I received a few emails in response to yesterday’s post on the NYPL Central Library Plan (CLP) debate. When some guy on Twitter called me a “PC nitwit” (that’s a first!), it struck me that he — and perhaps others — assumed that because I was critiquing the nature of some of the debate, I was against the NYPL’s critics. That’s not at all the case. I simply didn’t lay out my own critiques because others, like Charles Peterson of n+1 and Scott Sherman at The Nation and Caleb Crain, have put forward very cogent arguments that encompass all the issues I’d raise.

I don’t intend to present myself as an expert on the whole NYPL affair. Yesterday’s (modestly intentioned) post was supposed to be more of a meta-commentary: a reflection on the nature of the debate itself — including a few lines of discussion that seem likely to alienate or aggravate other patron groups and make it easy for CLP proponents and library officials to dismiss the critique.

Nevertheless, in an attempt to wash away the stain of that “PC nitwit” slur, I’ve made some minor revisions to yesterday’s post (marked in red) and changed a word in my headline, in the hope of better conveying what I hoped to convey.

Recommended Posts