On Dangerous Reading

[mathematoons]

I read a very interesting article, written in 1849 by a Presbyterian pastor, about why we should avoid fiction. He was talking about novels and plays, but I think it applies to any kind of fiction. Lots of people think television is bad (and I agree), but they think fiction in book form is the antidote. How wrong they are.

Here’s the article: dabneyarchive.com/Discussions%20V2/On%20Dangerous%20Reading.pdf

Here are some quotes from it that really made me think:

Thus, also, to draw an imaginary man, like nature in his feelings and his conduct, is the hardest task of literary genius, although the picture, when finished, may seem so simple and easy. It is an exploit utterly beyond the reach of our herd of novelists. I fearlessly assert that, even though their intentions and principles were pure, and their scenes undefiled by pictures of vice, the views of human life and of the human heart which they give would not be true to nature, but unnatural, exaggerated and absurd. They do not truly paint the springs of human conduct and feeling. The men and women who flaunt on their fantastic pages are not the men and women with whom the reader has to deal in real life. And he who suffers his views of life to be colored by such reading, as every novel and play-reader must to some extent, is destined to nothing but blunders, disappointments and disgusts, when he attempts to buffet with the hard realities of the world. His course must resemble that of the man who has never beheld visible objects except when distorted by a prism, and fringed with its fantastic hues, until he goes forth to travel through the world. Hence it is that we see so many young gentlemen and young ladies who have learned their views of life out of the delusive mirror of fiction disappointed of their hopes, disgusted with their experience of actual life, and professing what they imagine to be a picturesque sort of Byronic misanthrophy, which is in the eyes of all sensible people as contemptible as it is selfish.

Before my conversion, I learned my views of life out of fiction, and found what he said here to be absolutely right on.

Now, all works of fiction are full of scenes of imaginary distress, which are constructed to impress the sensibilities. The fatal objection to the habitual contemplation of these scenes is this, that while they deaden the sensibilities, they afford no occasion or call for the exercise of actire sympathies. Thus the feelings of the heart are cultivated into a monstrous, an un natural, and unamiable disproportion. He who goes forth in the works of active benevolence among the real sufferings of his fellow creatures will have his sensibilities impressed, and at the same time will have opportunity to cultivate the principle of benevolence by its exercise. Thus the qualities of his heart will be nurtured in beautiful harmony, until they become an ornament to his character and a blessing to his race. This is God’s “school of morals.” This is God’s plan for developing and training the emotions and moral impulses. “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and the widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” And the adaptation of this plan of cultivation to the laws of man’s nature shows that the inventor is the same wise Being who created man. It is by practicing this precept of the gospel that man is truly humanized. But the beholder of these fictitious sorrows has his sympathies impressed, and therefore deadened, while those sympathies must necessarily remain inert and passive, because the whole scene is imaginary. And thus, by equal steps, he becomes at once sentimental and inhuman. While the Christian, whose heart has been trained in the school of duty, goes forth with cheerful and active sympathies in exercises of beneficence towards the real woes of his neighbor, the novel reader sits weeping over the sorrows of imaginary heroes and heroines, too selfish and lazy to lay down the fascinating volume and reach forth his hand to relieve an actual sufferer at his door.

We often talk about how violence in movies, television, and video games desensitizes us to real violence. When I think about it, it seems to follow logically that imaginary distress must similarly desensitize us to real distress. As least when we read about distress in the news, we can pray for the people involved.

 

[mathematoons]

Many of them are, in truth, systems of error, covertly embodying and teaching ruinous falsehoods. Some are written for the secret purpose of teaching infidelity, and some to teach the epicurean philosophy. Many of them are the aimless effusions of a general hatred against every thing correct and pious. There may be no professed attack on right principles, probably no didactic discussion at all, in the whole book, and yet the whole may be false philosophy or heresy, teaching by fascinating incident and example. To the thoughtless young, in search of entertainment, it seems to be a tale constructed to amuse, and nothing more, and yet every character represented in it, and all the plan of the book, may be designed to place religion, morality and right principles in a contemptible attitude, and to present the characters who advocate error in an attitude of superiority. How delusive this mode of teaching is, as a test or evidence of truth, can be easily seen. It is perfectly easy to draw two sets of characters, of which those embodying and representing error shall wear the superior, and. those representing truth the inferior aspect, when the characters are all fictitious, and the painter is the errorist himself. When the lion and the man, in the old fable, travelling together, came to the picture of a man bestriding a conquered lion, the lion said to his human companion : “Had a lion been the painter of that picture the figures would be inverted.” So it is perfectly easy to paint truth at the bottom and error at the top when falsehood holds the brush.

This is hardly a secret. Anyone who sees Christians on TV depicted as hatemongers knows this. But here’s the thing. We often do not know that a work of fiction contains such material until we see it, and by then, it has already entered our minds to serve as material for future temptations. Once you read something, you can’t un-read it. Furthermore, we are not infallible in our discernment, so we cannot know for sure that a seemingly harmless work of fiction does not contain harmful material. Either of these arguments would be sufficient to condemn all fiction.

Also, notice the author’s use of a story to make his point. Is he contradicting himself? Of course not! Jesus used parables, and this author is a Christian. But the purpose of such stories is solely to educate, not to amuse. The difference is like the difference between a piece of piano music written to evoke feelings and one written to teach a student how to play the piano. There’s a world of difference.

But these books, whether intended to teach heresy and false philosophy or not, are generally guilty also of representing to the reader supposed scenes of crime and vice, thus subjecting his heart to a danger similar to that of associating with bad company. They are, in a word, obnoxious to all the objections of evil company in their strongest form. Does the youth hear oaths and blasphemies in the tavern bar-room ? He hears them in the scenes of the novelist. Does he become benefitted by witnessing brawls and duels ? He witnesses them in the novel. Is his lust excited by beholding the arts and the gratifications of licentiousness in the house of ill-fame ? He beholds them also in the novel.

Why do we allow ourselves and our children to see things in books and in movies that we would never want to see or let our children see in real life? As the author points out, “Bad company ruins good morals.” (1 Corinthians 15:33)

All human beings, however amiable, have in their hearts, until sanctified, the dormant seeds of all the vices. Who does not know that the contemplation of such vices tends to awaken those seeds into life ? It is just thus that evil companions and evil example tend to corrupt those who were previously innocent. It is dangerous to become familiar with wickedness, even by contemplating it in others.

People who talk about the media are fond of calculating how many murders a child sees on television. How many acts of disobedience to parents does he see? How many humorous insults does he hear? Looking back at my childhood, I can see how much I was corrupted in this manner by all kinds of fiction. We don’t let out kids make friends with bad kids, why do we let them “make friends” with bad fictional people?

 

[mathematoons]

There are some reasons why the evil company of a bad book is even more corrupting and dangerous than that of a wicked living companion. One of these is, that the heroes and heroines, who are painted as defying the rules of good morals in some vital points, are still adorned with many imaginary qualities, such as courage, magnanimity, generosity, wit, and genius, which cause the young and impulsive reader to admire them in spite of their crimes. And from admiring the criminal it is but one step to excusing the vice, so that by this means the moral distinctions are worn out in the mind…And these fictitious villains are more dangerous companions than the bad men of real life, because this union of criminal traits with attractive and romantic qualities, which half atone for their faults in the view of the novel reader, is usually wholly imaginary. In actual life we find no such union, but wicked men appear coarse and repulsive. Vice soon robs their characters of that grace and delicacy which make the fictitious hero so dangerous an example…In every real scene of wickedness there are usually features of coarseness, brutality, and loathsomeness, which disgust and repel the ingenuous mind. Vice appears in its real ugliness, and excites some of that hatred which it deserves. But in the fictitious painting all these coarser features are concealed, for they would mar the literary beauty of the work and outrage that pretence of decency which the world sees fit to wear.

It’s true that we’re all sinners with good qualities, but the point is that real vice is ugly, and in fiction, this ugliness is toned down to avoid grossing out the reader.

There is one more reason against fictitious reading, simple, brief and absolutely conclusive. All men who read novels will confess that usually they read them as an indulgence, and not as a means of improvement. Now, it is an indulgence which is not recreation, for it excites, wearies and emasculates the mind even move than excessive mental labor. But every man is responsible to God for the improvement of every hour which is not devoted to wholesome recreation. Novel-reading is the murder of time, and on this simple ground every mind which professes to be guided by religious principles is sternly challenged by God’s authority to forego it. " Redeem the time." " The night cometh."

Since fiction is not necessary, and it can be replaced with so many more useful things, there must be a moral judgment each time it is read. I lost interest in novels shortly after my conversion, because it takes as much mental energy to read a novel as it does to read a pious book.

So, go ahead and voice whatever objections you want. You can even make fun of me for holding such a backward, Puritanical view. But if you want to know God better through His Word and various spiritual classics, you might want to give this some thought.

 

[IrishRush]

If we operate under the assumption that all fiction shows vices in a more positive light than we know them to be, then your views here would have to go unopposed. But what about the fables, that teach children good behaviors and attitudes?
Fiction can be a wonderful tool for teaching. Consider, for instance, Jesus using parables for teaching. They were fiction, in the strictest sense, because they weren’t actual events. They were stories showing what should be done, or what might happen if something isn’t done.
Using such a broad brush to paint all fiction is irresponsible - not everything is black or white.
:twocents:

 

[RPRPsych]

If we operate under the assumption that all fiction shows vices in a more positive light than we know them to be, then your views here would have to go unopposed. But what about the fables, that teach children good behaviors and attitudes?
Fiction can be a wonderful tool for teaching. Consider, for instance, Jesus using parables for teaching. They were fiction, in the strictest sense, because they weren’t actual events. They were stories showing what should be done, or what might happen if something isn’t done.
Using such a broad brush to paint all fiction is irresponsible - not everything is black or white.
:twocents:

There is fiction and fiction.

Of course, some books are unwholesome, and are best avoided, especially by young or uncertain minds. But other works of fiction are quite consistent with a Christian worldview. To dismiss all novels or plays as dangerous, on quite flimsy grounds, is the kind of shoddy Puritanism that gives Christians a bad name.

Consider, for example, the fantasy works of C. S. Lewis. Or J. R. R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings”. Or Louis de Wohl’s novels on the lives of the Saints. Or “The Song of Bernadette”. Or, for a lighter example, Baroness Orczy’s stories of the Scarlet Pimpernel.

Is there anything truly objectionable in these, except to a narrow and legalistic mind? The fact that trashy fiction exists should not lead us to dismiss all fiction. Didn’t Chesterton himself, the greatest of modern Catholic apologists, spend pages discussing the moral lessons he had gleaned from (non-Catholic) fairy tales?

We should learn to discern, not retreat in panic.

 

[Bonnie]

Using such a broad brush to paint all fiction is irresponsible - not everything is black or white. :twocents:

Agreed & I’ll add my :twocents:. There are many things that can be bad or good. Fiction is one of them. Also non-fiction, sports, food, art, movies, clothes, and so on.

As far as reading goes, I prefer good writing - in both fiction & non-fiction - to be paramount. I’m old enough now that if I start reading something that is poorly written - I quit. Just don’t want to waste my time.

Forgot to mention, Louisa May Alcott, in her novels, points out the difference between uplifting fiction (like Pilgrim’s Progress) and sensational fiction. There is sensational non-fiction, too. Just read the Internet news or watch the news on TV.

 

[Razanir]

Thus, also, to draw an imaginary man, like nature in his feelings and his conduct, is the hardest task of literary genius, although the picture, when finished, may seem so simple and easy. It is an exploit utterly beyond the reach of our herd of novelists. I fearlessly assert that, even though their intentions and principles were pure, and their scenes undefiled by pictures of vice, the views of human life and of the human heart which they give would not be true to nature, but unnatural, exaggerated and absurd. They do not truly paint the springs of human conduct and feeling. The men and women who flaunt on their fantastic pages are not the men and women with whom the reader has to deal in real life. And he who suffers his views of life to be colored by such reading, as every novel and play-reader must to some extent, is destined to nothing but blunders, disappointments and disgusts, when he attempts to buffet with the hard realities of the world. His course must resemble that of the man who has never beheld visible objects except when distorted by a prism, and fringed with its fantastic hues, until he goes forth to travel through the world. Hence it is that we see so many young gentlemen and young ladies who have learned their views of life out of the delusive mirror of fiction disappointed of their hopes, disgusted with their experience of actual life, and professing what they imagine to be a picturesque sort of Byronic misanthrophy, which is in the eyes of all sensible people as contemptible as it is selfish.

His argument here seems to be that fictional characters are unrealistic. I beg to differ. Here’s a two examples of complex and realistic characters:
*Faramir, son of Denethor and final Steward of Gondor– Whereas his brother Boromir quickly succumbed to the power of the Ring and wanted to use it to defeat Sauron, Faramir was stronger. He resisted the Ring’s temptation. Also, while the movie turned him into a clone of Boromir, in the book he was much more complex. He was sent to Osgiliath by his father on a suicide mission. He wanted his father’s love, but was rejected even for staying strong and resisting the Ring. Faramir was also kind and just, and when Gollum was in his captivity, Faramir called him Sméagol and refused to let his men torture him

*Jean Valjean– Okay. So I’ve never read the book. But his song “Who Am I” shows great complexity, shown here in part. He has to make the decision of letting an innocent man be arrested so that he can be free or to voluntarily be arrested again so that an innocent man can stay free.

*Who am I?
Can I condemn this man to slavery
Pretend I do not feel his agony
This innocent who bears my face
Who goes to judgement in my place
Who am I?
Can I conceal myself for evermore?
Pretend I’m not the man I was before?
And must my name until I die
Be no more than an alibi?
Must I lie?
How can I ever face my fellow men?
How can I ever face myself again?
My soul belongs to God, I know
I made that bargain long ago
He gave me hope when hope was gone
He gave me strength to journey on

Who am I? Who am I?
I am Jean Valjean!*

 

[fbl9]

It’s true that we’re all sinners with good qualities, but the point is that real vice is ugly, and in fiction, this ugliness is toned down to avoid grossing out the reader.

Since fiction is not necessary, and it can be replaced with so many more useful things, there must be a moral judgment each time it is read. I lost interest in novels shortly after my conversion, because it takes as much mental energy to read a novel as it does to read a pious book.

So, go ahead and voice whatever objections you want. You can even make fun of me for holding such a backward, Puritanical view. But if you want to know God better through His Word and various spiritual classics, you might want to give this some thought.

I can agree with your position, there was mention is the Gospels of a clean house, and the demon returning back to find the house empty, so it brings it’s buddies to move back in…

At the same time I do not condemn readers of fiction, for I am not their conscience.

 

[Daizies]

Just because I read Sherlock Holmes stories does not make me want to become a detective and smoke opiates. Reading Edgar Allen Poe does not make me commit murders or attracted to necrophilia. Reading Stephen King does not make me want to conjure up demons. Reading Ray Bradbury does not make me light my books on fire.
IMHO a well balanced person should have nothing to fear from reading fiction. (although I do agree that parents should guide their children in what is appropriate for them to read)

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Presbyterians are among those Protestants whose spiritual heritage places them toward the “if it can be abused, it’s bad” end of the spectrum. Baptists would be even further to that end.

The problem with this philosophy of life is that anything can be abused; so to be consistent, one would have to take the view that everything created is bad. Which is practically what some Christians believe.

Ever seen the film Babbette’s Feast?

 

[Bonnie]

Ever seen the film Babbette’s Feast?

Isn’t that a great movie? I’ve watched it twice - and will watch it again. I’m looking for the book it was adapted from.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Before my conversion, I learned my views of life out of fiction, and found what he said here to be absolutely right on.

From the very first paragraph you cited, I can already smell that this is nothing more than your typical, preachy anti-escapist rhetoric. J.R.R. Tolkien, an advocate of healthy escapism, wrote due to the very existence of such unsympathetic religious.

It’s kind of ironic that people like to tell fiction lovers (be they movie watchers, book lovers, or even gamers) that reality is not the same as fantasy. Atheists would say the same thing of those who believe in God. Many stories of saints read like medieval fables. Perhaps even more dangerous than ‘dangerous reading’ is the notion that our world is a fantastical la-la land of exorcists fighting demons, miraculous Marian apparitions, with monsters of the Old Testament now living the life of Big Foot and the Loch Ness monster.

Eve more ironic is that the most hardened connoisseurs not only know fiction from fact but have come to dismiss it as moot. So what if they are different? We still despise reality and prefer to ease our minds in fiction because reality doesn’t seem clear on its promises. We work hard each day, try to live according to its rules but only get half the return on our investment. (Sure half is better than nothing but to be frank, that sounds like an excuse on the part of those defending reality.)

We often talk about how violence in movies, television, and video games desensitizes us to real violence. When I think about it, it seems to follow logically that imaginary distress must similarly desensitize us to real distress. As least when we read about distress in the news, we can pray for the people involved.

Humanist naivety with only a religious face. It’s basically saying why play WoW when you should go out there to help starving kids in . You know what’s really pathetic? It’s wrong about the desensitization.

People aren’t desensitized. In fact, they are beyond that. They know that reality affords them no means to really be a hero. They bemoan the problems of fictional ones because they know someone will come in to at least change the situation (for good or for ill). I don’t know what this pastor does but apparently he thinks people are capable of playing charity worker and loving it.

Don’t make me laugh. Standing around collecting for coins, manning a soup kitchen, or tending those with terminal diseases sounds just as fantastical/fictionalized. You call that a life? HAH! No offense to those who working in that field but there’s a good reason why it’s not everyone’s calling. Sure, you alleviate the sufferings with a happy face but do you really think the whole world gets better from that kind of work?

Here’s the sad truth: It. Doesn’t.

I’d have a lot more holes to tear in this piece but I’ve got mass. Rest assured I’m not done.

 

[RPRPsych]

From the very first paragraph you cited, I can already smell that this is nothing more than your typical, preachy anti-escapist rhetoric. J.R.R. Tolkien, an advocate of healthy escapism, wrote due to the very existence of such unsympathetic religious.

It’s kind of ironic that people like to tell fiction lovers (be they movie watchers, book lovers, or even gamers) that reality is not the same as fantasy. Atheists would say the same thing of those who believe in God. Many stories of saints read like medieval fables. Perhaps even more dangerous than ‘dangerous reading’ is the notion that our world is a fantastical la-la land of exorcists fighting demons, miraculous Marian apparitions, with monsters of the Old Testament now living the life of Big Foot and the Loch Ness monster.

Eve more ironic is that the most hardened connoisseurs not only know fiction from fact but have come to dismiss it as moot. So what if they are different? We still despise reality and prefer to ease our minds in fiction because reality doesn’t seem clear on its promises. We work hard each day, try to live according to its rules but only get half the return on our investment. (Sure half is better than nothing but to be frank, that sounds like an excuse on the part of those defending reality.)

Humanist naivety with only a religious face. It’s basically saying why play WoW when you should go out there to help starving kids in . You know what’s really pathetic? It’s wrong about the desensitization.

People aren’t desensitized. In fact, they are beyond that. They know that reality affords them no means to really be a hero. They bemoan the problems of fictional ones because they know someone will come in to at least change the situation (for good or for ill). I don’t know what this pastor does but apparently he thinks people are capable of playing charity worker and loving it.

Don’t make me laugh. Standing around collecting for coins, manning a soup kitchen, or tending those with terminal diseases sounds just as fantastical/fictionalized. You call that a life? HAH! No offense to those who working in that field but there’s a good reason why it’s not everyone’s calling. Sure, you alleviate the sufferings with a happy face but do you really think the whole world gets better from that kind of work?

Here’s the sad truth: It. Doesn’t.

I’d have a lot more holes to tear in this piece but I’ve got mass. Rest assured I’m not done.

Looking forward to seeing more of this!

As I’m fond of saying: I watched thousands of Tom and Jerry cartoons as a boy. By the “1849 Presbyterian Preacher” and his modern-day disciple’s logic, that means I should be solving my problems today by clouting people with mallets.

And there are even Saints, such as St. John Bosco, who have spoken of the goodness of play (which is another form of escapism). If playing at being a soldier / pirate / circus clown is all right, then why is reading about them wrong?

Honestly, posts like the OP’s just give secular humanists a very convenient stick to whack us with.

Mark Shea also has good articles on fiction and popular culture, which are relevant to the current discussion.

 

[RPRPsych]

Presbyterians are among those Protestants whose spiritual heritage places them toward the “if it can be abused, it’s bad” end of the spectrum. Baptists would be even further to that end.

The problem with this philosophy of life is that anything can be abused; so to be consistent, one would have to take the view that everything created is bad. Which is practically what some Christians believe.

Ever seen the film Babbette’s Feast?

The biggest joke about the OP’s arguments is that some of the best children’s books ever written - and they’re still read and loved all over the world - were written by a devout Presbyterian, the wife of a minister, who saw absolutely no conflict between her faith and what she’s written. He should do himself a favour, drop Dabney, and take up some L. M. Montgomery.

He might also profit from reading the following, which explains why “one size does not fit all”, far better than I ever could:

pagebypagebooks.com/Lucy_Maud_Montgomery/Chronicles_of_Avonlea/III_Each_In_His_Own_Tongue_p1.html

 

[Bonnie]

The biggest joke about the OP’s arguments is that some of the best children’s books ever written - and they’re still read and loved all over the world - were written by a devout Presbyterian, the wife of a minister, who saw absolutely no conflict between her faith and what she’s written. He should do himself a favour, drop Dabney, and take up some L. M. Montgomery.

The “Anne” books are wonderful! I’ve read them so often I practically have them memorized. But anyone who is just getting started with them, you do have to start at the beginning, with “Anne of Green Gables” and read them in order, all the way to “Rilla.”

I enjoyed them when I was young, and even more as I got older. I think I’m due for another good visit with Anne.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

This is hardly a secret. Anyone who sees Christians on TV depicted as hatemongers knows this.

Please, you’re making me snort. The guy’s basically saying reality is somehow an embodiment of virtue. You can’t be serious. If someone thinks fiction’s full of vice, I shudder at the very thought of them getting out more often. Fiction is but a sugar-coated reflection of how cruddy real life actually is.

Furthermore, we are not infallible in our discernment, so we cannot know for sure that a seemingly harmless work of fiction does not contain harmful material. Either of these arguments would be sufficient to condemn all fiction.

Oh because there’s a small risk, we shoudn’t do it? Why don’t you make the case of living in a bubble eh? Man, and they tell me to get over my fears of failure and fallibility. Thanks for being one level below me in terms of incapacity to accept it. Gives me more reason to get over myself. Praise the Lord!

Also, notice the author’s use of a story to make his point. Is he contradicting himself? Of course not! Jesus used parables, and this author is a Christian. But the purpose of such stories is solely to educate, not to amuse. The difference is like the difference between a piece of piano music written to evoke feelings and one written to teach a student how to play the piano. There’s a world of difference.

You know it says a lot about you being Catholic when one of Christ’s miracles was in fact solely for the purpose of amusement. Turning water into wine remember? The very account is not only a case of Mary being an intercessor for us. It shows that Jesus went out. Had fun. That miracle didn’t really have him ‘teaching’ anything. Kinda like fiction eh? (And if I may add, the human imagination can be a miracle in of itself. )

Why do we allow ourselves and our children to see things in books and in movies that we would never want to see or let our children see in real life? As the author points out, “Bad company ruins good morals.” (1 Corinthians 15:33)

Because they will. Don’t believe me? Ask Fox News, CNN, BBC, Discovery Channel, History Channel, and don’t even get me started on the internet.

I would even argue that better for children to grasp the concept of murder and rape through the safe lenses of fiction than to traumatize them with the real deal. At least the former doesn’t leave any actual permanent damage (like death or pregnancy).

People who talk about the media are fond of calculating how many murders a child sees on television. How many acts of disobedience to parents does he see? How many humorous insults does he hear? Looking back at my childhood, I can see how much I was corrupted in this manner by all kinds of fiction. We don’t let out kids make friends with bad kids, why do we let them “make friends” with bad fictional people?

Gee, I don’t know. Good or bad, I hardly knew what it was like to have any friends until waaaaay near the end of my college days up till now. Back then, the only kids I knew were the kind that looked for every reason to humiliate me and put me down. Want some figures? Try ten years of that. Reality is a wonderful place all right. Too bad there are people out there who never had the blessing to meet any ‘good kids’ at all. Oh but, fiction is sooooo bad. Let’s not make it easier for them to share the company of fictional characters who valued friendship and stood for the weak.

What a wonderful world you must want people to live in eh?

 

[RPRPsych]

The “Anne” books are wonderful! I’ve read them so often I practically have them memorized. But anyone who is just getting started with them, you do have to start at the beginning, with “Anne of Green Gables” and read them in order, all the way to “Rilla.”

I enjoyed them when I was young, and even more as I got older. I think I’m due for another good visit with Anne.

I’ve been reading them since I was 8 or so, and I still can find much profit from them.

Agreed with you on the order, though; I started with the second (“Anne of Avonlea”) and was a little confused at the beginning.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

It’s true that we’re all sinners with good qualities, but the point is that real vice is ugly, and in fiction, this ugliness is toned down to avoid grossing out the reader.

God, you’ll buy anything won’t you? That’s not healthy man. Clearly you are just trying to make a weak defense of what’s really a hilarious view of reality.

Whether it’s fictional or real. Anyone who wants to make something more human should know that comes with good and bad mixed together. Honestly, this portion is so twisted in ways that makes irony an understatement of the century. Assuming bad people are just plain bad is a misconception fiction supposedly makes (the preachy Chick tract variety in particular).

Since fiction is not necessary, and it can be replaced with so many more useful things, there must be a moral judgment each time it is read. I lost interest in novels shortly after my conversion, because it takes as much mental energy to read a novel as it does to read a pious book.

I write fiction. It’s my calling. It may not be my official profession but it’s my goal in life. Unfortunately, most of my time is spent more on responding to nonsense like this and doing the ‘spiritual reading’ you people keep recommending. Why? It’s because my stories are inspired responses to stupid ideas I find muddling the good ideas in my own religion.

Unfortunately, it’s more mentally taxing to tackle the absurdity of dumb ideas than it is for me to just describe a fantasy character.

Think about that, hard, before assuming that sharing the time-wasting propaganda of 1800s Presbyterian pastors makes you more productive than the likes of me.

 

[InLight247]

Sayings of Light and Love by St. John of the Cross:

1. Be hostile to admitting into your soul things that of themselves have no spiritual substance, lest they make you lose your liking for devotion and recollection.

Basically I don’t read fictions. But there are good literary works contains valuable moral reflections and underlined faith themes. We just need to know how to choose.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Looking forward to seeing more of this!

Glad you liked it cuz I just finished the rest. I doubt I’ll get a response, judging from the tone of the OP’s last line. It’s a shame though since I thought the guy more intelligent than this. Reading the whole thing has been one of the saddest waste of good words I have ever the misfortune to waste my time on.

Gotta hand it to 1800s pastors to say things that are fluent and foolish at the same time. If I were to translate these posts to their bluntest, it wouldn’t even reach the size of my copywriting write-ups.

As I’m fond of saying: I watched thousands of Tom and Jerry cartoons as a boy. By the “1849 Presbyterian Preacher” and his modern-day disciple’s logic, that means I should be solving my problems today by clouting people with mallets.

Meh, I’m more cynical. My own fallibility just had the bad luck of mixing with others which resulted in my life never ever realizing the fun-with-friends fantasy I often saw on TV. Could I have gotten out more? Could I have done better? Maybe. I gave things a shot. I still do. But as always reality likes to troll you by sticking out its foot. If I didn’t have fiction as my only means of trolling it back, God knows I’d be crazier than I already am.