In "105 ‘useless’ librarians" (Manila Bulletin, 28 July 2005), Adrian Cristobal says:
Having been accredited by the Professional Regulatory Commission, 105 librarians, just like 101 Dalmatians, make us wonder what to do with them? Their only possible employment lies with Powerbooks, National Book Store, and all other book companies which probably have more books than all the public libraries in the country.In the next paragraph, Cristobal writes, "I exaggerate, of course," but what exactly did he mean? Was he exaggerating when he compared librarians to dalmatians? While Cristobal will probably call me humorless, I fail to see the need to state that librarians are like dogs just to make a point.
But what exactly is his point? If you read the rest of his column, he says congressmen don't know how to read or write, that government does not spend enough on books, and that people who have nothing to read learn a lot from watching television. I can see the faint outlines of what he's trying to say, but it's not very clear. For someone who is supposed to be a good writer, he needs to work some more on getting his point across.
Incidentally, he never again refers to the 105 librarians. Who are these "useless" librarians? Putting the word "useless" in quotation marks implies, I suppose, that these librarians aren't really useless. So why mention them at all?
I hope someone who has Cristobal's email address and cell phone number reads this. Please leave a comment below so that all those who feel insulted by Cristobal's remarks will know where to reach him.
