BY G. E. WIRE, M.D., LL.B., _Worcester County (Mass.) Law Library_.
1. _Books and pictures should be suited to the constituency._--This may
seem so trite, so self-evident as to need no statement, much less any
argument to support it. But on sober second thought, all will agree that
it needs constant reiteration and appreciation. All of us are familiar
with libraries--of course not our own--in which we detect glaring
inconsistencies in book selection. The story used to be told of one
library commission that in its first epoch it used to send the books on
agriculture to the sea-coast, and books on fish curing to the hill
country. This is now strenuously denied but there may be more truth than
poetry in it after all.
In the case of large, 50,000 v. libraries and over, less care need be
taken, both on account of expenditure of money and on account of
worthlessness of the book itself. A few hundred dollars' worth of
rubbish, more or less, does not count and almost any book no matter how
poor comes in use some time. But in the case of the small, 5000 v.
library or under, with little money to expend and the whole realm of
knowledge to cover, it is different. Of course the covering will be
scanty and thin, but it will do for the first layer. They should buy but
few books in philosophy and religion, more in sociology, only the latest
and most popular in the arts and sciences, comparatively fewer in
literature and more in history, biography and travel.
Of course fiction, adult and juvenile, must also be bought and at first
a disproportionately larger amount in many cases. Too much reliance
should not be placed on what some larger library has or on what the
neighboring library has.
Avoid imitation and duplication, especially the latter. Now that
inter-library loans are coming in, each small library in the more
thickly settled portions of the country may be able to supplement its
neighbor. Travelling libraries should also help out the smaller
libraries which can ill afford to sink a large part of their annual
book-fund in evanescent fiction, which soon moulds on the shelves.
As the commissions become better organized, they should also be able to
send expensive reference works for the use of study clubs, and so help
the small libraries all the more.
The needs of the constituency should be carefully studied and the most
pressing should be attended to at first, others can wait. As to buying
technical books for those engaged in manufacturing, I think a more
conservative policy is now favored. Better wait a while and feel your
way before spending much on these high priced books which rapidly go out
of date. Theoretically the operatives of a cotton mill should be much
interested in all that relates to cotton, but practically when their
hours of drudgery are over they are more inclined to a novel, if
inclined to read anything. And how much encouragement have they to read
in most factories? Better begin with the owners, who may be on your
board, or the superintendent, who may live on your street. As liberal
purchases as possible should be made in reference books--always
selecting the latest and freshest to start on. For example Seyffert's
"Antiquities," Bulfinch's "Age of fable," and Murray's "Mythology" will
serve better than Smith's books, now out of date and expensive beyond
all return for the money invested in them. More will be said along this
line under head of cost. Of course in a library of this size, no foreign
books should be bought other than perhaps some fiction.
I thoroughly believe in America for Americans. Foreigners would not buy
our books under the same circumstances and why should we buy theirs?
Reciprocity is good policy. Even in the case of English books most of
those on geology, botany, zoology, on fishing and hunting, are valueless
to us, by reason of climatic, or other local conditions. Their local
history and antiquities are quite as unprofitable for most of our public
libraries.
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.
1. The children's librarian, or any librarian, who orders children's
books from reviews often finds the books entirely different from what
the description has led her to suppose. Even if there is no positive
untruth in a notice, it is often misleading from the lack of a standard
of comparison with the best books for children.
The papers oftenest taken in a country household or small library are a
daily or semi-weekly from the nearest large town or city, a religious
weekly, and an agricultural weekly or monthly, sometimes all three,
oftener only one or two, and it is from the notices and advertisements
with quoted notices in these papers that estimates of books must often
be formed. Libraries and library trustees who send book lists from such
sources as these to a state public library commission are often
surprised that they do not receive what they ask for, and write anxious
inquiries as to why certain books have not been bought. "There surely
can be no objection to them," they say, "for we took the titles from
reviews in the ---- or ---- or ----," naming denominational papers. Now,
lest the Children's Section should be accused of unfairness and
denominational prejudices, I shall quote no reviews from these papers,
except one which came from a leading religious weekly taken by the
household in whose pew I have a seat. It is of Eden Phillpotts' "Human
boy," a series of sketches of English schoolboy life, which is dismissed
with this remarkable sentence: "The scene here, too, is in the west, and
various hunting experiences are recorded." The librarian who orders that
book for boys greedy for big game will be disappointed!
Such a mistake as this is not common, but reviews in both religious and
secular papers are often perfunctory and meaningless. One reason of this
is that many books are published for the Christmas trade, between the
15th of September and the 15th of December, when they come into
newspaper offices with a rush, until they are piled in stacks on the
desk of the hapless reviewer, and hastily noticed, sometimes by title
only. In a new edition of Elizabeth Sheppard's fine, but forgotten
novel, "Rumour," whose keynote is the quotation from "Lycidas" on the
title-page,
"Fame is no plant that grows on mortal soil,
Nor in the glistering foil
Set off to the world, nor in broad Rumour lies,
But lives and spreads aloft in those pure eyes
And perfect witness of all-judging Jove,"
the reviewer did not understand the meaning of the lines, and called the
book "a good example of the working, influence, and effect of rumour."
On one of our own local papers not long ago there was a review of Mrs.
Barr's "Maid of Maiden Lane," which was referred to as the sequel to her
"Beau of Orange River." Even in newspapers fortunate enough to command
the services of specialists for history and science, and an additional
critic for novels, the children's books are hastily noticed, sometimes
by the youngest reporter in his spare minutes. In smaller offices the
task of reviewing all books falls to the hard-worked editor, who is,
like Jacob Riis, also his own "reporter, publisher and advertising
agent," but whose sense of literary values is often not in proportion to
his knowledge of state politics or local reforms.
It is unfortunate that in the newspapers of as high a class as the
_Outlook_, _Independent_ and _Dial_ the notices of children's books are
often carelessly written, and show the lack of a standard of comparison.
In the _Outlook_ for Nov. 27, 1897, Richard Pryce's "Elementary Jane,"
a most unchildlike book, is classed among books for children, and
"Pansy" and "Elsie" are recommended in other numbers.
In the _Independent_, where notices of books for older readers are
written with discrimination, Ellis's "Klondike nuggets" is described:
"Full of lively adventures and exciting experiences, and is told in a
straightforward, off-hand style just suited to the purpose." (Oct. 6,
1898.) There is nothing absolutely untrue in this, but there is nothing
to guide a reader in comparing it with better books. One of Alger's
heroes is mentioned as "An admirable boy with wonderful ability to take
care of himself" (Oct. 20, 1898), and a book by Stratemeyer as "a
stirring tale, told with enthusiasm." (Oct. 6, 1898.) Stratemeyer is an
author who mixes "would" and "should," has the phraseology of a country
newspaper, as when he calls a supper "an elegant affair" and a girl "a
fashionable miss," and follows Oliver Optic closely in his plots and
conversations.
Mrs. Cheever's "Little Mr. Van Vere of China," with its cheap sentiment
and well-worn plot of a stolen child coming to his own at last, is
commended as "well made, well illustrated." (_Dial_, Dec. 6, 1898.) A
notice in the religious paper mentioned above says, "He is a thoroughly
fascinating little fellow, and his story is told most acceptably." One
of Amanda Douglas's tales is spoken of as "A story with a fine moral
influence, yet not preachy, in the end leaving in the reader's mind the
sense of having been in good company." (_Independent_, Dec. 15, 1898.)
One notice of "Elsie on the Hudson" is: "The multitude of young people
who have read the Elsie books, by Martha Finley, will eagerly welcome
this volume by the same author. It has to do with American history in
the days of the Revolutionary war, and the style is simple and
pleasing." In another: "Miss Martha Finley continues also the
instruction which is mixed up with that young woman's experiences."
(_Dial_, Dec. 6, 1898.)
It is, I think, the same periodical, though I have not been able to
verify the quotation, which commends Harry Steele Morrison's "Yankee
boy's success" thus: "The book is interesting, full of push and go. Boys
will read it with a gusto; yet they must remember that what this lucky
Yankee boy did is not what they all can do." Another number which puts a
just estimate on Master Morrison as a "very unlovely and unpleasant sort
of boy, whose impudence and enterprise ought later to fit him for a
place on a yellow journal," entirely mistakes the purpose of Pugh's
"Tony Drum," a realistic story of London slum life, and classes it as a
book for boys. (_Dial_, Dec. 16, 1898.)
The _Outlook_ says of Frances Hodgson Burnett's mawkish "Editha's
burglar," which was well parodied in _Punch_ by Anstey in his "Burglar
Bill": "This story of the queer, loving little girl and her daring and
successful effort to protect her mother, and the equally queer burglar,
is too well known in play and story to need comment." (Dec. 10, 1898.)
This story is in almost all library and school lists, even the best
selected and classified. The same number calls "Mr. Van Vere" "a
charming story." (The adjective is used for four different works for
young people in that week's grist.)
Even Noah Brooks, in a signed article in the _Bookbuyer_ (Dec., 1898),
gives praise to Drysdale and Stratemeyer, commends the uninteresting
Chilhowee books, refers to Pansy's as "strong and helpful," and one of
Amanda Douglas's as "rich in chastened and refined sentiment." He
mentions Oliver P. Tunk's "Awful alphabet" as "a fit companion for 'A
coon alphabet.'" Perhaps it is, but when libraries and schools are
circulating Jane Andrews's "Seven little sisters" to teach the
brotherhood and sisterhood of all nations, and teachers, in the language
of Professor Thurston, of the Chicago Normal School, are "encouraging
each nationality to contribute the best it has of song, story, game,
home customs and occupations to the life of the school," it is wrong to
buy a book for a white child in which black children are held up to
ridicule, as they have been many times in _Harper's Young People_.
"Blackberries" and "Comical Coons" are also recommended in the _Dial_
(Dec. 16, 1897), where Gertrude Smith's "Ten little comedies," a book
entirely different in spirit from her "Arabella and Araminta" stories;
Marion Harland's "Old-field school girl," which has a story of horrible
cruelty of a schoolmaster to a child, and is not meant for children; the
silly "Elaine" book, and the equally silly and sometimes coarse "Father
Goose" are favorably reviewed.
The _Nation's_ reviews of children books have lately not been up to the
old standard, as for instance a review of Sydney Reid's would-be funny
"Josey and the chipmunk" (Dec. 13, 1900), which is called "a perfectly
delightful child's book, nearly as good as the 'Alice' books, and,
indeed, might be pronounced quite as good if Lewis Carroll, like
Shakespeare, had not 'thought of it first.'"
It will be seen by these instances that reviews help children's
librarians very little, and that it is impossible under present
conditions for a library to determine the worth of a book without seeing
it.
2. There have been in the last 25 years many lists of children's books
by libraries, schools, denominational societies and other organizations.
The earlier lists, although interesting to a student of the evolution of
the Children's Section, have so many books out of print or superseded
that they do not concern us now, except in that they are not made for
very young children, and often have a profusion of material which is
over the heads of boys and girls below, or even in, the high school age.
Some of them are made from hearsay or from other book lists, without an
intimate knowledge, or indeed any knowledge at all, of books
recommended, as in the following instance: A paper read at a library
meeting and afterward printed in the report of a state librarian
describes the "library ladder" as "a list of books beginning with a tale
of adventure. From this the reader's attention will be drawn to the next
in order, leading on and out, until finally the child will be
unconsciously delving into the mysteries of science; for example, we
could first take Butterworth's Indian story, 'The wampum belt': next,
Brooks's 'Story of the American Indian'; from this lead to Bancroft's
'Native races,' and finally various United States histories."
Any one who has ever seen the five ponderous volumes of Bancroft's
"Native races of the Pacific States" knows that although it has some
value as a work of reference, not as a history, for older readers, it is
entirely useless as a stepping-stone for children, who can easily go
without its aid from Brooks's, or better, Grinnell's "Story of the
Indian" to a good one-volume United States history, or even to John
Fiske or Parkman. It is no more meant for boys and girls than the other
thirty-four volumes on the history of the Pacific coast completed by
Bancroft and his corps of assistants.
Some tests of a library or school list are: Are the books in it chosen
for their permanent value? Has the maker of the list read them? Will it
tell an overworked teacher or librarian what the best modern
straightforward stories in simple English are, the best life of
Lafayette without any long words like "evacuation," or the best account
of a salamander in language that a child of 10 can understand? A list
for teachers is not a help in choosing books for children, unless from
the point of view of child-study, which has another place than on the
shelves of a children's room.
In one list the "Dotty Dimple" and "Flaxie Frizzle" books are
recommended for the third-reader grade. Children who are in this grade
cannot read the ungrammatical baby-talk easily, and if they could it
would demoralize their English.
Another has for the seventh grade a part of the "Library of wonders,"
translated from the French, and out of date 20 years ago. Teachers
should be careful in buying books of popular science that they are
modern, and also written in a style that makes them attractive to boys
and girls. In a long experience in libraries I have never found that
boys and girls liked the "Library of wonders."
A third, for children under 10 years of age, includes Miss Plympton's
"Dear daughter Dorothy," and even in one of the best and most recent
graded lists it is annotated as a "story of devotion and comradeship
between a father and his young daughter." Now "Dear daughter Dorothy" is
the best specimen I have ever seen of a kind of book to be kept out of
libraries and homes, the story of a little eight-year-old girl, who has
the entire control of the $1200 earned yearly by her father, a
bookkeeper with literary aspirations. He is arrested on a charge of
embezzlement, found guilty in the face of his daughter's testimony, but
at last acquitted through the confession of the real criminal, and he
and that important little personage, Dorothy, who takes all hearts by
storm, sail for England escorted to the ship by a crowd of admiring
friends, including the judge who sentenced him.
The next list has Mrs. Burnett's "Little Saint Elizabeth," a morbid
tale, and with it a reproduction of "Prince Fairyfoot," a story which
the author read when she was a child in a book that she never could find
again. In order to understand the pertness and flippancy of her style in
this story, one has only to compare it with the original, reprinted
within a few months in Frances Browne's "Wonderful chair," or "Granny's
wonderful chair," as it is called in one edition. A few lines in the
simple, direct English of the old fairy tales, are expanded by Mrs.
Burnett into eight or 10 pages, with attempts at wit and allusions to
unhappy married life, which should be kept out of books for children.
The same article in the _Nation_ which gives high praise to "Josey and
the chipmunk" thinks "The wonderful chair" prosy, but I have tested it
on children who do not enjoy stories unless they are simply told, and
have found that it holds their attention.
Books on differences of religious belief, books written in a style or on
subjects beyond the years of boys and girls, scientific books that are
inaccurate or out of date, books that make children despise their
elders, or have an overweening sense of their own importance, and books
that are cheap, slangy, flippant, or written in bad English, dialect or
baby-talk, should have no place in a school list, and books on poor
paper and in poor type and binding should also be kept out. There are
books that tell stories of wholesome, well-bred children; fairy tales in
the simple, old-fashioned style; out-of-door books that are not dull or
aggressively instructive; and selections from the best poetry to choose
from. There is room yet for the right kind of histories that are
interesting without being babyish, and accurate without being dull.
Lists are often made in entire ignorance of the limitations of the
children who are to use the books recommended in them. A
well-intentioned paper suggests for children of eight or over Ebers'
"Uarda" and Thiers' "French Revolution" as attractive historical works.
In science it mentions Hooker's books, which are quite out of date, and
in biography Lockhart's Scott and Forster's Dickens, which not one boy
or girl in a hundred would read through, great as is their charm.
Bryce's "American commonwealth" is also named. This list has either been
made up from books that the compiler has heard of as classics, or else
she is not in the habit of associating on familiar terms with boys and
girls, even of high school age. This paper recommends Sophie May for
very young children, and also the "Story of liberty," which a mother in
the New York _Times_ says is in the library of her daughter of eight.
This is a mother who would not allow a child to read Scott's novels till
14 or 15, and thinks Dickens too sad for even that age!
The hundred books recommended in the _St. Nicholas_ for March, 1900,
made up from many competing lists, are nearly all good. A few, like Mrs.
Richards' "Captain January," Mrs. Wiggin's "The Birds' Christmas Carol,"
and Munroe's "Through swamp and glade" have no permanent value. If one
of Munroe's books is to be included it should be "The flamingo feather,"
or "Derrick Sterling," both of which are well worth reading many times
and are great favorites with children. The defect in the list is the
same just spoken of, that too many of the books are for boys and girls
from 10 to 14 years old of bookish families, and that little attention
is paid to younger or less carefully trained children.
One list puts into the first primary grade, or fourth year of school,
for children nine or 10 years old, Abbott's "Cyrus," "Darius," "Xerxes,"
and other heroes, and Fiske's "War of independence," all of which are
entirely beyond the grasp of 499 children out of 500 under 12 or 14.
Lists should be shorter, and not too closely divided. A division, "Easy
books," should include whatever children need until they can read
without difficulty, and should contain books like Longman's adapted
stories from the "Blue fairy book" and the earlier volumes of the "Ship"
English history, Baldwin's "Fifty famous stories retold" and
Eggleston's "Great Americans for little Americans."
In one case where books are not classified by grade, Horace Bushnell's
"Woman suffrage," Hinsdale's "President Garfield and education," and
Wright's "Industrial evolution of the United States" are in the same
class with Emilie Poulsson's "Through the farmyard gate," with no
discrimination as to the age for which any one of the four is intended.
Three are beyond the understanding of boys and girls below high school
age, and if in school libraries should be for teachers only, and the
fourth is a book of kindergarten stories.
A book which is often commended by teachers and librarians is Coffin's
"Story of liberty," which I said nearly 20 years ago "is so fierce in
its Protestantism and so bloody in its details that it causes pain to
many a sensitive child." The pictures are too horrible for a child to
see, and the book, like any other which wars against any form of
religious belief, should not be allowed in a public school.
Some lists admit the "Elsie" books, tearfully sentimental and priggish,
where the heroine is held up as a saint and martyr for refusing to obey
an entirely reasonable request of her father, and where money, fine
clothes, and love-making at an early age hold too prominent a place.
In one list, one of Mayne Reid's books is annotated, "To read carefully
any volume of this author is to acquire a considerable knowledge of the
trees, the flowers, the animals, the insects, and the human creatures
existing in the region where the story takes place." In Mayne Reid's
"Desert home" maple sugar trees are tapped in the autumn and yield
nearly a hundred pounds of sugar. Emerson's "Trees and shrubs of
Massachusetts" states that although sap will flow in summer and early
autumn, it has but little saccharine matter. Mayne Reid's stories as
stories are delightful for children to read, but should never be used as
aids to geography lessons.
One library offers its boy-and-girl readers Bushnell's "Moral uses of
dark things," Mrs. Campbell's "Problems of poverty," Ely's "Labor
movement in America" and Shinn's "Mining camps."
The lists made by James M. Sawin, of Providence, are good and
suggestive, but better for older than younger children, including,
however, for beginners in reading some excellent old favorites like Mrs.
Follen's "Twilight stories," and for children a little older a book that
ought to be in print, Paul de Musset's "Mr. Wind and Madam Rain."
The Milwaukee list for children under 10 is good for the most part, but
includes "Dear daughter Dorothy" and "Editha's burglar."
Mrs. Whitney's list of "Books not usually selected by young people"
(first published in the _Bulletin of Bibliography_) is for the most part
beyond the grammar-school age, including such books as Sismondi's
"Literature of the south of Europe" and Ragozin's "Vedic India." It is
unclassified, good and not too American.
The Buffalo Public Library lists are the best that I have found,
thoroughly practical, well chosen, and in the pamphlet entitled
"Classroom libraries for public schools" well graded as far as one can
judge. The grading of schools varies so much in different cities that it
is impossible unless one knows exactly what "four" or "eight" or "nine"
represents to say whether books are suitable for it. A list of this kind
cannot be made without a thorough understanding between librarian and
teachers, a thorough knowledge of the condition of the schools and the
home-life of the children on the part of the librarian, and a knowledge
of books on the part of the teachers.
The graded and annotated list from the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh is
for teachers, not children, and has many suggestive notes, but will bear
weeding.
Many lists are almost entirely American, and seem at first sight narrow
and one-sided. A little thought and knowledge of the conditions under
which they are made shows the cause of this apparent fault. City lists
are made for schools which are full of children of newly-arrived
emigrants, whose first desire, as soon as they can read English at all,
is to know something of the great free country to which they have come.
It is to supply this demand that many simple United States histories and
historical stories relating to this country have been put upon the
market in the last five years, almost to the exclusion of other books of
the kind. Teachers and librarians should remember in making lists that
there are other countries in the world, and good histories of them, like
Longmans' "Ship" series.
The books suggested by public library commissions are usually published
in this country, partly for the reasons that it is easier to find them,
that they are cheaper than imported books, and that they are in demand
in small libraries. The New York State Library lists are of this kind,
and the books for children are carefully chosen as far as they can be
from this country alone.
With regard to scientific books for children, the Springfield (Mass.)
City Library has printed a short list of books on science and useful
arts that children really enjoy. This list has been prepared by the
children's librarian in connection with the supervisor of science in the
Springfield public schools and an out-of-town librarian. The list is the
best I have seen, but is open to criticism on account of one or two of
the books being out of date. The list for third-grade teachers compiled
by Miss May H. Prentice for the Cleveland Library is excellent for
supplementary reading and nature-stories and poems.
3. The value of articles on children's reading is variable, but a fair
specimen may be found in the _Contemporary Review_ for June, where H. V.
Weisse states in his "Reading for the young" that a generation ago the
number of published books was small, magazines were high in tone, and in
the realm of juvenile literature Ballantyne was "monarch of all he
surveyed." On account of the limited supply of children's books, boys
and girls were thus driven to standard authors. "Now magazines and
so-called 'historical stories' are issued in such quantities that young
people read nothing else. They should be trained to better things, and
teachers and mothers should read to their children and see that they
read good books for themselves, if need be rewarding for a clear
reproduction of the sense of any good book, never punishing for a
failure to understand, at first hearing or reading, that which involves
'a new form of mental effort.'" We have all heard something like this
before! Even Agnes Repplier, with her charm of style and her
denunciation of the "little Pharisee in fiction," and the too-important
Rose in Bloom in contrast to the well-kept-under Rosamond, makes few
suggestions of books which are good for children to read.
The reading lists in the New York _Times_ are based on the experience of
the writers, who have often been precocious, over-stimulated children of
bookish families without companions of their own age, and have no idea
of the needs, wants and limitations of the public library children of
to-day, many of whom have few or no books at home. "I have quite a
library," wrote one such child. "I have three books, Longfellow's poems,
a geography, and a book of fairy tales."
A dreamy boy like "The child in the library" of a recent _Atlantic
Monthly_ and the keen little newsboy who snatches a half hour after
school is over and he has sold his papers to spell out a simple life of
Columbus or the "Story of the chosen people" have little in common, and
need different books, but they both need the very best of their kind.
A book reviewer or maker of book lists for children should have an
intimate knowledge of the best books which have been written for them,
and the unconscious training which this knowledge gives in good taste
and a critical sense of style. He (or she) should have also the intimate
knowledge of all sorts and conditions of children and their limitations
that a teacher or a settlement worker or a wise mother has. More than 20
years ago, in the meeting of the American Library Association in Boston,
Mrs. Kate Gannett Wells said: "I would like to have mothers prepare
lists, whose headings should vary from any yet given; such as: books
that make children cry; books of adventure for unexcitable and
unimaginative children; unlovesick novels."
The best reviews of children's books ever written in this country were
the work of a woman and a mother--Lucy McKim Garrison, who, in the
earlier volumes of the _Nation_, put into her work broad-mindedness,
high ideals, and an understanding of children. It is such work as this
that should be a model for the reviewers and a guide to the librarians
of to-day, and one of the most important duties of the Children's
Section is to insist upon higher standards, both in reviewers and
through them in the writers of children's books, and upon trained
critical knowledge in the makers of children's lists.