I subscribe to the daily emails from Grace Gems, which I usually find to contain profitable quotes from centuries past. Sometimes when the quote touches on cultural matters, I find myself questioning or disagreeing. Much of course was written in years past that we would
disagree with, but the anonymous selector of these quotes must agree with them. So I give you one from today with the question of whether or not you agree.
Novel reading produces a morbid appetite for mental excitement. The object of the novelist generally is, to produce the highest possible degree of excitement, both of the mind and the passions. The effect is very similar to that of intoxicating liquors on the body. Hence the confirmed novel reader becomes a kind of literary inebriate, to whom the things of eternity have no attractions, and whose thirst cannot be slaked, even with the water of life.Novel reading is a great waste of time. Few will pretend that they read novels with any higher end in view than mere amusement. If anything valuable is to be derived from them, it may be obtained with far less expense of time, and with safety to the morals, from other sources. No Christian, who feels the obligation of “redeeming the time because the days are evil,” will fail to feel the force of this remark. We have no more right to squander our time and waste our energies in frivolous pursuits–than we have to waste our money in extravagant expenditures! We are as much the stewards of God in respect to the one as the other. How dangerous thus to parley with temptation!
If you wish to become weak-headed, unstable, and good for nothing–read novels!
(Harvey Newcomb, “The Young Lady’s Guide to the Harmonious Development of Christian Character” 1843)
In recent years I haven’t spent much time reading novels, but it’s not entirely a philosophical
issue as much as a practical one (lack of time). But the issue here is more than a “great waste of time.” Is reading a work of fiction akin to drinking alcohol? Are there not valuable things that can be gained in fiction that cannot be gained in any other way (less time or not)? And if this is the standard for “time-wasting,” how many other things must go first? Is it ever ok to watch a movie or a ballgame? Are the objections raised above applicable only to the excesses of novel reading?
I know that there are a million nuts out there with all kinds of wild ideas. I ignore those. This came from a source that is usually dead on.
I think the attitude expressed in the Newcomb quote is harmful for Christians. It assigns every human activity a moral category and then opposes participation in anything that is not directly evangelistic or church-related. But being a Christian ought to encompass all we do, not just those things. And conversely, there are other things that we do (paint, read, work on cars, etc.) because we are human, and these things can and should be brought under Christ’s lordship. There has been a lot of work recently on the importance of devoloping a Christian worldview which takes into account all that we do as human beings (work, hobbies, recreation, and so forth). C.S. Lewis spoke to this issue in his essay “Learning in War-Time,” in The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses.
A.D.
I think novels are a safer read than most modern text books on, say, history or science if we consider what impact it may have on our worldview. A work of fiction contains structures based on reality, mingled with imagination, and is presented as fiction, as non-truth. A text book, on the other hand, takes theory, mingles it with a little bit of reality, and is presented as fact (I would add a special jab at the “Christian” history books I used as a child in school – “facts” are spun in them as much as in any other book I’ve read). Which is more detrimental? While a textbook may not have the intoxicating effect of a novel, the liver of the brain must work just as hard to purge the impurities of that text book that was read with, let’s be honest with each other, little pleasure. Which is worse, harmfully deceiving and impure drudgery or inebriating pleasure? I am having fun playing the devil’s advocate with this one! I really agree with A.D.’s post that this kind of attitude expressed in the quote is harmful. I personally enjoyed Dr. Grant Horner’s chapter entitled “Glorifying God in Literary and Artistic Culture” in Think Biblically.
P.S. – I rather enjoy a good novel and think that Jane Austen made the point about the dangers of reading too much in Northanger Abbey, her little satirical novel.
I don’t know how much the context of the source title matters here, but it seems like it should at least be taken into account: “The Young Lady’s Guide to the Harmonious Development of Christian Character.”
I can’t claim that the author is referring only to the stereotypical novels written for “young ladies,” but if that’s in any way the main focus, some of what he wrote might make more sense.
That being said, it sounds like the GraceGems quote-selector is applying the quote to all kinds of novels (and maybe the author was, too), so a discussion about all novels is fine. It might be good, though, to keep this possible gender-context in mind.
This may be entirely irrelevant, but there seems to be one component not considered here. After recently reading Schaeffer ‘s “The God who is there,” I ‘ve been struggling a lot with where my time should go in regards to reading. Should we, as Christians, continually be reading devotional or theological books, or should we expand our interests? Schaeffer points out, that we also are called to be a part of the society around us, and to be familiar with the culture and with classic literature in order to better share our faith and understand the times in which we live. Obviously some books, such as Christian novels intended for young girls are inappropriate, but other classic works such as Les Miserables or David Copperfield should probably be familiar to us. Just some thoughts, not quite sure what I think yet though.
I’m glad books by the title, “The Young Lady’s Guide to the Harmonious Development of Christian Character” are no longer written by people named Harvey.
Varieties of Women ‘s
Sensation Fiction: 1855–1890
6 Volume Set
“With estimated lifetime sales of sixteen million books worldwide, a large personal fortune earned by writing and a devoted public following, Ellen Wood was one of a group of highly successful Victorian writers working at the time of Charles Dickens, William Thackeray and George Eliot. In contrast to these authors however, the work of Wood and her colleagues is almost completely unknown today.
Wood was among a number of women writers who wrote the kind of novels that made murder, incest, bigamy and madness part of the daily diet of respectable middle class women. Sensation novels were extremely popular, but were seen as a corrupting influence by the authorities and were regularly lambasted for their literary style and melodramatic plots. After their initial popularity, these novels fell into relative obscurity and were rarely considered in studies of Victorian literature.
In recent years however, this body of fiction has started to come back into the frame in academic studies of the Victorian novel. If the sensation novels are cut out of the picture it is impossible to gain a true image of what the novel meant to the Victorians, not only the reading public but also in terms of the cross-influences between writers.”
Hi, I get the Grace Gems also, and was a little curious about this entry too. I started to wonder about what exactly women’s novels were like in the time period Harvey wrote his book. From the above description, it appears the novels were what we know today as cheesy romance novels: Victorian soap operas!
While poking around I found that Harvey’s book has been recently reprinted. You can see the rest of the table of contents of the book here: http://www.solid-ground-books.com/detail_25.asp?flag=2#load
I have encountered this line of thinking before in some old English and American authors. Those writing in the early 19th C saw a trend among the young who were lured by novels the same way as many are with TV in our day. So I think Gunner’s thought on context is helpful. That being said, it does seem to be a broad generalization rather than a careful critique.