My cranky cataloger side is showing.

Might want to make sure you're sitting down and that your blood pressure is under control before reading this. --JJR

Saw this first on LIS News posted by Blake; original post here.
The piece is titled DDC Is Killing Our Libraries.
It could alternatively be titled "I wish my Library was an iPad"

...this gem excerpted from the below made me want to scream and filled me with a near-blinding rage; see if you can see why...
(quote)

So when (not if, when) we get rid of DDC, we are going to need a new system. So what should it look like? The basis of the new system I would suggest needs to be the basic concept of “Don’t make me think!”

Yes, heaven forbid we ask people to think anymore; that's just inhuman.

"Instead of a 200 year old system that doesn’t make sense, we need a new system that just works."

It does work, and it does make sense; you're just a lazy idiot who refuses to accept responsibility for his own learning, pandering to other like minded lazy idiots. -jjr

Sorry, I know, I know... what we have here is a very cranky Academic Librarian and Cataloger who is between jobs and also recently has come to understand he probably has Asperger's syndrome reacting with a School library administrator from a Reference background. Sparks are bound to fly.

Truth is, I don't much like DDC myself; I much prefer LCC, which is what I've used ever since my undergrad years and all I've ever used in doing original and advanced copy cataloging.

Nevertheless, I will strongly defend it against people with nothing to offer by way of a viable alternative.

Fair warning, anyone who starts out their argument this way:

The Dewey Decimal Classification System (DDC) is broken. I am not going to entertain any sort of conversation on this point, it is just a fact you need to accept. Accept it, and move on. One of the incontrovertible facts that clearly demonstrate the brokenness of DDC is that we have to teach DDC, and that is the focus here.

Is someone who probably doesn't have the evidence to back up their claim and is declaring victory as a fait accompli and hoping you won't notice the hand-waving going on...nothing to see here, ignore the straw-man behind the curtain, move along.

Luckily he gets taken to task much more tactfully than I can manage in his own comments section...

He does backpedal a little, stating:

"Now I am certainly not a taxonomer, so these are just some thoughts to get things flowing,"

I don't know about getting things flowing, but I am a cataloger, and this gets my blood pressure up, to be sure.

Sweet Jesus, can we not keep dumbing down Library Systems under the banner of "facilitating access"!!??

For a refreshing take, a blast from the past, have a look at what noted Author James Michener once had to say about how to use a library.

Note especially this gem; he counseled his readers and fans thus,
saying, "Every time I go to the library, I make a beeline to the card catalog. Learn to use it. It's easy."

Change "card catalog" to OPAC and I still think it's a valid statement. It only sounds quaint because people have gotten lazier and lazier; Smart phones, dumb people. For frack's sake, people, PLEASE take some responsibility for your own learning. Yes, we in Tech Services could/should do a better job educating and communicating about how Library systems, specifically library classification systems, actually work...We Catalogers have to do it, have to get out from behind our desk and head OUT to the stacks, with LCC or DDC bookmark guides in hand, because our Reference colleagues are too often preoccupied with other Web 2.0 matters to care about the minutiae of cataloging and classification themselves, much less passing it on to patrons, who in turn wallow in ignorance, utterly ignorant of what the spine labels mean. We have to push back against Reference personnel prerogatives and aggressively demand wall space for posters with the Classification scheme spelled out in some detail, whether DDC or LCC. If DDC and LCC are increasingly regarded as irrelevant it is up to US, in Tech Services, to push back and show that the library still rests organizationally on these tried and tested schemes. We aren't cataloging in a vacuum, we catalog for a reason, but if we fail to communicate that reason to our wider patron base, we will indeed be swept aside by the iPad idjits. We can't count on our Reference colleagues to spread the gospel as it were; they're too beguiled by Web 2.0 and Digital Imaging and Digital Literacy to pay attention. I'm reminded of the line from Star Wars, Episode III, "So this is how Democracy dies, to thunderous applause."; Substitute the word Democracy with "library cataloging and classification" and you have the essence of what is at stake. Catalogers, if this distresses you, quit moaning, quit complaining, get up off your feet, grab a big red book, and go ride the circuit, preaching the LCC or DDC gospel!!

When I took the time to explain to TWU undergrads about the LCC system, what it means and how it works, their eyes lit up with a new understanding and they were very grateful to me for having revealed this bit of library arcana to them. It shouldn't be arcana at all...time was Reference librarians were well versed in it as well, but that is no longer the case. With the rapid pace of new technology I can excuse this lapse--I really can--but what it means is that we Catalogers and Tech Services people have to pick up the slack and get out there and educate people on why we do what we do and how it can concretely help them--because NOBODY ELSE WILL DO IT...not administrators, not Reference staff, nobody. You want to see the face of who will keep cataloging alive and relevant into the 21st century...look in the mirror. It's up to you.

Don't think you won't meet opposition and resistance--you will. When I tried to promote this in my last library, I got significant pushback from my non-cataloger Tech Services manager. They just weren't interested in library advocacy for traditional classification systems. Bibliographic instruction was too passe, in their eyes. In retrospect I should have pushed harder, should have been relentless in my advocacy. I felt hesitant to do so as a brand spankin' new cataloger, and the only professional in the entire Tech Services cataloging unit (I had two paras under me). I always felt queasy being THE cataloger as a mere Librarian I, too. Nobody should have to suffer through a position like that. It's unethical for a library to keep relying on Librarian I's to be THE cataloger and just rely on burnout and attrition rather than do the right thing which is hire someone with 10+ years experience who can actually manage an entire department and set its priorities competently, etc. It's unethical to set up a job to fail and just burn through Librarian I's every few years to save money. Sure it saves money, but it also is devastating psychologically to those put through the grinder in that way. I am hoping against hope that I can find a position in a large enough cataloging unit to be managed by a senior cataloger, or failing that, at least have a cadre of experienced fellow catalogers who can support each other and offset each others' strengths and weaknesses; Alas, the economy being what it is, I am forced to consider new positions that are much like the one I just left...THE one cataloger in charge of a few paras and students. I hate it, but I have to keep my hat in the ring now that I find myself unable to return to my former employer, AIG, for obvious financial reasons on their part.

Well, here endeth the rant for now. More later, perhaps.