Sometimes I think, through sheer tenacity and stubbornness, weeds have earned their right to be a part of the garden landscape. Heck, some weeds are just prettier than some flowers, in a rugged and natural kind of way.
I've read recently that a person's taste in music tends to calcify and stagnate when they're in their thirties and forties. I don't know how true that is, but seeing as how Dala and I like more genres than I can care to list and we're constantly finding and falling in love with new stuff all the time, I don't think that's gonna be an issue with us. That said, while I can enjoy stuff that's "jazzy" I don't think I'll ever enjoy straight up Jazz. It's just not for me.
So it turns out that when a book is ordered through the inter-library loan system and is returned, it goes back to its branch of origin. Which, on the one hand, it makes sense because maybe it's easier to inventory things. On the other hand, it seems like that uses up both a lot of resources, both in shipping the books back to the library or origin and putting them on the shelves. Obviously, I'm not in charge, so I don't get a say in things, but I think I'd do things differently. Maybe. I dunno.
So I went to a few other branches to see what they look like. It seems like selection is kind of weak across the board, where most of the stuff on the shelves are filler and there's maybe a handful of good books at best for any given category. I don't know what all goes into their purchasing decisions, but I feel like there's a chance they're wasting a lot of money on sub-par books. kleinbl00 is a fan of the adage "90% of everything is crap," which is debatable, but even if true, I feel like someone should be doing a better job filtering the crap out and filling the shelves with good content. It really makes me wonder what their curation process looks like, whether or not their open to feedback, and how influential that feedback is.
Maybe sub par books are the weeds of the library world.