New library still needs that human touch

There’s a lot of good things to say about the Peterborough Public Library’s recent facelift; at least, there is about the children’s area, which is where I end up spending most of my time (and not just because I resonate with Curious George.)

The space is radiant with natural light and a positive pleasure to wind one’s way around in. Various nooks and corners abound where young minds may, hopefully, hide away in to enjoy a good book. In the corner is a toy zone where pre-literate minds may choose from an array of plastic toys to gnaw on, and even some fantastical (yet strangely comfortable!) animal chairs available for lounging.

So far so good.

Where things went awry for me was at the book check-out station. There you will find no one to take your card, compliment (or denigrate) your taste in literature, or even click their tongues at your lingering overdue fines. What you will find is a machine that silently, efficiently, logs your borrowings in about half the time of a mortal librarian.

Of course. staff are available to assist with any flagrant system errors you may run into, but I couldn’t help wondering that, if computers can already find our books and sign them out for us, were they strictly necessary?

After all, flesh and blood employees have their “issues.” They call in sick, occasionally misunderstand instructions, and, in rare seasons, have even been known to make mistakes; in short, they are an element of unpredictabiltiy in an increasingly variable-phobic society. Computers, however, present no such risk - and even if they do mess up, you can throw a cup of coffee at them without getting jail time for assault.

In light of this, perhaps we should simply accept what many seem prepared to conclude is an inevitability, and quietly usher the analog staff to a dimly lit information desk next to council meeting archives. Or should we? For all our love of formulae, do we even have access to the simplest algorithm to help us navigate the ever-encroaching glacier of technology? Are we prepared to accept the consequences of assuming the validity of such can be justified by a neat evaluation of output? Dare we even dabble with the blades of the now whirring machine?

Maybe there were indeed discussions and a critical weighing out of pros and cons surrounding the elimination of desk staff, but to me, their absence seemed at odds with the general hospitality of the space.

Because at the end of the day, though a computer may get the tab right, it sure won’t remember your name.

Benjamin Inglis, Peterborough