. It saves them the trouble of having to figure out who people are as individuals. Especially with librarians, I think there is a kind of feeling of public ownership — so people are thrilled that “their” librarians will now be young and hip with thick-framed glasses. It’s like getting a hip new car.
And thank God you will now be trying to connect people with information. I was so tired of librarians sabotaging my search for knowledge. 😉
When I first read the NYT article this morning, I was happy: finally, a fun article in a respectable publication that stereotypes the type of librarian *I* am – a mid-20s, multi tattooed and pierced librarian who would love to go to a Dewey Decimal cocktail party! While I don’t dress overly hip for work (it would be completely counter to our culture, for which I have a healthy respect), I do express myself with funky accessories. I distinctly remember that when I decided to go for my MLIS, it was my artist, musician and techie friends who understood my passion for the profession, NOT my friends who would actually read the NYT Style section. If this article does nothing more than illustrate that our profession is not populated only by women sporting buns and sensible shoes who have permanently puckered lips from a lifetime of shushing, then it has at least served to weaken a dated stereotype. And while it must be acknowledged that in undermining our old stereotype, this article creates a new one, I’d rather be in a profession that can claim two full-spectrum separated stereotypes than just one, as by defining the extremes, the likelihood of seeing all those in-between increases. That can’t possibly be a bad thing.
We live in a stereotypical world and I, for one, will take hip over spinster any day!
I’ve pointed this article out to many people outside of the field and they all really loved and connected to it.
Next, we’ll be doing the Macarena, like Dr. Evil did for his son to prove he was “hip.” (Austin Powers fans know how that panned out…)
Wow! So many great comments! It’s interesting to see all of the nuanced views of this issue. I think our own view of the profession and our place in it probably affects our view of the article.
Emily, that very same stereotype you’d mentioned in your cartoon was one I was thinking of when I read the article! Love it! 🙂
Maybe I’m being curmudgeonly here, but I think the article is also pandering to the cool kids a bit. My library school had its crew of hipsters, cliqueish and fashionable, and I avoided them just like I avoided them in other areas of my life: because they wore librarianship like an accessory, a retro compliment to their twee existence. They didn’t much like me, anyway, since I was always doing dull things like research and studying, instead of sipping Dewey cocktails.
I think the article also irks me because it seems to necessarily equate tattoos (check) and strange hair (check) and general young-ish-ness (check) with a devotion to fashion and nightlife (not check). It probably won’t go very far to encourage people to start taking librarians seriously.
Isn’t it possible, though, to drink Dewey Cocktails (an idea that reminds me of the very funny “Guess the Book Title By Dewey Number” competition in Allen Kurzweil’s “The Grand Complication”), and be a conscientious student? As someone who loves twee music, ponders tattoo ideas based on famous children’s book illustrations, *and* who works damn hard at being a seriously good librarian, I just don’t see why it can’t be both-and, rather than either-or.
The article presents an alternative (and in my view, more positive) stereotype to the one we’ve been saddled with for generations. It seems like we all agree that the truth is to be found somewhere in the middle of the stereotypes presented. The more I think about it, the more mystified I am about the uproar this article has caused in the biblioblogosphere.
As Sopie pointed out in her last comment, I don’t understand why people are up in arms over this article. Yeah the title was really bad, and it did focus on the tattoo’s and peircings a bit too much. But come on folks, can’t we laugh at ourselves!!!
Judging the “hipster or guybrarian” is just as bad as judging the old lady with the bun in her hair stereotype. There are always going to be extremes in any profession.
Just becuase you are a “hipster” doesn’t mean you get along with fellow “hipsters” at work.
My apologies for my spelling. I meant to say Sophie not Sopie.
Oh, Brian, believe you me, I’ve endured worse assaults on my name than “Sopie”. I take no offense!
Also, and more on topic: I totally agree that being a “hipster”, whatever that means, is no guarantee of getting along with other hipsters. It’s like saying all people who are Geminis or who have babies should get along. Not going to happen.
I hate stereotyping, just hate it. I know sometimes generalizations are necessary to understand populations, but the idea that someone from one group can’t be studious or the idea that people from a particular profession must be a certain way really drives me up the wall. We’re all much more complicated than that.
I completely agree with Sophie and Brian. Why can’t we be good hard working librarians and have fun?
The Desk Set consists of mostly people in their 30’s and we have values. We give a lot back to the community and are “doers.” The article was in the STYLE section not in the city section. If you are pissed about the article, then I suggest you write the article you want to see. Kara wrote an article promoting librarians. Why cut her down?
This article seems as out of touch as the New York Times’ continued use of Mr. and Ms. in referring to people in print. No surprise, really. I used to work for a newspaper, and it’s alarming how insulated journalists are despite the fact they work in the friggin’ news.
But who knows–maybe this article will inspire some hipster wannabes to start using their public libraries more often. I’m all for good press.
“Why can’t we be good hard working librarians and have fun?”
Maria, I don’t know where I or anyone else said that librarians can’t have fun. Your cocktail parties do sound like fun and why would anyone have a problem with them? And I think you mistake not liking an article and not liking the promotion of stereotypes (whether negative or positive) to being pissed. I’m not pissed. I don’t care about the article. But it brought up for me some interesting thoughts about stereotypes… are they ok if they’re positive? Is it ok to say that Jews are good with money? Or that blacks have better rhythm? Those are all positive things, right? And yet they are stereotypes and ones that are pretty darn un-PC for people to say (and frankly, are as inaccurate as the stereotype of the hipster librarian). Sure, some people of any group will fit a stereotype, but many don’t.
I don’t really care about the article. I didn’t plan on writing anything about it until I read a bunch of things where people were so excited that the NY Times called librarians hip. I just found that interesting.
I am getting my MLIS right now and tons of my co-workers from my non-library job saw this NYT article and sent me the link, trying to be supportive… thanks for your insight and critique of it, as I completely agree with you!
meredith, thanks for sharing your thoughts and bringing the foolishness of NYT reporters to light.
once in a while these reporters write an excellent article, but that’s often the exception rather than the rule.
most often they’re clueless. completely, entirely clueless.
one of the most forceful ways of responding to them is to grab a screen shot of their foolishness and then explained in our own voices why they’re clueless.
i used camtasia studio (on windows) to respond to these two offending articles.
http://tinyurl.com/g9kql
http://www.writersforliteracy.org/jaguarcarreview.html
and then if you’d really like to have fun, create your own panel discussion on the topic. see
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GHVbxsbECCM
responding to their offending writing with more writing is battling them on their turf. we need to bring the battle to our turf — to the rich media web — which we own, and they visit.
phil shapiro, public geek
takoma park maryland library
[…] of librarians called "A Hipper Crowd of Shushers" … so far most librarians are unimpressed with the stereotypes the article seems to carry forward.Rohit […]
[…] […]