Too Many Books

Gilbert Norwood

When Julius Caesar allowed the Library of Alexandria to burn， excellent people no doubt exclaimed. “Lo， another cord added to the scourge of war！” Certainly countless students since the Revival of Learning have looked upon that conflagration as one of the worlds disasters. It was no such thing， but a vast benefit. And one of the worst modern afflictions is the printing-press； for its diabolical power of multiplication has enabled literature to laugh at sudden mischance and deliberate enmity. We are oppressed， choked， buried by books.

Let not the last sentence mislead. I do not mean that we， or some few of us， are asphyxiated by barren learning； that is another story. Nor am I adding yet another voice to the chorus which reviles bad literature—the ceaseless nagging at Miss Ethel M. Dell. I have read none of her books； and in any case that too， is another story. No； I mean good literature—the books （to take contemporary instances） of Mr. Arnold Bennett and Pierre Loti， of Schnitzler and Mr. Max Beerbohm， and countless others ancient and modern， European， American， Asiatic， and Polynesian （an epoch-making novel from Otaheite is much overdue）. And when I say “good，” I mean “good.” I have no intention of imitating those critics whose method of creating a frisson is to select the most distinguished author or artist and then， not call him bad， but imply that he is already recognized as bad by some unnamed and therefore awe-inspiring coterie. They do not write： “Mr. Hardy is a bungler，” but： “Unless Mr. Jugg takes more pains， his work will soon be indistinguishable from Mr. Hardys.”

It was a famous， almost a proverbial， remark that Sapphos poems were “few， but roses.” What should we say if we found roses on every table， rose-trees along the streets， if our tramcars and lamp-posts were festooned with roses， if roses littered every staircase and dropped from the folds of every newspaper？ In a week we should be organizing a“campaign” against them as if they were rats or house-flies. So with books. Week in， week out， a roaring torrent of novels， essays， plays， poems， books of travel， devotion， and philosophy， flows through the land—all good， all “provocative of thought” or else “in the best tradition of British humour”； that is the mischief of it. And they are so huge. Look at The Forsyte Saga， confessedly in itself a small library of fiction； consider The Golden Bough， how it grows. One is tempted to revolt and pretend in self-defense that these works are clever， facile， and bad. But they are not； far from it. The flood leaves you no breath.

What is to be done？ Various remedies are in vogue， none efficacious， indeed—that is my point—all deleterious. There is nothing for it but burning nine-tenths of the stuff. For consider these remedies.

First， of course， comes the man who simply gives up， who says：“I havent the time，” and goes under. Virtue， they say， is its own reward. Not for him. He tries to pass it off blusteringly but he is ashamed of himself till death.

Second is the man who， swindler though he be， yet merits applause as paying back the “everyone” journalist in his own base coin. He defines in his mind the little patch of literature that he can read， then condemns all the rest on general grounds evolving a formula which shall be vaguely tenable and shall vaguely absolve him. An eager youth asks： “Pray， Sir， what is your opinion of Mrs. Virginia Woolf？” He replies： “No opinion of mine， my dear Guildenstern， would be of much use to you， as regards Mrs. Woolf. I fear I am an old fogey. These modern people seem to me to have lost their way. Fielding and Jane Austen are good enough for me.”Guildenstern retires， suitably abashed， and vaguely classing Mrs. Woolf with Mrs. Bertram Atkey， Alice Meynell with Ella Wheeler Wilcox.

The third man gallantly faces the insoluble problem by following the fashion. Setting his jaw， he specializes in the moderns of whom one reads most in the Times Literary Supplement. Feverishly he cons the work of all authors enshrined in that austere mausoleum； feverishly， because he may at any moment be caught napping by some more alert practitioner. This third section forms the bulk of the educated class. Members are everywhere and spoil everything. Literature has two great uses： The fundamental use is that it creates and satisfies a keener taste for life； the superficial use is that it provides a precious social amenity. Our third man not only knows nothing of the first； he ruins the second. Decent people converse about books with a view to finding common ground and exchanging delight （deep or frivolous） thereon. But the Third Man is mostly anti-social. He selects some voluminous author and catechises his victim till he has found a work which the victim has not read. With a hoot of joyous disgust he leaps upon the confession and extols the unread book as the finest of the list. Such a man will always be found smacking his lips in public over Stevensons Wrong Box to Lewis Carrolls Sylvie and Bruno. Chief of this tribe， apparently， was no less a person than Coleridge， of whom Hazlitt reports： “He did not speak of his （Butlers） ‘Analogy， but of his ‘Sermons at the Rolls Chapel，of which I had never heard. Coleridge somehow always contrived to prefer the unknown to the known.” Exactly； for the great aims of such people are （1） to avoid being scored off； （2） to score off others. It is this ignoble competition which has ruined taste， for to carry it on we must needs follow the crowd. It would never do to enter a room full of persons discussing Masefield or Walter de la Mare and explain wistfully： “Ive been reading Whittier all day.” Masefield and de la Mare are good—yes， maybe； but we keep up with them not for that reason， but because they are the gods of the literary weeklies. Our notion that commerce is the first of human activities has ruined noble art of reading； for though competition is the life of trade it is the death of social intercourse and of social arts. The greatest things in life flourish by being shared， not by being monopolized.

Our Fourth Class is by far the most respectable. It advocates what may be termed the Cream Theory. “Since we cannot read all the good books， let us attempt to know the best that has been written in all times and places.” So after a solid banquet of English， they move off to Dante（a great man for this class， and read by scarcely anyone else）， Goethe， Tolstoy， Racine， Ibsen， Cervantes， Virgil， Homer. A respectable kind of person， we said； but not necessarily sagacious. In fact， they are utterly， almost horribly， mistaken.

For it is an error to suppose that because an author has by the world in general been placed upon a pinnacle， every reader can derive much good from him. Do we not see that a bright boy of twelve finds nothing particular in Milton or Thackeray？ （Someone objects： “Oh， but he does！” One in a million， my friend； anything beyond that is propagandist falsehood.） Why？ Because he is not yet ready for them. They are magnificent， but they wrote for adults—as， unfortunately， most authors have written. Let him gain by experience the needful equipment， and he will appreciate them well enough. And the analogous proposition is true of the Cream Theory. Take a person who has completed the first stage， namely a reading of English， and place him suddenly before those foreign Great Ones. They will bore him to tears. Any dramatic canons drawn exclusively from Shakespeare prove that Racine is a simpleton； any poetical canons， that Virgil is affected， Homer childish， and Dante no poet at all； any psychological canons， that Ibsen is “a dirty old blackguard” （a quotation， this， from a man deeply read in English）. Yes， they are bored to tears； but since our national temperament understands not aesthetic right， only moral right， they feel that they must be wicked if they are bored by great authors. The familiar result follows. Thousands of otherwise honest folk sit flogging themselves through Andromaque or Don Quixote with a dazed sense that they are making the Almighty somehow their debtor. Works like these depend for their true effect upon a whole literary tradition， a whole national culture， unrevealed to the worshipper. Every writer needs a considerable equipment in his reader， and it is precisely the greatest writers （“simple” though they are called by the critics） who demand most. They sum up gigantic experiences of the race in politics， religion， philosophy， literature.

Nevertheless our friend plods on， head bowed and muscles tense. The Cream Theory， even for its most genuine and respectable adherents， is a delusion. That is not the way in which literature “works，” or life. As well saw off the topmost six feet of the Jungfrau， set the mass up in your back-garden， and take your guests out to admire the terrific grandeur of the scenery.

The Cream Theory finds its best expression in those dreadful lists of the Worlds Best Books. Everyone who has glanced through those catalogues knows how repellent they are； but does he realise why？ It is because they are inhuman. The list is nobodys list， though it contains something which would be in everybodys list.

So much for the various types of reader. None of them solves the difficulty. What， then， is to be done？ It is no answer to say： “Read what you can， and leave the rest，” because the size of the unread mass has positive and evil effects. In the honest it causes worry， a sense of waste； in the dishonest it causes snobbery and the desire to outshine. There is but one remedy： a wholesale destruction. Quite nine-tenths of the good books should be burnt； of the bad we need say， here as elsewhere， nothing—they are drawn towards the pulping-machine by a force persistent as gravitation. “But，” say some， quoting perchance their own reviews， “your suggestion raises more difficulties than it solves.”Scarcely； but I see two problems， which are by no means so hard to solve as might appear： What are we to destroy？ How are we to destroy it？

Let me answer the second question first. When a book is condemned， all public libraries burn their copies with whatever rites may seem fitting to its subject-matter and the occasion. It becomes illegal to possess， buy， sell the book or to expose it for sale. All copies secretly preserved are stripped of their value by an enactment that any person quoting them， referring to them， or in any manner whatsoever seeking personal credit from them， shall be prosecuted under a Disturbance of the Realm Act. A fixed sum should be paid for each copy handed over to the police； that is the way， more or less， in which wolves were extirpated. That great army of persons who thrive on the various forms of bibliography， the booksellers， the librarians， the makers and printers of catalogues， the ghouls who （like vultures on the battle-field） hover over the twopenny box should be told that the state is not robbing them either of livelihood or of excitement. “Of whatever thing a man is a smart guardian，” says Plato， “of that he is also a smart thief.” Let these experts continue their function of tracking books， but for destruction， not preservation. They will not care. What they love is their hard-won knowledge of the quarry， its appearance， methods of concealment， and habitat； not its ultimate destiny. Does the enthusiast who follows the scent of a First Folio across England and at last runs it to earth in an apple-loft， sit down forthwith and read The Merchant of Venice？ Not he. If he ever reads the play at all （which is highly doubtful） he prefers a popular edition with pink pictures of the Rialto. For him the chase is all. The new regime will alter his life and enjoyment surprisingly little. He will give interviews with the title， “How I Stamped Out Fielding.” Nor is this the only way in which our newspapers will be brightened. During the first years of the new Golden Age we shall read of a fanatic who， hearing a Cabinet Minister quote the words “as well almost kill a man as kill a good book，” instantly shot him through the head， and of detectives at peril of their lives raiding a den of Wordsworth-printers.

Before we consider the second problem in its main aspect， the selection of the extant works which are to be banned， let us complete the minor task of diminishing heavily the future output. I should favour the absolute prohibition of all novels for the next ten years. Then， during five years only those novels， hitherto held up， should be issued which both publisher and author still thought worthwhile. After that， if people persisted in writing novels， the Government might refuse permits to those treating the following topics： （a） the Great War， （b） girls dressed in salad and living beside lagoons， （c） imaginary kingdoms with regents called Black Boris， （d） any type of “lure.” As for indigenous works other than novels， they might be allowed freedom of publication so long as the price were not less than one penny a page. This would keep down the output effectually and would also give Cambridge University Press an equal chance with other publishing concerns.

There remains the chief and most arduous task， to decide which books already extant should perish. The work is enormous， and must be spread over many years. The thousand per annum seems a likely figure， which could be rapidly increased as the public grew accustomed to the system and observed that the sky did not fall. A committee of fifty （ten of whom must， and all of whom might， be women） should each year promulgate its list， to appear simultaneously with the New Year Honours list. The Committee should contain representatives of every class and—an unusual thing in committees—of every age. First， that the more nervous might be in some degree reassured， they would make a list of books which in any case should be preserved—books which almost everyone really likes and really reads. It would be a surprisingly small list， but there is no danger of our losing Shakespeare， most of Dickens， the Sherlock Holmes stories. This done， they would on each New Years Day promulgate their list of ten thousand books.

Nothing， however， is further from my intention than tyranny. All I aim at is effecting what the public in its heart desires. Therefore any of these ten thousand may be saved if it can be shown that the public really wishes to save it. The proof must， however， be given in deeds， not words as heretofore and should be conducted on the following lines. The list is promulgated on January 1st， but the destruction does not begin until August 1st. During July all publishers and librarians are to make a return of the number of persons who during the preceding six months have purchased or read each of the books prescribed. Anyone claiming to have read a book owned by himself would be subjected to a brief oral examination. The works would then be arranged in three categories. Any which had been read by ten thousand people should be struck from the list and given immunity for fifteen years. Those which had been read by less than ten but more than five thousand should be immune for five years. Each work which had found less than five thousand supporters should be retained for one year if any single person could be found to prove his love for it by making a sacrifice to ensure its preservation. This would form the sound test of that “revelling in” authors of which we hear so much.

學习任务

1. Explain the following words （highlighted in blue） in English.

（1） asphyxiate， revile， coterie （Para. 2）

（2） enshrine， amenity， monopolize （Para. 7）

（3） falsehood （Para. 9）

（4） delusion， grandeur （Para. 10）

（5） extirpate， peril （Para. 13）

（6） extant （Para. 14）

（7） promulgate （Para. 15）

2. Look up the underlined words in your dictionary， examining their multiple meanings. （Note down the meaning of each word in the context， and another meaning that the word often expresses.）

（1） ... another voice to the chorus ... （Para. 2）

（2） ... “I havent the time，” and goes under. （Para. 5）

（3） ... yet merits applause as paying back ... （Para. 6）

（4） Guildenstern retires， suitably abashed ... （Para. 6）

（5） ... an equal chance with other publishing concerns. （Para. 14）

（6） ... on the following lines. （Para. 16）

（7） ... should be immune for five years. （Para. 16）

3. What is the attitude toward reading of each of the four types of reader？ What are their problems according to the author？