But while the pedagogical and moral values of books, that is the benefits of right reading for children of normal life, were fully analyzed, the children's department of which I speak had almost no written principle to aid in the enormous task of determining the influence of books on children with social needs. Appreciations of the social relationships and the interdependence of characters in books which have proven themselves moving forces in the lives of children, gained through the testimony of men and women who know their indebtedness to them—such books as "Little women," "Tom Brown," "Heidi," "Otto of the silver hand"—gave a fundamental principle upon which to work. Books should construct a larger social ideal for the reader instead of confirming his present one. Then arose this question: Should we have books with weak social values in the library as a concession to certain children, or by having them do we harm most those very children to whom we have conceded them? The gradual solution of this problem seems to me to be one of the greatest services which a library can render its children. So long as this question is in process of solution we may accept the following as a tentative reply: No books weak in social ideals should be furnished, provided we do not lose reading children by their elimination. If such books are the best a child will read and we take them away, causing loss of library reading interest, we permit him to sink further into his environment. With the last principle as a basis, the evaluation of books was accomplished in the evolution of the department. The cumulative experience of librarians working with children showed that many books which lead only to others of their kind were weak in social viewpoint, and that such books were the ones read largely by those children most occasional and spasmodic in their reading. Here was a determining point in the establishment of standards of reading, for it brought us face to face with the question, Shall we consider this situation our fault since we supply such books to children who need something better vastly more than do others, or shall we merely justify our selection by maintaining that those children will under no circumstances read a higher grade of books? However, it was proven at the same time that other books were read also by children with social limitations, which, although apparently no better on first evaluation, lead to a better type of reading and this gave us a fresh impulse to consider the evaluation of books as a constantly moving process, and prompted the policy of the removal of those types of books which were least influential in developing a good reading taste. This was done, however, with the definite intention that an increasingly better standard of reading must mean that no reading children be sacrificed, an end only possible by a fuller knowledge of the value of the individual book to the individual child.
Now let us see what changes have been evolved in the book collections in the department under consideration in the past seven or eight years.
In the first study of the collection and before any final study of books from the social viewpoint had been reached, the proportion of books of the doubtful class to those which were standard was considered, and it was seen that this proportion should be decreased in order that a child's chances for eventually reading the best might be improved. It was obvious that the reading of the young children should be most carefully safeguarded, and this was the first point of attack. As a result, these two types of books were eliminated:
1. All series for young children, such as the Dotty Dimples and the Little Colonels.
2. Books for young children dealing with animal life which have neither humane nor scientific value, such as the Pierson and Wesselhoeft.
At about the same time stories of child life for young children were restricted to those which were most natural and possible, and stories read by older girls in which adults were made the beneficiaries of a surprisingly wise child hero, such as the Plympton books, were eliminated.
The successful elimination of these books, together with the study of the children's reading as a whole, suggested within the next two or three years that other books could be eliminated or restricted without shock to the readers. On the pedagogical basis, certain types of books for young children were judged; on the social basis, certain types of books for older children, with results as follows:
1. The elimination of word books for little children, and the basing of their reading upon their inherent love for folk lore and verse.
2. The elimination of interpreted folk lore, such as many of the modern kindergarten versions.
3. The elimination of the modern fairy tale, except as it has vitality and individual charm, as have those of George MacDonald.