Stereoscopic Visual Instruction and Reference The use of Stereoscopic Visual Instruction and Reference in connection with the studies of Literature, History, Art, Archæology, Geology, Geography, Physiography and the Sciences has come to be looked upon by prominent librarians and educators as of demonstrated and vital importance. This field of work and endeavor has presented itself to libraries. The work has been taken up, its problems solved and many successful departments developed by our most progressive librarians. The TRUTHS, the FACTS, the THEORIES, the EVIDENCE and TESTIMONY of the pioneers in the work should be investigated by every LIBRARIAN and EDUCATOR who takes a DEEP INTEREST in their profession. We desire to submit Our "CUMULATIVE TESTIMONY INDICATING THE VALUE OF THE STEREOGRAPH IN THE LIBRARY" as documentary evidence bearing directly on these points. May we tell you how you can without expense to your library or obligation on your part receive a collection of stereographs for your consideration and the approval of your committee. The H. C. White Co. of New York THE MONOLITH 45 West 34th Street, New York WE MANUFACTURE Guaranteed Carbon Prints, Whitetone Enlargements and Lantern Slides from all stereoscopic subjects which we publish. The following books sent upon request: The Modern Aladdin-The Science of Stereoscopy in Newspaper English. The 20th Century Way-Describing our Travel Tours, Little Journeys and Stereoscopic Instruments. Classified Educational Catalog-For the use of Schools and Libraries. Public Opinion-Giving the verdict of people of prominence regarding the products of our manufacture. Tours to All Parts of the World-Numbers and titles of all Stereographs we publish. Arthur E. Bostwick, superintendent of circulation, New York public library If a man is to improve himself, he must first realize his own deficiencies; in other words, he must know what he ought to be, and how and in what degree he falls short of it. First, then, what are the best books; and do we get them? "Best" here as always is a relative term; what is best for one may not be best for another, or for all. We hear "good books" gravely recommended to people who will not read them, and who could not extract the good from them if they did read them. When the book fits the man, provided he is. No. 5 I can give but a few, but I venture to lay down one or two simple rules for testing. My tests would be 1) The test of language. No book can be good that is not written in correct English. By this I mean, of course, that the author himself must speak correctly; his characters may be ignorant persons and he will naturally. make them talk accordingly. ness. 2) The test of simplicity and clearNo book can be good whose author expresses himself in words that are too large for his subject or in sentences that are so involved that they cannot be easily understood. 3) The best of good taste. No book can be good whose author uses words or expressions that would not be used a good man, it is a good book, ipso by cultivated people. facto. You remember the tale of the rural parish priest at dinner with his bishop. The host, desiring to poke a little quiet a little quiet fun, asked him whether it were lawful to baptize a man in soup. "I should make a distinction," calmly answered the priest; "if it were good thick soup, I should say not; if it were wishywashy stuff like this we are eating, it would be quite proper." So long as we do not realize that the same literary consistency is not adapted both to nutrition and to immersion we shall not be able to decide on what are the best books. But is there no general line of division between bad and good books? *Read at a meeting of the Library commissions of the New England states, Hartford, Conn., Feb. 11, 1909. 4) The test of truth. No book can be good whose subject matter is false; telling is such as to make it seem abor, in case of fiction, whose manner of surdly improbable. The plot of the book may, it is true, lack probability. It may be frankly improbable like a fairy tale, but the author must not seem to lose faith in it himself, and no matter how impossible his foundation the structure that he builds on it must hold together. I venture to say that if a book survives these tests if it is simply and clearly expressed in good English and in the best taste and is consistently put together-it cannot be a bad book so far as style goes. So far as the subject matter of the book is concerned, my test would be simply that of its effect on the reader. If a book makes the reader want to be mischievous, foolish or criminal-to be a silly or bad man or woman, or if it tends to make him do his daily work badly, it is a bad book and all the worse in this case if it is interesting and fascinating in style. But even here the trouble is largely in the manner of treatment. A book may tell of crime and criminals in such a way as to make the reader detest both or feel an attraction toward both. In this case, as the scripture says, "Ye shall know them by their fruits." If a book sends a boy out to be a burglar, it is bad; if it impels him to take a crying child by the hand and lead it home, it is good. And here let me say that this compelling power, this effective result of a book should speak in its favor though all other tests be against it. Musicians tell us that a great composer may write a work that breaks every rule of harmony and yet be a work of genius. Genius knows no rules. So much for the general line of cleavage. But the special may for the moment exclude all the claims of the general. A community may be in crying need of books on a given subject-pottery or rowboats or hygiene. This need may or may not be realized by the community, but its existence makes a special class of books the best, for the moment, for that community. To buy a good collection of minor poets for a town that clamors, or ought to clamor, for books on the electric industries, is to get bad books. Now do we, under our present system, or lack of system, in selection, get these best books-best both in the general and in the special sense? What is the matter with the books in the average small library? The trouble is not generally that the books are bad, but that they might easily be better, and by "better" it must be borne in mind that I mean more closely adapted to the legitimate needs of the community. If we go over the shelves of the average small library we shall generally be able to note the following facts: 1) A considerable portion of the books have not been taken out in long periods. This can easily be ascertained by examining the book-cards or datingslips. Of course, the non-use of a book does not mean that it should not be in the library. The fault may be with the readers, not with the book. Nonuse, however, does mean that something is the matter. Either the library public has bad taste or is not properly guided, or else a mistake was made in providing it with this particular book. 2) A considerable number of standard books whose reading should be encouraged will not be found on the shelves. These books are almost always part of the collection, but there are not enough duplicates to supply the demand. At the same time it will be found that the library is adding current books of doubtful value. 3) Books on large local industriesshoemaking, pottery, agriculture—are often lacking. In such cases there is generally a lack of demand; but this is because the persons who would read such books have learned by experience. not to look for them in a public library. 4) Books in the languages spoken by industrial colonies of foreigners in the neighborhood are usually conspicuous by their absence. 5) The collections in classes where some technical knowledge is necessary for selection, such, for instance, as the sciences, the arts, or history, often show a lack of intelligence, or, at any rate, a lack of system. There are badly written books and books full of errors; there is lack of uniformity in gradean advanced mathematical work on electricity, for instance, and very elementary ones on light and sound. 6) In particular, controverted subjects are represented in a one-sided way; there may be no way for a reader to get at the Catholic story of the Protestant reformation, or the southern view of the civil war, or both sides of |