250 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' HE VIEW. 



tion of ideas a man unites in his mind the 

 Cent try, The Nation, or Harjjer's Monthly 

 with the American Bee Journal, and does 

 not write for the latter because he could not 

 for the former, that does not prevent him 

 from writing business letters which are plain 

 and to the point. 



American Bee Journal needs no more style 

 from its contributors than a collection of 

 business letters would. Besides, we are 

 working toward a plain and simple style 

 even in purely literary performances ; unless 

 we except certan erratic schools of poetry, 

 which do not concern sensible people. In- 

 deed, one characteristic of modern style is 

 the absence of style. The matter is looked 

 to more sharply than the manner. Practi- 

 cal men like bee-keepers have nothing to 

 fear on that score. The Senate Chamber no 

 longer resounds with stately imitations of 

 Burke and Webster. It would be considered 

 bad taste. W. D. Howells, the greatest liv- 

 ing American novelist, takes particular 

 pains to erase all passages from his works 

 which sound too literary. 



But, after all, it does not matter so much 

 in what shape the kinks come, as that we get 

 them all right. If a kink is spread over a 

 page, which might be put in a paragraph, 

 let us be thankful it is no worse. We want 

 kinks. If we don't help one another to them, 

 we shall not get them. The bee books con- 

 tain a few, but only a few ; revisons occur 

 too seldom, and there is not room enough 

 for them all, anyhow. I cannot agree with 

 Mr. Heddon in thinking it best to compress 

 everything into the smallest possible com- 

 pass. That is all right as a department of 

 bee literaturt^ ; but it would be a serious 

 blow to progress if it was the whole of it. 

 Plenty of kinks are the life and soul of bee 

 culture. By their aid we comprehend the 

 essential principles much more fully than 

 we otherwise could. We need such period- 

 icals as the Review ; but no less do we need 

 the American Bee Journal and Gleanings. 

 Concentrated food alone, weakens the diges- 

 tive powers. 



But, it may be said, it is the business of 

 editors to prod up the successful men, as 

 they know ' who rides this hobby and who 

 that,' in Mr. Hutchinson's words. That may 

 be ; and in the essential principles of bee- 

 keeping this plan leaves nothing to be de- 

 sired ; but in the department of kinks, to 

 judge by results, they do not reach one one- 

 hundreth of the men we ought to hear from, 

 nor is it to be expected. To get kinks, we 

 must look to the number, as well as the rep- 

 utation, of bee-keepers. One would think 

 for instance, that R. L. Taylor would be an 

 experiment station in himself ; but one of 

 the first things he did on being appointed 

 was to ask for suggestions —not from a select 

 few, whose names were known — but from 

 everybody who is a practical bee-keeper. 

 Let us not forget, in our zeal at condensing, 

 boiling down, getting the ' cream ' — that the 

 ' General Public ' is an old veteran at bee- 

 keeping. The old gentleman is occasionally 

 behind the times, but he knows a thing or 

 two. 



Besides kmks and short cuts, there is an- 

 other department depending largely upon 



the general contributor for support. You 

 know how provoking the bee books are some- 

 times. You look up something, and appa- 

 rently find out all about it ; then work ac- 

 cording to directions, and fail ; and after 

 finding out the right way by experience, you 

 look it up again, and find that it did tell you 

 of that point, but in such a way that you 

 failed to appreciate its connection with the 

 rest. Or, that point may have been omitted 

 entirely in the book. You can't expect 

 everything of a book. If all details were 

 given so as to preclude any possibility of a 

 mistake in any department, the result would 

 be a regular encyclopedia, and would defeat 

 its own object — people would care neither to 

 buy nor to read such a book. But an article 

 describing the process, in a back number of 

 the Bee Journal, would likely be much more 

 detailed and satisfactory than the descrip- 

 tion in the book ; the writer, writing from 

 fresh experience, and not bothered with the 

 desire to be brief, would probably be so im- 

 pressed with that particular point, that there 

 would be no mistake about what he meant. 

 There is considerable value in articles which 

 treat of nothing new, but only tell how some 

 man successfully did something. 



Who will write such articles ? Not the 

 ' veterans,' altogether ; they are too much 

 occupied with the ' unsolved problems ' of 

 apiculture ; it must be largely the rank and 

 file, providing, of course, they have a cer- 

 tain amount of experience. They should be 

 given in as few words as possible ; but better 

 too many than none at all. 



Finally, let contributors remember that 

 they are casting bread upon the waters ; 

 every contribution which is a fruit of their 

 experience adds not only to knowledge, but 

 also to the desire of imparting knowledge, 

 and they will reap the fruits of it in learning 

 more of the experience of others. The ' let 

 us hear from all the brethren ' idea, being an 

 essential principle of human nature, must 

 be represented someivhere. It will not ' over- 

 board into the deep, deep sea ' yet awhile, 

 though a r"ozen Mr. Hastys flourish their 

 scissors at it. Arvada, Colo." 



The one great point to be considered, when 

 looking at correspondence from an editor's 

 or reader's point of view, is does it contain 

 any information ? If it does, it matters not 

 who sends it. or whether it comes from one 

 or many. There was a time in bee journal- 

 ism when there seemed to be an attempt to 

 publish communications from as many cor- 

 respondents as possible, perhaps with the 

 idea to please said contributors, although I 

 am not certain of this, and to object to long 

 articles— in shorf,. to make a sort of letter 

 box of the journal. It is to this that Mr- 

 Hasty very reasonably objects. Mr. Thomp- 

 son is corrpct when he says that the days of 

 "style," so-called, that is, of stilted style, 

 have passed ; and Bro. York s right in saying 

 that an editor alone cannot make a paper, 

 that he must have the help of his readers. 



