When is a library not a library?

For those of you who came in late, here's a taste of the brimstone Elmo has been dishing out lately:

"Libraries have had their day. They will not survive."

In a sense, Elmo's prophecy is already coming true. If you look around my Library, probably about a third of the 'patrons' are using free internet, mostly for amusement or time-killing, another third are de-campused students using us as a study hall, and perhaps another third are what you might consider 'traditional' library patrons. It has been increasingly clear to me over the last ten years that the decline in 'serious' patrons over-the-counter is due simply to the fact that these people (the ones with opposable thumbs) can increasingly get what they want via the internet, and through self-ordering from our online catalogue. Leaving desk staff to mop up what's left.

I'm the first to admit that, past a certain point, which we have almost certainly already reached, it's the patrons who define what the institution is*. And I'm not always pessimistic about this. Just as the baths were the civic hub in cities of the Roman world, there is no reason why libraries might not bid to become something similar today. My main concern, however, is that, having begun my present working life as a research librarian, I might be finishing it as a cabana boy.

*Though I'm reminded of the good old story about the crusty university lecturer who began in the era of men-only campuses, and would begin every lecture with the salutation "Gentlemen..." Over the years, women were admitted, but he still began each lecture with "Gentlemen..." One day, it reached the point where only a single man was enrolled in his subject, the rest of the students being women. He began the lecture: "Sir..."