An Invisibility Of Librarians

An invisibility of librarians What is the collective noun for librarians? Suggestions have included a ‘hush’, a ‘stack’ and a ‘catalogue’. Perhaps, a ‘collection’ is more appropriate.Or, maybe, an ‘invisibility’ – as no one seems to notice what they do! The Hollywood Librarian, Ann Seidl’s librarian-funded documentary, aims to be an antidote to invisibility. Promoted as the first feature film to analyse Hollywood portrayals of libraries and librarians, it compares them with modern information professionals’ lives. The film was premiered at last year’s annual conference of the American Library Association. An estimated 5,000 turned up to see it shown simultaneously on four screens. On 22 May, The Hollywood Librarian upped stacks and relocated to London South Bank University’s Keyworth Centre for a joint presentation by CILIP in London, SLA Europe and the University. The film, which was five years in the making, certainly created interest attracting an audience of 200. A collection and draw raised over £150 to be split between the film-maker and CILIP’s Benevolent Fund. Interspersed with clips from such titles as Sophie’s Choice, Philadelphia, It’s a Wonderful Life, Lorenzo’s Oil, Desk Set and The Shawshank Redemption are interviews with real-life librarians (including Nancy Pearl, the model for the (in)famous ‘shushing’ action figure). We saw San Quentin prisoners raising cash to keep public libraries open, John Steinbeck and Ray Bradbury writing in their local libraries and an interview with Katherine Hepburn’s sister (a librarian). Library destruction is also included: Iraq’s national library, the Library of Alexandria seen through Cleopatra’s eyes and a Californian town where taxpayers voted to withdraw funding. Censorship, intellectual freedom and the impact of the US’s Patriot Act are covered, too. My first impression was how different the reality of American libraries is from the image of almost unlimited resources and massive public support. I had not imagined the poverty of many libraries and their dependence on private funding and equipment donations – one librarian described how she spends much of her time chasing funds. The film is very book-based, with librarianship presented as a woman’s world in which paper volumes play the major role. Its ‘real’ librarians are touchingly enthusiastic about their jobs. As were audience members that I spoke to afterwards. Yet, there is little indication of the part played by institutional library and information services or the use of technology for automation and enhanced communication. Nor is the importance as knowledge gatekeepers emphasised of those who understand classification, cataloguing and information transfer. The film was long and poorly edited – like a self-published book. I asked myself: what’s the point? If its aim is to dispel myths about librarianship, it fails: there are no public showings and it is probably too dull. If it is aimed at librarians, why would they want to know the reality of library life? Can you imagine a similar film devoted to another profession: Hollywood Estate Agent?, Hollywood Journalist?, Hollywood Accountant? It wouldn’t work. Yet, librarianship publications and discussion-lists are full of such navel gazing. Not to speak of the much-loved ‘Media Watching’ column in Update.

Perhaps if the example of Hepburn’s dynamic librarian in Desk Set were more widely followed, the profession could be openly promoted, without the need to talk of invisibility. Or of a Hollywood… genre. Ralph Adam