THE LIBRARY CENSORSHIP

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 775, 26 March 1910, Page 9

THE LIBRARY CENSORSHIP

Two months, ago Vwhen the associated libraries' sent out a' -manifesto: containing the -.terms. of :'a •new: censorship of books,thq reading public sepine'd not to ,bo -greatly disturbed.'lVMr..,.Edmund posse and..'some- others ..objected, while the ■central/-council,: of tho" Mothers' Union rejoiced. 'But the 1 press, on the whole,, seemed indifferent, and the Society of Authors, I believe,, was not mo7ed to action. : The question, however, has come up again, and now that the elections arc over it is likely that tho circilating libraries will find thomsel/es rather uncomfortably badgered. The reason is plain enough. This, is a real public question; a question that is affecting a very largo part of the community. Few of us buy books, especi-ally-new books;: but nearly all ot us borrow, them. Tho average adult person., therefore, wants to know how he stands; he wants to know how far tho libraries which ho supports are intending to' protect him from tho wicked author and the'enterprising publisher. Let us see to begin-with exactly what tho censorship, amounts, to. Towards the end of'last year'tho; Circulating Labraries Association:' announced that ,iii"order ; to ch=ckYthe circulation;by the libraries of,.'biok^.'.'''regarded as transgressing the dictates of/good; tasto in Bubject or.treatment," its members bad come to , a certain- decision—namely, that thoy would not havo anything: to do'!with any book likely to. prove oifonsivo to any: considerable section of their subscribers. In consequence of this rule the libraries belonging to the..association ' now. require all books about which any.question is likely to arise to bo, submitted for examination a week beforo publication..

Two points especially should be noted here: First, the standard set up is the staudard of what is called good tasto; secondly, tho. privilego of passing an adverse judgment upuii eny book is accorded to a minority of. tho library public. "Good taste," it may bo said with sonio show of re isoti, is the most elusive and variable of all standards. It is a matter of age and sex and breeding, of politics and religion, of time and clmie, of race, colour,. religion, and longitude. Mr. Balfour and Mr. LloydGeorge, it is clear, havo no common criterion of taste. The Mother's Union and Mr. Thomas Hardy (to say .nothing of Mr. H. G. Wells) could never agree. And everybody knows that, tho people who find it easy to Hako offence at a book on the scoro of taste do as a matter of fact form a "considerable section" of the'subscribers to Smith's and Mudio's.-'

Now it should in fairness bo stated that the libraries have a case. It is founded mainly on the undoubted growth in this country during the past fo.v years of book's that are questionable in ■ substance and-tendency. Not b.v any means all of theseiarc novels, and not all are to be classed as pornographic in charactir. But the ci il is there, and if appears to be .increasing. An'authority in'the circulating library.world assured the present writer the oi.lier day that a good der.l mora alcitncss was demanded nowadays of the people engage .1 in'the tasting of boohs submitted to the. libraries than'was required a decade or so agn. Some publishers, and not a few bookmakers, have discovered that there is money in a certain kuiri

of book, and they havo set themselves to exploit tho demand—nith the result that cvLTj- year a number of new books come as a mora matter of course tinder tho ban of tho-.libraries. .That is inevitable;, the individual censorship, on tho part of a library which exists to give the public what it wants, is reasonable and proper enough. But what tho authors and tho public have a right to demand is that the necessity for concerted action which air.ounts to tyrannical control should be proved. It so happens that the dispute has been focussed by tho complaints in relation to the 'treatment of two or three .novels of the present season. With regard to on© of these—Mr. Do Morgan's "It Never Can Happen Again"—no question of morality or taste has arisen or could arise. Mr. do Morgan is a spacious and loisurely writer, and his last story is of the full mid-Victorian length. It is published in two volumes at- ten shillings, and for this reason it has not pleased tho libraries. The twovolume experiment,' apart , from tho price, is of very doubtful value—as, unless one is greatly mistaken. Mr. Hall Caino has found out since the publication: of "The White Prophet."But what of the others who have been.denouncing the new censorship on personal grounds; what of the authors of "Black Sheep" and "The Uncounted Cost"? In regard to both these instances..the average, reader .may well confess himself puzzled ■ since .the available testimony is hopelessly at.variance. The novelists and their publishers allege the ban; tho libraries apparently assert that in neither case has the censorship been applied—and, so far as one can understand, there is no reason whs it should havo been. But seo how it works out. Tho lady who calls herself "Mary Gaunt" writes to a literary monthly:— . x "I have .worked, very hard indeed at 'The' Uncounted Cost.'. I had to collect a great deal of expert knowledge fromnaval officers and West African officials, and the actual writing of the novel took mo thirteen months of.hard labour. • I flattered myself ray ideals'wero high, that I had worked out and told a story of patriotism, industry): and"' sacrifice for others. .. . I will stakorny honour there is not a suggestive word in the whole book, nothing that might not. be read aloud in a mixed company."

Well, you may not be able to understand precisely what has happened, but you can; get "The Uncounted -Cost," should you be so minded,'from your circulating library, and it certainly won't do you any harm. If the'author - has a griovanoe at this moment it is assuredly not very serious. Her book has had the benefit of a first-rate advertisement, and "Mary Gaunt" (who; by the bye, is Mrs. Miller, hitherto known as author and part-author, of Australian stories) has doubtless'found reason for .rejoicing in the circumstances . under which her.latest book has. caught the public eye. iTho'cost of this little affair may have been .uncounted, but in any ; . case Mr. Werner Laurie is -.rather to be congratulated. :

On the whole, one is disposed to conclude, the library censorship'is not a thing to be defended.' In practice the difficulty of [ dealing with improper : bodks is not very, serious. .Hitherto; with 'occasional •' exceptions, the libraries have been able to look after themselves .and their, clients without/undue' interference with the liberty of the author; and'if, for.,the reason above given, it has. become necessary to keep a sharper; look-out the 'experience and intelligence of their responsible officers should bo sufficient. Literature, when all is said, must bo free. The seriou3 man of letters cannot be expected.to 'keep the fear, of .the parent and guardviaii continually, before, his .eyes.. .Wo ;du'ght -not tirforgct that under the kind [of.; tyranny'- lately devised by the Circulating Libraries Association not a 'single' important English novelist—to : say nothing of the poets, men. of science, ! and social theorists—would foWbeen.safe—S. IL Eatcliffe, in.the News.'''*'' '/ V 'V :.:',:?E: