For someone who's made his name in the popularisation of history, he doesn't seem to have learned from it.
The history of libraries is complicated, and included chained libraries and reading-room libraries (like the British Library), and Parish Libraries, which collected uplifting works of theology for the edification of the vicar and any parishioners who could read and had an interest.
It wasn't until the mid 19C that more general libraries became a thing, and even then many were by subscription. The concept of public libraries paid for by public taxes is more recent yet.
But in all cases, the concept is the same: democratisation of learning. What Deary would seem to want is a return to where you had to be able to afford to buy a book before you could read it... which 1) if you can't afford it you can't read it so sad sorry not sorry, and 2) published reviews suddenly become much more important, rather than guidelines of taste. It also meant you weren't limited by how much space you had available to store books in, which for poor folk until very recently was a severe consideration for almost all, and even today for those without housing security, is a real problem. Even if they could afford to buy books, which they can't. And if they had time and inclination to read, which they largely don't.
The whole point of publicly funded public lending libraries was to make knowledge and entertainment available to even the poor.
Deary's attitude would seem to be that so long as he's getting paid, he's perfectly fine with the poor not even getting the right to read anything. (And that the Internet exists is completely beside the point, because if he doesn't like people borrowing his books, why would he be OK with putting them online?)
It's explicitly an unwinding of the liberalisation and levelling of the early 20C, a retreat to the attitude that the poor get what they're given or what they can afford, and they'll like it.
Which is to say, he's written a lot about the Georgians, and medieval poverty, and doesn't seem to have learned a damn thing from any of it.
IMHO
The history of libraries is complicated, and included chained libraries and reading-room libraries (like the British Library), and Parish Libraries, which collected uplifting works of theology for the edification of the vicar and any parishioners who could read and had an interest.
It wasn't until the mid 19C that more general libraries became a thing, and even then many were by subscription. The concept of public libraries paid for by public taxes is more recent yet.
But in all cases, the concept is the same: democratisation of learning. What Deary would seem to want is a return to where you had to be able to afford to buy a book before you could read it... which 1) if you can't afford it you can't read it so sad sorry not sorry, and 2) published reviews suddenly become much more important, rather than guidelines of taste. It also meant you weren't limited by how much space you had available to store books in, which for poor folk until very recently was a severe consideration for almost all, and even today for those without housing security, is a real problem. Even if they could afford to buy books, which they can't. And if they had time and inclination to read, which they largely don't.
The whole point of publicly funded public lending libraries was to make knowledge and entertainment available to even the poor.
Deary's attitude would seem to be that so long as he's getting paid, he's perfectly fine with the poor not even getting the right to read anything. (And that the Internet exists is completely beside the point, because if he doesn't like people borrowing his books, why would he be OK with putting them online?)
It's explicitly an unwinding of the liberalisation and levelling of the early 20C, a retreat to the attitude that the poor get what they're given or what they can afford, and they'll like it.
Which is to say, he's written a lot about the Georgians, and medieval poverty, and doesn't seem to have learned a damn thing from any of it.