ARE THERE TOO MANY BOOKS?

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 11110, 6 May 1911, Page 9

ARE THERE TOO MANY BOOKS?

London recently debated the qucstioii of the "over-production of books. Some of them contended that a surplusage of ephemeral books is evident. Others urged that the matter is one of distribution. A few held that there is under-production. But the yoico of the meeting went for underconsumption ns the source of tho trouble. As this solution was suggested at the end of the discussion, and apparently received little thought, it is impossible to say upon what. grounds it was accepted. Perhaps it was only tho manifestation, of an impulse to shift the blame from producer or distributor lo consumer. However that may ba. and whatever may bo the truth with reference to the effect of tho practice of publishing books mainly in the spring and autumn instead of throughout the year, and of disposing of "remainders" at heavy discounts, it is to ho noted that tho debaters were inclined to take into account literary well as commercial considerations. Tho publishing of "journalistic bopks —merely scissors and paste"—or of any book simply because it would probably find a market, was condemned, although one- speaker made the point that the author lias a right to produce books, and that these, if rejected by one publisher, will easily see the light through tho presses of plenty of others. In Germany, he . affirmed, tho number of books issued in proportion to the population is much higher than in England, .yet the book trade there is in a very flourishing condition. And then lie flung out this challenge: In most English homes would be found a piano; in how many would there be a' representative collection of books? And yet which is the more interesting occupation, reading or piano practising? It is a little surprising that this comparison seems to , have provoked no comment from succeeding speakers. Why is it that we not infrequently hear greans or worse over the alleged over-production of books, while no one raises tho inquiry whether we have an over-production of music or pictures or plays? The stage is admittedly in as parlous a state as literature, to put it mildly, but do dramatic critics find tho reason in a over-produc-tion by pla.vwrijr'its? Is poetry i-o lightly esteemed for the. reason that so much of it is printed? And why is tho book publisher loaded with a responsibility that is not imposed upon the music publisher, the art museum director, or the theatrical manager? Is it that the number of books is so far beyond that of these other productions that its consequences are more momentous, or are great numbers of books inherently more dangerous than great numbers of tunes, pictures, or plays? Is the intellectual and emotional debauch of the confirmed novelreader more injurious than that of tho confirmed popular-song player? These questions suggest the limitations of the over-production theory in the realm of art. Without making a stand too nicely upon what might bo contended, it may be admitted that, even in comparison with pianos and plays, books possess a universality that imposes upon those in any way responsible for them an exceptional amount of circumspection, and that tho thinking public is nol far wrong in holding author, publisher, bookseller, and reviewer to' a stricter senso of duty than it demands of thoso who endeavour to catch its fancy through the medium of canvas or of a'"perforated roll. Tho single fact that public libraries are now and then thought to havo fallen under the curse of overproduction, while the endowed musichall seems as distant as the endowed theatre, is sufficient to establish tho distinction. But, even so, it fs not easy to see what the more quantity of books has to do, in any high degree, with either their commercial or literary benefit. Was tho character of the. Klizabethau age affected materially by the amount of tho output of Grub Street? Grub Street was at least as much symptom as germ, and tho depth of its impression upon its timo is pot to be measured by the sum of tho impressions registered by tho presses which it overfed.

Books arc, in a way, like music. There is nothing particularly creditable in a dearth of either, or discreditable in their abundance. An absence of commercial enterprise may contribute notably to the ono condition, and an excess" of it to the other. But the salient fact in a publishing situation so active that it besets fears of suffering from its own too much is nothing moro ominous than an intellectual craving, partly stimulated, no doubt, and perforce satisfied with what it can get. It is in tho burliest degree.improbable that reducing the supply would affect the finality of what was left, even in the case of individual writers. Some of their less worthy pages might go unwritten, but, for the most part, they would merely turn out one mediocre book a year instead of two. Their readers, bereft of half of their accustomed feast, would sock it in other but not necessarily better places. And as it is a pretty poor book that is worse than any other form of entertainment, it would bo rash to say that, even now. there are too many books. — Now York "Nation."