STICKING TO DEFINITIONS

Mikhail visits the library to observe a new phenomenon. A book is reserved by a student if he doesn’t find it. This book cannot be then further renewed/re-issued (by another student who possesses the book) beyond the specified duration as it is reserved and will be pre-empted. One other student brings a book to the librarian who knows there is a huge fine on this student for defaulting the renewal/return of the book. Now, the Librarian is in a predicament. The student has come to the librarian to find the status of the fine (not necessarily to return/re-issue it). Every day that passes without renewing it multiplies the fine exponentially which only bolsters the library funds.

Now this student is present before the librarian with the book. Before her, stands another student who has reserved the book and needs it. On the other hand, if she allows the student to go without forcibly taking away the book, the library receives a huge amount of money.

The librarian wonders: It is only a matter of days, the fine will keep multiplying until it’s time to take the book from him for it is reserved.

Mikhail wonders after this incident. He thinks:

Shouldn’t we be sticking to definitions? What is a library? Isn’t it a place where a student can view, read, list, search and borrow books? How did it suddenly develop a commercial hue? Why wasn’t the student who had reserved the book get preference or rather be justly treated where in priority was given to receiving overwhelming amount of fine money (even if it is for a day) over his need for the book?
This makes me question certain things? Do we stick to definitions? Whom and what do definitions serve? Who should a library serve? Does it serve a student if a student is the subject of its definition or can the subject of the definition be compromised when wads of money come into the picture?