Last week I posted "The Crepuscule," John Usher's thoughts about the reasons for the demise of an independent bookstore. Maryelizabeth Hart of the wonderful Mysterious Galaxy in San Diego asks what I think about Usher's views.
I'm sad every time an independent book store closes. A year ago it was Coffee, Tea & Mysteries in Garden Grove, California. And Sherlock's Home in Winnetka, Illinois.
To be honest, I don't understand many of the correlations Usher makes. I posted his piece to find out what all of you think.
What do you think?
I'm late to the party, but, like you, I don't understand many of Usher's correlations. Yes, I know that corporate law permits large chains to reap cost and tax savings unavailable to independents and allows them to stock more books and charge less for what they carry. But I don't understand why he thinks that the quality of the binding or the content of the pages in the current crop of best-sellers has anything to do with independents closing. And I take serious exception to casting blame on librarians who, contrary to his implication, generally do not have control over their own budgets and who are arguably more committed to the preservation of the printed page than any other group of professionals.
Many of Usher's points seem to be about a perceived "dumbing down" of the reading public. And that's an important topic of discussion. But people still buy books; that they're reading The DaVinci Code instead of Prodigal Summer is beside the point. The real question, it seems to me, is how to put the independents and big chains on a more level playing field so they can compete fairly for a share of that buying public.
And for the record, I love my neighborhood Barnes and Noble because it is the only bookstore within a 15-mile radius of my home; if I had a local independent, I'd practically live there . . .
Posted by: Kerry | December 21, 2005 at 04:51 AM