2. As to the matter of outside experts.—Most of us have seen bad examples of the work of outside experts, in fact I think we are safe in saying there are more bad than good examples. In the case of arts and sciences it is quite the fashion to refer the book list to the nearest high school or college professor, with the idea that in his line he knows all there is to be known about these books. In some cases he is practically given carte blanche and his selection is bought without a murmur. The natural consequence is that in many libraries are to be found high priced technical works of momentary interest, fit only for class-room or laboratory use, too deep for general reading and soon out of date. Most of these so-called experts are not even competent to select works for their own department, let alone the public library.
Personal bias, the quarrels of investigators, loyalty to instructors, jealousy of other workers in the same lines are powerful factors which far outweigh the question of real merit. In New England many of the libraries are overloaded with good, blue, orthodox theology, bought on the suggestion and for the sole use of the dominie who was on the library committee. It was a glorious opportunity for him and it has rarely been neglected. These libraries are now really addicted to this habit; it has become a species of intoxication with them and they continue the pernicious practice.
3. Choice by committee.—One of the latest fads is selection by voting or by committee. This usually results in a mediocre selection, all the really good books or pictures being left out, or else a preponderance of votes for a few favorites. Voting choice is seen in the list of books sent out each year from New York State Library as a result of voting by members of the New York State Library Association. This is a list of the 50 best books for a village library from a list of 500 books, including fiction, adult and juvenile. Of course fiction takes a large per cent., while the remaining few books make a most patchy lot. The first list is too large and the last list is too small. Another publication by the Regents of the State of New York is a list of pictures for schools—not so much selected as neglected by a jury of 75 persons. Between religious prejudice, prudishness, peace policy and finical art criticism only the husks of architecture and stately ruins are left for the youths of the Empire State to gaze upon. Think of leaving out the "Sistine Madonna," "1807," "Christ in the Temple," "Queen Louise" and the "Horse fair." Some of these were omitted in cold blood because they were "poor and popular" and "pupils would like them and should not." Most of us, however, have gotten beyond the idea of trying to make people read George Eliot when they want Mary Jane Holmes. Nothing I have seen in the nature of criticism is so cold, hard and repelling as this. It is to be hoped no other state will follow this example, but that is just the perniciousness of such lists made out by people who are supposed to be experts, but who too often fail worse than common mortals. This whole matter of selection by committee is virtually begging the question of individual responsibility.
4. Choice by librarian experts.—This seems to be the most satisfactory solution of the problem. It is true that many if not most of the existing small (5000-10,000) libraries have not or can not afford a trained librarian. But it is also true that more and more are employing trained people as organizers and an increasing number are retaining their organizer as librarian. It is their study and their business to know what books are best suited to the needs of the community. Even should we go beyond that into the larger public library, the reference library or the college library I still hold that the librarian is the best judge of books for the library. His taste is sure to be more catholic, wholly unbiassed and he makes a more even and better rounded selection on the whole. In the small public library he is able to carefully study the constituency and then knowing what books are standard in other places he makes the necessary allowances for the case in hand. The time has, I trust, wholly gone by when the local editor, local clergyman, and local schoolmaster have the pleasure of picking out their favorite books, or of ordering "standard sets" or the "classics" in history and literature at the public expense. Most of these books are on the shelves to-day faded but not worn, the leaves not even cut and usually only the first volume slightly used.
Of course books in useful art and sciences were largely overlooked. Nowadays library committees are turning more and more to the librarian, knowing that he has made a study of book selection and that they will get better results to leave it with him. This is as it should be and the librarian should not lower himself by going outside for assistance on any line. I count it as slipshod and a confession of ignorance for any librarian to tag around after outside "experts." Let him study up his subject and master it himself. There are only a few in which he cannot easily surpass outsiders, and profiting by his knowledge of the many, which enables him to do that part quickly and easily, let him pay more attention to the hard and less familiar subjects. The librarian who delights in religion, philosophy or folklore says of lists on biology, botany, steam-engineering or sanitation—"I leave all that to Professor So and So—of course he knows all about it." Why should he, more than the librarian? What is the librarian for, if not to know things? Is it not time to turn from the material things and concern ourselves more with a higher standard of scholarship and more outside work in our profession? And for the small libraries of 5000 v. or under there are the library commissions who are supposed to, and do, advise them. There is difference with the commissions, some are in closer touch with the local situation than others, some are more conscientious than others about costly books, and some are given to this "expert" business which I have named, but on the whole they are doing good work and bid fair to do better.
5. Matter of cost.—This should be carefully considered. I hold it to be little short of criminal to recommend high priced books for libraries of limited means. By high priced books I mean those costing over $5 a volume. This of course does not apply to reference books. And yet in one annual list such books constantly appear, as not only suggestions but, considering the source, as recommendations or even commands. I am thankful the Wisconsin Library Commission has taken up this work systematically and is doing all it can to discourage such foolish waste of money. The worst example is the "Encyclopædia Britannica" now from 25 to 10 years behind the times and never a satisfactory book of reference at its best. Take De Bry's "Mycetazoa," it stands on the shelves of dozens of libraries, leaves uncut, totally unused, each copy meaning at least four dollars wasted money. These are only given as an example—there might be hundreds of them. There are scores of books now published and more coming out every day on various questions of philosophy, sociology, science, art and particularly literature and history priced from $1 to $2.50 which are far superior for practical purposes to the heavy weight monographs at $5 a volume and upwards. You thus get two or three books on the same subject for the money, and in a small library this is a vital question. The money must bring in the largest possible number of good books.
[BOOK REVIEWS, BOOK LISTS, AND ARTICLES ON CHILDREN'S READING: ARE THEY OF PRACTICAL VALUE TO THE CHILDREN'S LIBRARIAN?]
By Caroline M. Hewins, Hartford (Ct.) Public Library.
A children's librarian has three sources of reliance in the choice or purchase of books. They are: 1, Book reviews in current or earlier periodicals; 2, Lists, graded or ungraded, for libraries; 3, Articles on children's reading in books or periodicals.