Re: core list

Jan Derks (
Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:20:59 -0800 (PST)

Titles that appeal to academic libraries often may not appeal to public library
users. I'd like to see a list specific to academic libraries and one specific to
public libraries.
Jan Derks, Arapahoe Library District

"Kristine R. Brancolini" wrote:

> Because I brought it up, I guess I should respond to this thread. I don't
> see how a collection of 200 titles can be anything other than the
> classics. A good example would be _Eyes on the Prize_. It will be one of
> my nominees. I would probably nominate it even if no one were using it
> anymore, but faculty and students continue to use it, which is important.
> I don't see this as People's Choice vs. Idealized List in the Sky. They
> should not be mutually exclusive. Many of the titles that are most heavily
> used in my collection *are* the best we have to offer. That's why faculty
> use them! I don't propose taking our circulation statistics and using
> them to create the list -- top circulating titles do not automatically
> make the list -- but use will be a factor in my nominations. A good
> example of a heavily used title that I won't be nominating would be
> _Dreamworlds 2_. It's useful in an academic setting but it's no
> exceptional work of art. This raises another interesting point: What
> titles do libraries absolutely need, regardless of their quality? But
> that's another topic for another day... :-) -- Kris
> On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Gary Handman wrote:
> > This does raise an interesting point: are we aiming at The People's Choice
> > or some Idealized List in the Sky.
> >
> > 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...
> >
> > Gary
> >
> >
> > 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.
> > >
> > >Mike Tribby
> > >Quality Books Inc.
> > >
> > >
> >
> Kristine R. Brancolini, Media and Film Studies
> Main Library E170, 1320 E. Tenth Street
> Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405
> Phone: 812.855.6281 | Fax: 812.855.1649 | Email: