I suppose one should welcome every contribution to the debate about how to save libraries. And yet...
The blurb for the No furniture so charming event, part of the London Word Festival, reads as follows: 'A night devoted to the architecture of knowledge and the future of book-borrowing. Much more than just bricks and mortar, the public lending library has long been considered the cornerstone of an educated and literate population, but what lies ahead for the future?' It then refers to a 'crack panel', one hopes a description of their skill and intelligence, not their recreational drug of choice, of ' hardback, paperback and e-book judges' who will deliberate on a series of presentations on the library of the future; the list of presenters includes only one librarian, Ruth Beale, described as an artist and pamphlet librarian.
It will be an interesting discussion,I'm sure, but why do they consider book-borrowing to be the be-all and end-all of the library? This emphasis, reproduced in the make up of the panel, who seem to be professional book judges, worries me. And why not allow more librarians to present, to help Ms Beale? A lot of librarians have given a great deal of thought to the library of the future, across all sectors.