TELEGRAMS.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXI, Issue 91, 19 April 1911, Page 3

TELEGRAMS.

DOUBTFUL BOOKS. DISCUSSED BY LIBRARY EXPERTS. [BI TBUtGJS&PBf — SPECIAL TO THE POST.I AUCKLAND, This Day. The much-argued question as to how books of a questionable character should be kept out of our public libraries came up for consideration. at the i sitting of the conference of th* Libraries Association. Several experienced librarians pointed to many well-known works that at one time or other were scouted as of a character anything but educative, but which, when more carefully considersd, had been fcund to convey a moral the value of which far outweighed any suggestiveness that at a first reading might have been found in them. The balance of opinion seemed to he in favour of asking the librarians to take toe greatest care to prevent any objectionable works from appearing on. the shelves of the libraries given to their charge. Some of the delegates were exceedingly severe upon a certain class of novel that occasionally came out here, and which, it was said, should never see the light unless it were the light of the city destructor. The opinion of the delegates seemed to be that at' present a kind of censorship would have to devolve upon the librarians in charge of each individual institution, although every member of the conference was impressed with the necessity of full supervision being exercised in this matter. "What is the test of unfitness?" asked Mr. A. H. Hindmarsli (Wellington). He argued that because a book depicted the actual and showed what existed it should not be condemned as immoral. The problems and vices- written about existed, and it was no use pretending they were not present. The question should be loft to the good .sense of every librarian, and he was perfectly convinced that there was no use trying to teach moral codes simply by preventing books, being placed on library shelves. "If you want; to take the thoughts of youag people away from these questions you must put into them the expulsive power cf a, new affection,*' he declared. No good purpose would be served by hiding the existence of vices. They were soon found out, and mystery created a, greater industry in entering upon pursuit. Where vice was deliberately made attractive it was a dreadful thing, but where truth was described for the purpose of repelling, there was no danger and no indeoencv. Mr. C. Wilson (Wellington) said ho had read many bc£>ks which, according to Little Bethel opinion, were indecent, but he did not cpneur. .There was no ii^ed to hurrow in the -muck heaps, and he did not want to e&e dirty books on the shelves. Some books were not only indecent but were stupid, badly written and banal, which annoyed him more by iheir stupidity and literary rottenness than by their want of morality. But it was absurd to declare all problem and sex books indecent and to ask a librarian to tell a full-grown man that he couldn't have such and such a novel because the literature was questionable, despite the tact that the work may be 'making history or hitting at a prevalent vice. The authors at Home objected to the censorship because puerile stuff was allowed to go through and other work was banned. "As a citizen," said Mr. Wilson, "I object) to have my literature selected by half-illiterate grocers and drapers. .Let us clear our minds of canb on. question like this : exclude moral dirty books, but don't say because a book conveys a. lesson in a sex problem or sex passion it should be ruled out of literature."