Idle books and riffe raffes

Thomas Bodley

In his book The Library, Stuart Kells tells of Sir Thomas Bodley, founder of the famous Bodleian Library at Oxford University, who later reprimanded the librarian for including so many "idle books and riffe raffes" in the collection.

Today the word riffraff is applied mostly to undesirable people, but back in the 17th century, Bodley was talking about undesirable books, books unworthy of being shelved in such a reputable library.

Just a few days ago many public libraries had displays for Banned Books Weeks, highlighting such classics as To Kill a Mockingbird and The Catcher in the Rye. In most cases the books in question had not actually been banned, in the sense of a government entity prohibiting the publication or distribution of said book, but rather had been removed from a library or taken off a school reading list. Sometimes the book was simply the subject of a protest by anxious parents. Objecting to a book is not the same thing as banning it. Nor is taking it off a reading list, for books are added to and removed from reading lists all the time. A book doesn't have to be on a reading list to be read.

The library displays seemed a bit hypocritical to me, for these same libraries, because of limited budgets and limited shelf space, must make decisions about which books to acquire and which ones to reject. The rejected books no doubt include many Bodley would have classified as "idle books and riffe raffes."

The difference is that the books are rejected before they go on the shelves rather than after. It reminds me of auto insurance companies that give discounts to good drivers rather than raise the rates of those who have had accidents. It makes no actual difference in the insurance rates, but it sounds like insurance companies are rewarding rather than punishing.

In the same way, libraries don't appear to be "banning" books. They simply are not acquiring certain less desirable books in the first place. Yet the results are the same.