#hcod, book clubs, and workshops. oh my.

As you can tell from the title, this week's readings are leaving many thoughts swirling in my head. I shall attempt to capture them and pin them down on paper, or at least digital paper.
Last week's book club was probably one of the best "practical" classes I have ever participated in. Beyond the veritable fun I daresay was had by all, our book club conveyed usefulness, timeliness (after a week off to get back in gear), and some impressive experience. [Random thought: do we receive PEP credit for this class? We should.] Despite our gruesome and morbid readings (with the lovely exception of our practical reading "Four Habits of Highly Effective Librarians") our book club engaged in excellent and entertaining discussion. Preparing for the book club and reading the evaluations afterward was an eye-opening experience for me. I learned much about myself last week: most notably, I have yet to fully learn when to shut my mouth and when is the best time to speak. An ever-evolving process, I resolve to do better and speak less the rest of this semester, so that I might learn more.
I have read the ALA's Code of Ethics before for another class, but certain statements jumped out at me this time. A always, I like to note the caveat in the beginning that says these are broad principles and every specific situation is different. "We distinguish between our personal convictions and professional duties..."--this statement is hard for me to digest. Don't misunderstand, I believe in this statement wholeheartedly but I find it difficult to imagine myself upholding it when I am practicing the profession. My values are so deeply entrenched  within me that to know me, is usually to know what I stand for. I think this is another way of the good Lord telling me I need to (again) learn to keep quiet in those situations. Lastly, the statement that librarians are to commit to "maintaining and enhancing our own knowledge and skills" put me in mind of Agnostic, Maybe's recent barrage on older librarians. Could it be that he was trying to point out some older librarians no longer uphold this part of our code of ethics, for whatever their reasons? If he had quoted the ALA, would his points be more respected?
"Creating a Library Assignment Workshop..." gave me profound respect for the librarians at Texas A&M Univ. I found it interesting that they collaborated with another well-known center on campus to engage the faculty's interest; I see that as one of the biggest challenges to anyone attempting to create a workshop for the same purpose. I think one of the best portions of their workshop was the brain-storming exercise early on; I saw it as having multiple functions, all very useful. One, it was an ice-breaker; two, the exercise got faculty thinking about the usefulness of any library assignments they designed on their own; and three, it informed the librarians what they needed to focus on, content-wise, in the workshop. Very cleverly designed. Overall, the thought of attempting a workshop on a similarly large scale scares me. I'm worried how next week will go.


#hcod
I read Martin Taylor's post (he's pro-HC). His argument seems logical and I feel that he definitely pressures librarians to come up with the solution to the e-lending problem. I advocate more of a collaborative solution between both libs and publishers. Perhaps Taylor's point is that HC came up with a solution, if we don't like it, then we have to come up with our own version. I vehemently disagree that libraries/librarians think "authors and publishers make excessive profits"-perhaps patrons believe that but librarians know better. We're taught in our collection development & management class here at SI exactly what the cost of publishing one book is and how much of the retail actually goes to the publisher, much less the author. I find it hard to believe the rest of the country's librarians have their heads in the sand as to this fact. Taylor frightened me with his thought that e-book lending would lead to even fewer libraries, with fewer jobs. Scary to imagine for those of us about to graduate in a year or so. His concept of a "loan fee" as a possible solution I don't understand what that is or what it would look like; yet, my instinct is that it goes directly against the ALA's code of ethics (perhaps they have no such ethics in New Zealand?).
I chose to read the CBC's article on HarperCollins's new policy. Dan Miserer is the technology columnist there so I would suppose he is less biased than librarians. He really focuses on the magic number 26, in his article; Taylor didn't mention it at all. As far I can tell, Miserer anticipates libraries acquiescing to HarperCollins will set off an avalanche in which librarians will be crushed under a mountain of arbitrary numbered caps on lending and loan fees. Oh how terrifying to think that could be the case!
Lastly, I read Laura Crossett's blog post on the issue because she is in a public library and that's my area of interest. She too, insisted that HarperCollin's cap on 26 circulations is a ridiculous made-up number that is not realistic. She doesn't thin that libraries are big enough to impact the market with a boycott; instead she advocates for getting the public on our side so that HarperCollins and other publishers, will have to take notice of such a combined force.
My opinion? I feel that I am not well-versed enough in the knowledge of e-books versus print books, in terms of money and circulation, etc enough to even have an opinion. Still, I acknowledge that libraries cannot afford to pay what HarperCollins is insisting on so there has to be another solution.