Look I don't use the actual library as much as I want to (Seattle). When I was job hunting it was one of the last places I went to to be productive. The open hours are abysmal,(10AM-6PM) was a common one. That being said I have found use in these tiny libraries just knowing I might pick up something interesting - and I try to return or find another spot to donate a book of my own. It's not like they're stealing funding from the city? Virtue signaling? Wealthy neighborhoods? Some people just like books and want to give back.
The point being that calling a book exchange a "Little Free Library" introduces the term Library. Effectively, people are paying license fees to a company in the midwest because they want them to be a Little version of something they know, rather than its own thing.
The people who build and use LFLs are the most likely to support a well-funded public library system, not the least likely. That's one of the key conceptual failings of the article.
Nah. I don't think I've ever heard the argument that LFLs are a substitute for public libraries, except in this article. Library defunding is always done on an "everyone needs to share the pain" ground, we can't raise taxes, we need the money to deal with crime, stuff like that.
If someone wanted to argue that public libraries are irrelevant, the Internet is a better argument than LFLs are.
I mean, I mentioned in another thread here that in my own town there are attempts to attack the library, and its not a "everyone share the pain" argument. It was national news. The people pushing it are straight up trying to get the library delisted from the ALA and the TLA, precisely so they can control the content on the shelves. You can go to youtube right now and see the arguments, made in a Texas county commissioners court, to the effect; "if we can't succeed in having these books pulled we'll start our own library or get the county library funding pulled". Its not a rhetorical point, I've been active in fighting it here in my community.
i can easily imagine a NIMBY who doesn’t go to public libraries because they might get the poor on them, but puts a box at the corner of their street because it’s cute and raises property values.
> In September 2014, the mayor of tiny Vinton, Texas, announced plans to install five Little Free Library book-stops across town—while implementing a $50 fee for access to the El Paso Public Library system to balance state-imposed budget cuts.
From the article. I’m with you, I don’t think it’s likely, but the article did so their research and show that there’s precedent for exactly what you’re describing.
We can debate motives endlessly. I understand that this is an isolated case and it may be correlation rather than correlation, but to me the fact there’s even correlation means it’s worth paying attention to.
Edit: By “we can debate motives endlessly” I mean that your argument appears to be “the real motive for closing libraries is that no one is using them.” Which may have some basis but at this point is not substantiated, whereas the article did provide at least some evidence.
I live in a relatively wealthy neighborhood (Alameda, CA) next to a relatively poor neighborhood (Oakland). Lots of LFLs around. Recently we've had an issue with people raiding the LFLs - taking all the books at once. When confronted, one of these raiders admitted that she was taking all the free books in order to sell them to the nearest used bookstore for a quick bit of cash.
I'm okay with it, personally. The LFLs in my area tend to fill up and stay full with books that nobody picks up, and which tell a lot more about the neighbors than the neighbors intend to tell about themselves.
My wife put up a LFL in front of our house and this would have been great. We put a sign up asking for books when we started, and we got so many --- it really wasn't a big deal if people took the books.
Apparently some LFL owners mark the books in their box (with a stamp) in an attempt to prevent this. I've seen signs on a few to that effect. No idea whether it works.
"Little Free Libraries predominantly appear in medium- to high-income neighborhoods"
Because they don't want them vandalized or raided.
"registration fee of $40 to use the Little Free Library name."
OK, legit criticism. The idea you can trademark a phrase as generic and descriptive as "Little Free library" is bullshit.
I’m guessing houses are more spread out where I live (in Australia). My nearest LFL is awesome and within walking distance but highly unlikely to be discovered by chance, and I walk the area daily.
Yeah I imagine the key combo for getting a lot of LFLs in a neighborhood is low crime plus shit walkability. I mean if the nearest library's an easy walk away—or maybe even a half-decent used book store—the appeal's gotta drop. If, on the other hand, there's nothing to look at or do on a neighborhood walk but admire your neighbors' lawn-keeping skills, the appeal (and utility) of a few LFLs scattered around is way higher.
Looking at the map of my own neighborhood, I'd be surprised if half of the Little Free Libraries are registered.
If I didn't have a lot of money, but had some scrap wood to make a little something for my neighbors to use, I sure as heck wouldn't spend $40 to register it!
"'We submit that these data reinforce the notion that [Little Free Libraries] are examples of performative community enhancement, driven more so by the desire to showcase one’s passion for books and education than a genuine desire to help the community in a meaningful way.
[ . . . ]
[Little Free Libraries] are a highly visible form of self-gratification cleverly disguised as book aid, and the effects of this visibility can be better understood through a consideration of their role in a landscape . . .'"
So what? These sorts of criticisms are irritating. "Such and such is just virtue signalling and therefore bad" makes no sense. Everyone virtue signals all the time. It's just one of those things that human beings do. Accusing others of "just" virtue signalling is itself a signal of ones own virtue (in having deeper, more meaningful motivations).
> [a] librarian [... said] “As a librarian, my gut reaction to that was, ‘You know what else is a free library? A regular library.’”
With all respect to librarians, this is a bit silly. There are public libraries that also call themselves "Free". It's a bit of an outdated distinction, sure, but they've had their names for decades. (And there still exist libraries that are not lending libraries or not open to the general public; mostly attached to universities at this point, but not "free".)
I think they have their place, though, depending on the circumstances. In my town, you don't see these in the higher-income neighborhoods at all, you see them in the lower-income neighborhoods where there are no public library branches.
They tend to be filled with light recreational reading and children's books.
The main problem I've seen with them is that they usually aren't weatherproofed enough, causing books to get water damaged, and they provide an irresistible temptation for vandals.
Virtue signaling goes both ways. Yes, there's plenty of middle class progressive virtue signaling in having a little free library, but there's also plenty in bashing them as a threat to the public library system. Progressiver-than-thou is a seriously annoying thing.
My own gripe against them isn't the virtue signaling, but rather the KonMari problem. People who read tend to treat books as sacred. Throwing books out is a sin, even if the books are, frankly, junk. I live in one of those neighborhoods they describe, with a little free library or two on every block, and they are often stuffed with garbage books that someone couldn't bear to throw out - old Danielle Steele and Steven King novels, obsolete computer books, etc. It's okay to throw books out, it really is. The magic isn't in the book, it's in the reading.
That said, there are other ways to do Good Work with books besides little free libraries and the public library system. My spouse works with a nonprofit that distributes books for underprivileged children. Every time she buys something on Amazon, she also buys a children's book - exclusively books that feature non-white characters. Her goal isn't just to get books in the hands of poor children, but to get minority kids images that look like themselves, and get the white kids images that look like someone else.
I've finally come around to think that it's okay to throw books into paper collection.
It feels wrong, viscerally. You do it hoping nobody is watching you.
But that feeling is stupid. It's ecologically okay to recycle paper, and the books you're throwing away aren't one-of-a-kind. You're not depriving anyone of the book, they can lend it from a library or buy it themselves.
Right. Especially mass-market paperback fiction and the like. If the book is rare, or has deep sentimental value, keep it or pass it on to someone who will enjoy it. But "because I may read it (or read it again) someday" is not a good reason to keep them. And not every book needs to be donated or resold. If you don't want it, chances are very few others want it either.
> If you don't want it, chances are very few others want it either.
I don't think this is a good benchmark at all. It's a natural human tendency to think that we each are representative of "most people", but that's very often not actually true.
I prefer to donate unwanted books to the library, thrift shop, or used book store. Those organizations are in a better place to judge what most people want and what they don't.
My experience is "if I wanted it, nobody else will".
Lisp in Small Pieces. Sure, here on HN many people would be interested in it. In a smallish town, even though there's a technical branch of a nearby university? Forget about it.
English books? The library isn't interested (for good reason, they have limited shelf-space and very little demand for English books, there are two shelfs of English fiction and that's it).
And even university libraries. I once asked them to buy Compiling with Continuations by Apple. A real classic. No, they won't. Too old, they won't spend money on that. Especially since it's available in several libraries throughout Germany. I am certain they would have zero interest in most of the computer science and programming books on my shelf.
One of the very nice things that libraries (both public and university) can do is to make use of the interlibrary loan system. A surprising number of people don't know this exists.
Through it, you can borrow books from any library that is part of the system, which is almost all of them -- so even very specialized or obscure books that your local library won't carry can be ordered through them for borrowing.
I have Appel's book. I love the fact that I can get very expensive books "second hand". The same information without the high cost. Appel doesn't get paid but I know from my experience with publishers that tech books almost never make money. 3000 copies puts a book in the top 1%.
Carnegie Mellon teaches a compiler course using continuations so I'm not sure what's "old" about it.
Personally my solution to this is either giving the books to a thrift store or donating it to the library. Then it at least has a chance of finding a new owner, but if not they can decide to recycle it.
Another solution is trying companies buying old media. I finally got rid of Lisp in Small Pieces, which I would never have worked through anyway and some other comparable book I cannot remember for double-digit Euros!
It's hit-and-miss, though. I see no rhyme and reason in which books they're interested in, and the prices.
Just the day before yesterday I took some cooking books in pristine condition to the library. They used to have a book-swapping box outside. It was gone.
I went in (not too thrilled with the prospect of lugging it all back home) and asked about it. No, they don't have it anymore. I can put my books in the "free section" inside.
I did that, the librarian walked by to take a look and snatched the books away. "They are good, I'll see whether we can use them for the library. Usually we only get books we throw away immediately."
Lisp in Small PIeces is one of the best books I've ever read.
Besides being a deep reach into programming decisions it is one of the best examples of a literate program.
By "getting ride of it" I assume you put it into a glass case on your office wall. I admit it does deserve such a place of pride.
I just donated 200+ books. They were ecstatic to receive them. It's a reasonably good way to go. Plus, what they don't want or won't sell, then they can decide what to do with so that I'm not a book murderer. My book conscience is clean.
"Listen, I hate virtue signalling as much as the next guy, but have I told you about how I'm using book giving as a vehicle to dismantle racism by proxy of my spouse?"
I don't think you could have made this point any better.
That said, I'm not calling for the abolition of either public libraries or little free libraries. I'm just saying we need to be clear about our goals when we do things (especially social justice things). If the goal is "put more books in the hands of poor kids" as an act of personal charity, then there are better ways to do it. Hence the example of my spouse.
There's a lot of intellectual dishonesty in the virtue-signaling claims of those in the article. It's not the virtue signaling itself that's the problem, it's being dishonest about the motivations of others for selfish aims.
Why do people put up LFLs? To share something they love. To decorate their yards. As a statement of culture for themselves and their neighborhood. Dismissing it as "virtue signaling" is deliberately derogatory. And this sort of argument is rife in the social justice movement in general. As someone who wears the "social justice warrior" label proudly, I'm not fond of the warriors who prefer circular firing squads.
Originally an obscure descriptor confined to anthropology, it entered the mainstream via its use by self-righteous political and social commentators as a way of denigrating the thoughts, words, and/or actions of anyone whose opinions ran counter to their own.
By some of its many, constantly shifting, definitions using the phrase is an example of the phrase itself.
People who use it should be treated with the same level of incredulity that someone who uses the phrase "genetic terminator" when discussing vaccines deserves.
I agree with your point and I think that what your wife does is impressive and a thousand times better than a little free library.
However, I don't think that there is anything wrong with placing books that you no longer want in public place and exchange them with another book. It's not the idea of little free libraries that's problematic, but the execution.
I was living in a small French town from 2013 until 2015 and there was something similar to a little free library on one of the main downtown plazas. Old and young people from all demographic and socio-economic backgrounds seemed to be participating, taking and leaving books. I really loved it and I think it's a pity that over here, the little free libraries are only to be found in privileged neighborhoods.
I get the perspective, but the public library folks pushing this position are really cheapening what libraries are.
Books are a commodity with low or no value very very quickly. 90% of books as a commodity are worth less than a bottle of soda within months of publication. A LFL is really a way to connect with neighbors and get rid of surplus books taking up space in a way that is potentially better than dumping them in a bin.
A public library is in my mind a nearly magical place that's about learning and information. I'm lucky to live in a place with a vibrant library system. Our local branch is full of kid and adults doing homework, reading, playing, etc. Books are a big part of the expression of that, not the mission.
1) [99% of commodity books are not sacred] -> if it's damaged, through it out / break it down for recycling.
2) if it's of general interest, donate it to the friends of the library bookstore and let them sell it for 25 - 50 cents.
3) if it's too esoteric for [2], pass it along to a used and scholarly bookstore if there is one nearby.
I am not going to spend my time maintaining a piece of miniature architecture to do something that can be done so much better and easier already. (And I'm especially not paying a registration fee to do so.)
The quality of content, other than popular fiction which I care not to read, is horrendous at every community library I have browsed the stacks of. What the librarians decide we should like just seems not a good enough solution. Perhaps a more distributed model where people can bring their own books to share, silently hoping someone else will enjoy them, is far more interesting than that of government employees (regardless of their great intentions) deciding for us. Probably unrealistic but my $0.02
Something I'm not seeing represented in the comments: Libraries are already under attack. The library in my hometown was the subject of national reporting for the attempt by theocrats to attempt to remove gay parenting books from the library. It was vigorously protested by members of the community, the state ACLU actually sent someone to speak at our county commissioners court meeting. Its still ongoing and the fight has shifted terrain, but my point is that things like the LFL are used, again and again, as ways to undermine state institutions. When individuals and groups with a motive to attack and undermine a specific institution can point to an alternative that allows them to say they aren't actually, say, anti-intellectual, they will do that. On top of that, its worth pointing out that libraries represent the spectrum of human achievement and failure on their shelves. There's a beautiful quote on the wall in the downtown branch (Harold Washington) that goes something to the effect of "libraries are a record of both human genius and stupidity". Librarians are there to make sure that books that are records of our past, that may not have wide cultural currency, are not only preserved and defended, but accessible to the public for free. Exchanging that for an upper middle class located box of, truth be told, overwhelmingly Dan Brown style potboilers seems like a really bad call. Librarians as a group are one of the fiercest defenders of free speech we have in this society, and we subtlety undermine them when we crow about "free" boxes of mass market paperbacks and, at least in texas, where for awhile I stopped constantly to check, lots and lots of conservative Regnery-type political screeds and Protestant apologetics.
Who is using Little Free Libraries to attack the necessity of actual libraries? I've never seen that. The one instance they talk about is a mayor of a small suburb putting up some LFLs because the metro area library system started to charge a fee for access.
> Nobody finds Colson Whitehead’s The Underground Railroad in a Little Free Library—much less Wi-Fi, college counseling, or jobs services. A well-funded library system has little to fear.
"Little Free Libraries" have nothing to do with public libraries, and seem like a harmless way for people to spend their disposable income. They may be virtue signaling, charity, lawn decorations, recycling bins, or whatever, but I don't see any reason to complain about them.
The absolite vitrol at the fact that WHITE people were psying money out of their pocket for community libraries which had the side-benefit of projecting a certain image baffled me.
The fact that a paid product was used disperportionstely by rich peoppe who could afford them, and educated people that read was blindingly obvious. The fact that areas which already had libraries would have many of these paid mini libraries is fairly obvious because areas with libraries are full of readers. I fail to grasp the point of much of yheir demographic analysis.
For an article so firm that little libraries were virtue signalling this article was chock full of bog standard progressive virtue signalling like bashing on something because white people participate in it. Goddamned fucking White people reading and sharing after they've finished smh.
61 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 129 ms ] threadNobody will cut funding for public libraries, because "we have a LFL now".
Those people may cite LFLs as a substitute, but I doubt even that.
If someone wanted to argue that public libraries are irrelevant, the Internet is a better argument than LFLs are.
From the article. I’m with you, I don’t think it’s likely, but the article did so their research and show that there’s precedent for exactly what you’re describing.
Edit: By “we can debate motives endlessly” I mean that your argument appears to be “the real motive for closing libraries is that no one is using them.” Which may have some basis but at this point is not substantiated, whereas the article did provide at least some evidence.
"registration fee of $40 to use the Little Free Library name." OK, legit criticism. The idea you can trademark a phrase as generic and descriptive as "Little Free library" is bullshit.
If I didn't have a lot of money, but had some scrap wood to make a little something for my neighbors to use, I sure as heck wouldn't spend $40 to register it!
"'We submit that these data reinforce the notion that [Little Free Libraries] are examples of performative community enhancement, driven more so by the desire to showcase one’s passion for books and education than a genuine desire to help the community in a meaningful way.
[ . . . ]
[Little Free Libraries] are a highly visible form of self-gratification cleverly disguised as book aid, and the effects of this visibility can be better understood through a consideration of their role in a landscape . . .'"
With all respect to librarians, this is a bit silly. There are public libraries that also call themselves "Free". It's a bit of an outdated distinction, sure, but they've had their names for decades. (And there still exist libraries that are not lending libraries or not open to the general public; mostly attached to universities at this point, but not "free".)
They tend to be filled with light recreational reading and children's books.
The main problem I've seen with them is that they usually aren't weatherproofed enough, causing books to get water damaged, and they provide an irresistible temptation for vandals.
My own gripe against them isn't the virtue signaling, but rather the KonMari problem. People who read tend to treat books as sacred. Throwing books out is a sin, even if the books are, frankly, junk. I live in one of those neighborhoods they describe, with a little free library or two on every block, and they are often stuffed with garbage books that someone couldn't bear to throw out - old Danielle Steele and Steven King novels, obsolete computer books, etc. It's okay to throw books out, it really is. The magic isn't in the book, it's in the reading.
That said, there are other ways to do Good Work with books besides little free libraries and the public library system. My spouse works with a nonprofit that distributes books for underprivileged children. Every time she buys something on Amazon, she also buys a children's book - exclusively books that feature non-white characters. Her goal isn't just to get books in the hands of poor children, but to get minority kids images that look like themselves, and get the white kids images that look like someone else.
I don't think this is a good benchmark at all. It's a natural human tendency to think that we each are representative of "most people", but that's very often not actually true.
I prefer to donate unwanted books to the library, thrift shop, or used book store. Those organizations are in a better place to judge what most people want and what they don't.
Lisp in Small Pieces. Sure, here on HN many people would be interested in it. In a smallish town, even though there's a technical branch of a nearby university? Forget about it.
English books? The library isn't interested (for good reason, they have limited shelf-space and very little demand for English books, there are two shelfs of English fiction and that's it).
And even university libraries. I once asked them to buy Compiling with Continuations by Apple. A real classic. No, they won't. Too old, they won't spend money on that. Especially since it's available in several libraries throughout Germany. I am certain they would have zero interest in most of the computer science and programming books on my shelf.
Through it, you can borrow books from any library that is part of the system, which is almost all of them -- so even very specialized or obscure books that your local library won't carry can be ordered through them for borrowing.
Carnegie Mellon teaches a compiler course using continuations so I'm not sure what's "old" about it.
It's hit-and-miss, though. I see no rhyme and reason in which books they're interested in, and the prices.
Just the day before yesterday I took some cooking books in pristine condition to the library. They used to have a book-swapping box outside. It was gone.
I went in (not too thrilled with the prospect of lugging it all back home) and asked about it. No, they don't have it anymore. I can put my books in the "free section" inside.
I did that, the librarian walked by to take a look and snatched the books away. "They are good, I'll see whether we can use them for the library. Usually we only get books we throw away immediately."
By "getting ride of it" I assume you put it into a glass case on your office wall. I admit it does deserve such a place of pride.
I don't think you could have made this point any better.
That said, I'm not calling for the abolition of either public libraries or little free libraries. I'm just saying we need to be clear about our goals when we do things (especially social justice things). If the goal is "put more books in the hands of poor kids" as an act of personal charity, then there are better ways to do it. Hence the example of my spouse.
There's a lot of intellectual dishonesty in the virtue-signaling claims of those in the article. It's not the virtue signaling itself that's the problem, it's being dishonest about the motivations of others for selfish aims.
Why do people put up LFLs? To share something they love. To decorate their yards. As a statement of culture for themselves and their neighborhood. Dismissing it as "virtue signaling" is deliberately derogatory. And this sort of argument is rife in the social justice movement in general. As someone who wears the "social justice warrior" label proudly, I'm not fond of the warriors who prefer circular firing squads.
Originally an obscure descriptor confined to anthropology, it entered the mainstream via its use by self-righteous political and social commentators as a way of denigrating the thoughts, words, and/or actions of anyone whose opinions ran counter to their own.
By some of its many, constantly shifting, definitions using the phrase is an example of the phrase itself.
People who use it should be treated with the same level of incredulity that someone who uses the phrase "genetic terminator" when discussing vaccines deserves.
Books are a commodity with low or no value very very quickly. 90% of books as a commodity are worth less than a bottle of soda within months of publication. A LFL is really a way to connect with neighbors and get rid of surplus books taking up space in a way that is potentially better than dumping them in a bin.
A public library is in my mind a nearly magical place that's about learning and information. I'm lucky to live in a place with a vibrant library system. Our local branch is full of kid and adults doing homework, reading, playing, etc. Books are a big part of the expression of that, not the mission.
1) [99% of commodity books are not sacred] -> if it's damaged, through it out / break it down for recycling.
2) if it's of general interest, donate it to the friends of the library bookstore and let them sell it for 25 - 50 cents.
3) if it's too esoteric for [2], pass it along to a used and scholarly bookstore if there is one nearby.
I am not going to spend my time maintaining a piece of miniature architecture to do something that can be done so much better and easier already. (And I'm especially not paying a registration fee to do so.)
> Nobody finds Colson Whitehead’s The Underground Railroad in a Little Free Library—much less Wi-Fi, college counseling, or jobs services. A well-funded library system has little to fear.
"Little Free Libraries" have nothing to do with public libraries, and seem like a harmless way for people to spend their disposable income. They may be virtue signaling, charity, lawn decorations, recycling bins, or whatever, but I don't see any reason to complain about them.
The fact that a paid product was used disperportionstely by rich peoppe who could afford them, and educated people that read was blindingly obvious. The fact that areas which already had libraries would have many of these paid mini libraries is fairly obvious because areas with libraries are full of readers. I fail to grasp the point of much of yheir demographic analysis.
For an article so firm that little libraries were virtue signalling this article was chock full of bog standard progressive virtue signalling like bashing on something because white people participate in it. Goddamned fucking White people reading and sharing after they've finished smh.