Negative literature tends to foster negative attitudes.
Karina Worlton is a freelance writer residing in West Jordan, Utah.
I remember having a conversation with an English teacher when I was 12. We were discussing good books. I told her that I never read a book without first reading the ending. If it had a happy ending, then I read it. Otherwise I did not. The teacher told me that I was missing out on some of the best books with my method. I tried to accept what she said at face value. It wasn’t until ten years or so later that I was able to take a closer look at the concept of happy endings.
As an English major in college, I took several “period” literature classes, such as “Victorian,” “Modern,” “Romantic,” and “Renaissance.” Each period had overlying characteristics that tied it together. For example, many of the early writings in English history were primarily religious in nature.
On the whole, my least favorite works of literature most often were written during the more modern periods. (Different people select different beginning and end dates for periods. I shall broadly define modern as the last 50 or so years.) There is an overwhelming trend in recent literature toward negativism, or “realism” as it is called. The idea behind realism is that literature should be as close to real life as possible. However, it seems that most authors live very sad lives, because in their books no one is allowed to be happy. In addition, many modern books discuss topics such as drugs, suicide, the occult, and war. These things are not a part of my life, and I do not want them to be.
I now no longer believe that I am “missing some of the best books” by wanting a happy ending. I have come to narrow my definition of “happy ending” to one that leaves me feeling positive about something. The hero of the story might get killed, but if he died defending his principles, I am left applauding the hero’s actions.
As a college student, I was often assigned books to read that I felt were very negative. I was told that these books showed life in the twentieth century and therefore they were very important. Furthermore, when we studied books from earlier time periods that were not negative, we analyzed them using modern “realistic” critical viewpoints. In my opinion, there are three main reasons why such books are considered “representative” of this century: Darwinism, Marxism, and Freudianism.
When Darwin’s theory of evolution was introduced and gained popularity, it changed the thinking of many people. Many of those who had believed that man had been created by a loving God began to think that science had disproved the existence of a God. Without a God, the remainder of their beliefs, such as a purpose for life and a life after this one, faded away. Life was a dreary drudgery, and death was simply an end.
Marxism taught men that they were not individuals, but part of a society (a community). The good of all superseded the good of one. As a result, the belief that mankind consisted of unique individuals who could achieve according to their diverse efforts and talents was supplanted by the belief that mankind was a hive.
Freud’s theories were based on the idea that man was a product of his environment and background, and not of his choices and actions. As a result of Freud’s theories, many men could no longer believe that their choices and actions made any difference in what they would become.
I remember being required at the ripe age of eight to read a book on suicide and another on an illicit affair. Neither one was appealing or interesting to me. They were not enjoyable nor did they allow me to “escape” from my life; they did not teach me anything I wished to learn; they did not help me to work through any emotions.
Negative literature tends to foster negative attitudes. The more negative input I absorb the more negative I will tend to be. This input will color everything I think and do. I think the negativism in literature (and other forms of entertainment including movies and television) has been and will continue to be a major factor in the increase of crime, suicide, depression, drug use, and family break-up. Literature which claims to mirror real life helps to create “real life.” Ideas have consequences.
Negative literature also causes children and adults to have little or no desire to read. Illiteracy can be blamed on many causes, but negative literature must take its fair share of the blame. What incentive is there to read when literature only creates unpleasant feelings? I believe that if children were given positive, uplifting literature there would be an increase in the literacy rate.
Some may criticize my views and call me naive. However, I have never felt that knowing in detail what being immoral or on drugs or suicidal is like could help me in any way. I have read excellent books where “bad” things happen. In each case, these events were not the whole story. Good things happened as well, and the ending always left hope for the future.
I still read the last pages before choosing a book.
