At the risk of forsaking my populist roots (aw hell, I forsook em' about
the time bell bottoms went out of style, I'm afraid) I'd say I'm more
interested in the latter than the former. A core list is not a popularity
contest: it's an attempt to define a kind of bibliographic or videographic
canon...a carefully circumscribed list of essentials based on commonly
agreed upon set of criteria (in this case, it's the implicit or explicit
values of seasoned video librarians). I realize that this is a tough order
for video, and that the popular and the canonical are not mutually
exclusive (and that building collections in a void is a real danger).
Nonetheless, let's aim for the ideal in a not-so-ideal world...
t 07:57 AM 01/06/2000 -0800, you wrote:
>Glad to see that Gary will welcome vendor-contaminated nominations as long
>as the vendor-afflicted don't nominate their own product. I would not
>nominate a title we carry [insert QBI joke here], so this seems to me a
>good caveat. As to Kris' point about the difference between excellent
>titles and titles that are winners with users, I would take mild exception.
> The list should not, I think, be limited to crowd pleasers, else why make
>the list. Again, this is only a mild disagreement; after Gary et al. have
>done the serious work, a wacky but wonderful list would seem like an
>excellent collection development tool for larger collections.
>Quality Books Inc.