AMONG REFERENCE LIBRARIANS it is axiomatic that people frequently
do not ask the question they really intend: What was the date of the Challenger
explosion? rather than, What was the name of the black astronaut who died in
the Challenger explosion? Furthermore, at least in Telephone Reference, the
helpful hints provided by patrons were not to be taken on faith. "I read
an article in the New York Times two years ago" might mean "I
read an article in the New York Post six years ago," and "Don't
bother with Bartlett's Quotations, I've already checked," meant
that Bartlett's should very much be bothered with. Reading people's minds,
or anyway soliciting information from callers that might help determine the
answer to the questions they really wanted as opposed to the question they asked,
was only part of the job. Not hurting their feelings ("Actually, Joan Miró
was a man, but everybody makes that mistake") was another. Some of the
questions were perfectly straightforward, of course, but even if they didn't
require a detailed interview or frequent updates with the caller, there was
always the nagging doubt that we hadn't provided as much information as the
Library of Congress might have. Milo liked the anticipate related questions
that could conceivably occur to callers in an alterante universe. Nothing wrong
with a little overkill, but sometimes he wouldn't let the poor people off the
phone. In addition to this, he'd tell them, there's this and this and this.
And this.
Return to the CATALOG