Issues with nonfiction designation
One issue I have when teaching teens how to use the library and library resources is the nonfiction section. In the past, there was the pat explanation that fiction is made up and nonfiction is fact, but that isn't the case. Even further, patrons I have spoken with (and even something I believed as a kid growing up) have strong belief that the library only has items that are "true" in nonfiction sections -- that libraries are in the business of protecting them from false hoods. During 2020, the big question that kept coming up for me -- through ALA, developing teen programming and dealing with patrons: Does the library classification of fiction vs. nonfiction legitimize fake news/conspiracy theories? In this context, I'm not really starting from a place where I can find common ground, since to the public, I am the institution I have this issue with. I don't have a great idea for fixing this (if others even see it as a problem), but finding language to talk about the flaws in the system would go a long way to helping people understand how to vet their own sources. It would be an excellent anecdote/case study.
(0) |
Comments (4)
I concur. Many time do I remind patrons that the nonfiction section also includes religion, philosophy and poetry, none of which could be called exactly true.
Hi J.H.:
This question of how to classify works in a more informational way is a thread throughout this online conversation. What do you think of Maggie's idea -- to call them "informational" rather than nonfiction?
What if we could change those binary terms to "fiction" and "informational" books? Just responding off the top of my head, but I agree, "nonfiction" is a problematic term. The fables and fairy tales in our nonfiction section are definitely not limited to 398.2!
LOL. Yes! I think it's the juxtaposition with fiction that might be the problem. Narrative and non-narrative? You put your finger on it: binary. How can we get away from that without it getting to be too much?