WEEK 13 PROMPT RESPONSE (Separating LGBTQ and Street Lit Fiction)

I am a big, big fan of browsing, it is one of life’s purest pleasures. Personally, I am not a fan of libraries separating genres and when I hear arguments that this arrangement makes it “easier for genre readers to browse” (Novak, 2006) I think, but what about those of us who don’t look to genre first to determine a book’s appeal? 

Measuring beyond my own tastes, there are strong reasons not to divide libraries into ever smaller sections determined by genre. This applies across the board, but LGBTQ and street lit specifically should not be separated into their own sections of the library. 

 

Separate Shelves Enforce Stigma 

Both LGBTQ and street lit classifications carry the weight of stigma; separation into their own sections of the library both creates and enforces that stigma. Best-selling street lit author K’Wan told the Financial Times (2015) that he prefers to think of himself as a crime writer and noted he worries the street lit genre classification limits his audience and brings to mind “poorly packaged books...that aren’t edited.” 

Separately shelving books makes them “other” and centers books about heterosexual normative characters or ‘literary’ works as the standard at the top of traditional cultural hierarchy. 

If separate, where is this separate section located? The use of space in a library sends a lot of clues to visitors. Since these collections would undoubtedly be smaller than the bulk of fiction, they would necessarily be given a smaller, and likely more out of the way, space. Basically, separate is not equal. 

If the rest of the library collection is separated into genres street lit will need its own section. LGBTQ books are defined by subject matter, however, and in my opinion should be shelved as literary, mystery, romance or whatever genre applies under this system. 

 

Books and Authors Cross Genres 

Joyce and Saricks mention throughout The Readers’ Advisory Guide to Genre Fiction the crossing over, lack of defined borders, and merging of genres in literature, especially in recent years. The difficulty of placing certain authors and certain books into one genre does a disservice to the complexities of a work along with ignoring the complex interests of our readers. Authors- a go-to way for readers to pick their next book- also write across genres, making it more difficult to find all of an author’s works held by the library. 

Barry Trott (2006) argued:

“We would better serve our readers by devoting more of our time to providing assistance to them through direct service and building useful guides to our collections than by spending the time trying to decide where a particular book fits in the collection” (p. 35). 

Trott (2006) also noted that many readers use genre classification not as a means of selection but rather a tool of rejection (p. 34). These designations create false limits for patrons and ignore the appeal factors that readers' advisors are trained to recognize both within and across genres. 

Separation is Not Necessary 

The largest argument for separating LGBTQ or street lit (or other) types of books is that it makes browsing and discoverability easier for the reader, but there are other, better, ways to help patrons find books. (And in some cases, like breaking up author works or marking a book horror when a fan would call it mystery, separation actually hinders access). 

Anyone can point to the mystery section, but if we truly want to help patrons find the exact right book at the right time it takes a readers’ advisor who can make connections across authors, books, and genres. The RA interaction- talking books and building a vocabulary of appeal among patrons- builds community, promotes a love of reading, and offers a better access point to collections than genre divisions. 

For readers who don’t want to approach a librarian there is a wide range of passive RA that can incorporate LGBTQ and street lit with (or without) other titles in creative ways through displays, book lists, and shelf talkers. More importantly there is the catalog. RA expert Becky Spratford (2019) recommended, “We need to use our digital catalogs more for RA. We need to add tags and keywords that pull out all of the things we would want to call attention to with a physical sticker in the catalog.” Tags in the OPAC can be crowd-sourced and more reflective of a book's content and appeal than subject headings. A book can be marked historical, fantasy, and LGBTQ all at the same time without a lot of stickers, debates about shelf placement, or othering works based on minority identities. With all these tools it is simply not necessary to separate certain books for discoverability. 

 

Reference: 

Munshi, N. (2015, Nov. 13). Urban fiction: words on the street. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/08785ece-86ee-11e5-9f8c-a8d619fa707c. 

Spratford, B. (2019, Sept. 19). Improving discovery of #ownvoices titles without segregating books. RA for All. https://raforall.blogspot.com/search?q=genre+sections. 

Trott, B., & Novak, V. (2006). A House Divided? Two Views on Genre Separation. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 46(2), 33–38. 

Wyatt, N. and Saricks, G. (2019). The Reader's Advisory Guide to Genre Fiction. (#3). ALA Editions.