XPost: rec.arts.sf.fandom, rec.arts.sf.written   
   From: jclarkeusenet@cox.net   
      
   In article ,   
   jaceybedford@nospam.btinternet.com says...   
   >   
   > On 26/04/2014 02:45, J. Clarke wrote:   
   > >> I don't know about libraries in the USA, but no_public_  library* [1] in   
   > >> >the UK would classify fiction by the Dewey Decimal system. The 800s are   
   > >> >literature, sure, and poetry and plays can be found there, plus literary   
   > >> >commentary - but not actual works of fiction unless it was something   
   > >> >esoteric. You'll find them in alphabetical order of author in a whole   
   > >> >nother section, sometimes with genre fic separated out and other times   
   > >> >with it mixed in. I've worked in libraries that did both.   
   > > Public libraries tend not to shelve fiction according to the Dewey   
   > > Decimal system because it breaks things up in ways that make shelf-   
   > > browsing inconvenient.   
   > >   
   > > That does not mean that the system doesn't provide for cataloguing them,   
   > > just that the libraries prefer to use a differetn system for fiction.   
   >   
   > Sure, Dewey provides a pigeonhole for everything but sometimes they are   
   > round pegs and square pigeonholes. Costume, for instance, could fit into   
   > the 300s (social) or the 600s (craft) or the 900s (history). When I got   
   > my first Children's library job, soon after college, I'd been preceded   
   > by two long-serving but unqualified librarians, each with quirky ideas   
   > of using Dewey, which meant that although nothing was _wrong_ exactly   
   > there were a lot of inconsistencies. When kids ask for a book on costume   
   > they don't want to look in three separate places. It took me something   
   > over a year to reclassify (or at least check) everything to make it   
   > consistent. (Using the simplified version of 17th edition Dewey rather   
   > than the swchools versiuon which was too simplistic.)   
   >   
   > So the classification system ended up being quirky, but consisterntly   
   > quirky.   
   >   
   > This was when we were on the cutting edge of computerisation because our   
   > library system was only the second in the UK to go computerised (mid   
   > 1970s). It was all punch-tape data entry and weekly print-out via the   
   > council's mainframe - and a catalogue on microfilm! Yay for the good old   
   > days! Honestly - I know there had to be an intermediate phase but the   
   > old card catalogue was much easier than microfilm!   
      
   Microfilm?  Ouch.   
      
   > We were really proud of it at the time, though.   
   >   
   > Jacey   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)