In a perfect world, yeah, they wouldn’t be in my collection becasue nobody would read them, but no, I’m not pulling them out. I think the case can be made quite rationally that astrology is bunk, but I don’t think it’s setting itself as contrary to astronomical science. I would say they have a religious belief about stars. Now if they all included a section on how astronomers and physicists are totally wrong and that all stars are only twelve feet away from us, but very, very tiny…we’ll I’d probably laugh, but I’d consider tossing it.
Librarians make these decisions all the time. It’s just that we usually do this in the “what are we going to spend our money on” phase. We can’t afford to buy everything so we have a responsibility to provide the best of what’s available.
If I could attempt to reassure those in the dogpile (sorry, I forgot I had posted in this thread, or I would have responded earlier)…I am absolutley not throwing out books based on my own beliefs. No, I don’t believe in creationism, but I pulled those books because we are woefully short of space, they hadn’t circulated in years, they were in the wrong section (IMO), and, yes, because they’re bad science.
I hold no belief that the library is going to represent my own personal tastes, nor do I want it to. When I was a cataloger, I just shifted books like that out of the science section. Now I do collection development and I don’t see wasting our resources on those titles unless someone has actually asked for them.
My library is in a very conservitive southern city. You wouldn’t believe how many books we have railing against the evils of “homosexuals”. As much as I wish no one wanted those books, they circulate on a regular basis, and I wouldn’t pull them unless they were well past the “not used since” date we use to determine when any other book gets weeded out. Instead, I just made a point of buying new books addressing how to come out as a gay teen, the history of the gay rights movement, a compendium of scholarly essays on world religions and the way each reacts to sexuality, etc. I’m trying to round out the collection, not make it into my own personal book store.
I usually do sit down and read a chapter or two, but as I said in my OP, I was running in to pick up something, happened to see the book and grabbed it. I didn’t have time to browse through it as I would usually do.
No, please don’t feel bad. I went back and read what I posted originally, and I think I was half replying to the post above it and half just complaining about crap in my collection. It did sound like I was just tossing out stuff based on personal whim.
The Barnes & Noble I go to has a religious fiction section. I know it does because the last trip there my son asked me why it wasn’t all in there.
I don’t know if the publishers deliberately confuse the issue, or if they just pitch the book to a cover artist who can’t figure out how to paint a religious epiphany, so just does a Harlequin Romance cover sans cleavage.
I’ve been at other libraries that didn’t carry much in the way of gay history/themes/ sexuality because they just presume there isn’t an audience for them. Inevitably, I order a few and, lo and behold, it turns out we have gay patrons! :rolleyes:
Actually, we did have a couple of gay teen issues books, but they were pretty out of date. They had circulated, though. Considering that they tend to turn up in random parts of the library, I think they’re getting more “in-house” use than take-home.
I don’t think that it is the cover art that confuses the issue-- or at least I don’t think that the problem is that the artist can’t figure out how to draw a religious epiphany and so draws the couple a la Harlequin romance sans clinch. I think there can be difficulty striking the right balance in not sounding too preachy on the cover. There seems to be a strong market at present for “Inspirational” versions of just about any genre of women’s fiction–except those leaning more towards Erotica. Trust me, I recently read a work of Inspirational Chick Lit. It wasn’t horrible, though it was a touch preachy, and Chick Lit. is not in general to my taste, and adding the Inspirational didn’t make it more so. Trust me, I have read enough romances, “Inspirational” and otherwise to know that the basic storyline need not be significantly different (so the cover art need not be significantly different, so long as no mostly naked people are shown).
I took a quick look at my shelves, and it appears that I have only one Insprirational Historical Romance on them at this time. I used to have more.* It seems I have weeded the books on my shelves pretty heavily at some point.
Anyway, the book I still have is a “Forever Classic” and mentions that it is printed by Guideposts in small print on the back. This would be a pretty strong hint as to its nature.
The book in question is Summer Snow by Sandy Dengler. The cover shows a young woman clutching a book, a young man dressed kind of fancy, and a young man who looks like a woodsman. There are mountains in the background, and a line of wild Indians attacking in the foreground.
Because of how I acquired this book, I was never in any doubt about its “Inspirational” qualities— and this one struck me as better integrated and milder than many. Still, I’m not sure there is a whole lot in the description to clue in the unsuspecting. Other descriptions from other book jackets have slipped phrases like " she has nothing but her faith in God", “Trusting in God” or other phrases that warn one that this book will have a significant focus on the relationship of one or more character and God.
I still do have more, but I am not going into the attic to dig out some of my Janette Oke or Grace Livingstone-Hill books to find out what they have on the cover.
I did have a case of an previously-valued author going all Christian on me - in the middle of a series! Well, between a book and its sequel.
I thought Darwin’s Radio was one of the best new science fiction books I’d read for years, and so I eagerly bought the follow-up Darwin’s Children only to realise half-way through that the author was basically describing his own conversion-experience. Damn it! We don’t have that many decent SF authors left, and Greg Bear was one of the best.
So the fact that he is apparently religious automatically removes him from the pantheon of “decent” SF writers? Or just the fact that it influenced his fiction? Is there an SF author whose philosophical/religious opinions don’t influence his/her writing? Or is that okay as long as they aren’t Christian?
This is the first I’ve heard of anyone pegging Greg Bear as a “Christian” writer. If the novel is in fact describing a religious experience . . . well, so was Philip K. Dick’s Valis (a very bizarre religous experience, but still), and it remains a fascinating book. I certainly wouldn’t dismiss Dick’s work just because he had some admittedly freaky takes on religious matters. Maybe you just didn’t like the way Bear dealt with the subject, but some readers here seem to have a hostile reaction toward anything that smacks of religion. If that’s the case, well, so be it. But you’ll be missing out on a lot of excellent authors.
Also, thanks to volvelle (I spelled it right this time) for clearing up that earlier post.
No, I was thinking of a Simpsons line, although I do see there was a South Park episode which took this idea to extremes which aired three years after the Simpsons episode.
Well, look at it this way: If I’ve bought a novel because it’s touted as being about the political intrigues of ancient Rome, I don’t appreciate large portions of the book taken up by romance. Similarly, if you’re reading Sci-Fi, you don’t want the book to delve into theology.
I don’t mind Christian subject matter as long as it’s appropriate to the topic. If I’m reading a novel set in a monastery, I fully expect there to be a lot of discussion about religion. What I don’t appreciate is when it’s wedged into an otherwise secular story, especially if I didn’t expect it.
It was the change in the nature of the written output caused by his enthusiasm for his new beliefs that, I felt, qualified it for this thread.
And before this book, as far as I’m aware he wasn’t. He explicitly talks in the endnotes about his conversion experience. I wouldn’t be surprised if the novelty wears off fairly soon and he becomes a little less gushy about the whole deal.
