The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1890-04-26
INFLUENCE OF FICTION.
ft Does Not Amount to as Much as Some
Would Have Us Believe.

tb DOCS NOT Amount TO us huCn us SONS
Would Have Us Believe.
The time being one in which fiction
has triumphantly asserted its supremacy
over every other form of literature, it is
not strange that ii has occurred TO moro
than one thinker to inquire how far the
conventional views of the influence of
fiction upon morals and life is the cor
rect one. There are those who hold that
the aim of narrative is simply to enter
tain, and there are those who hold, on
the other hand, that it's true function is
to instruct, view in which they find
themselves much supported by the fact
that so much of the greatest teaching of
the world has been done in the guise of
parallels There is perhaps third school
who hold some sort of mode"ate and
very likely most rational view, but no.
body ever pays much attention to mod
crate views, so that these do not really
count for much. The age is one of which
we hear every day that it is exceedingly
materialistic, and to this is not infre-
quently added the charge that even art
has como to be looked rt from it's utili-
itarian sides, so that one expects to find
UudO hCblOh has SoulC w Dt bHt
of instruction in the practical details of
life. To be logical, novels nowadays
should be simply disguised treatises
upon some practical phase of life-and
as matter of fact such some of them are.
Whatever may be theory, however, in
practice the reading of fiction does not
put one in u frame of mind to receive
instruction. We have never been ablo
to believe that there is much good in
the strictly practical realms of human
affairs. The utilitarian is so far outside
of the province of art that art does not
touch it even when it strains after it,
but only gets outside of it's own domain
without comprising that of the other
If good is to be done by fiction it must
be done in the realms which belong to
its own domain. The reach of the tale
must be toward the imaginative, the in
tellectual or the ethical. Even then if
there be a conscious and obvious inten-
tion to teach it all goes for little. Fic-
tion must lead by being, not by preach
ing.
But, quite aside from what fiction
might or might not be theoretically, is
the question what it is in its influence.
AS plain, every day matter of fact, fic-
tion is usually matter of amusement,
pure and simple. People read and for
get what they are, what encompasses
them, and the things that wear life out
if looked at too long or too closely. In
other words it may as well be accepted
as fact that fiction is what George Eliot
was fond of calling "opium eating;" it
is one of those things which dis
guise the taste of life and transform
one from mortal into dispassionate
being so far as realities are concerned,
by absorbing the attention upon un-
realities. OF course, if meanwhile fic-
tion is what it should be, and appeals
to its readers through its proper sphere,
it's influence may be high and good; but
the conscious purpose of the reader is
only to be amused. 1t follows that the
fiction which is Intentionally didactic is
least of all likely to effect its purpose
1t is precisely when they do not know
that they are being preached to that
people are most influenced. The ago is
one of unbelief and doubt, and it is to
comfort themselves in their restlessness
that people so generally take to the
reading of fiction. If the tales they
read repicture for them the same world
they are trying to escape, are they so
likely to be elevated and cheered as if
theyare shown the ideal and the possible?
Theories are all very well, but in the
presence of the great fact that mankind
can only be led by its inclinations, not
even its convictions proving in the long
runa very powerful tractor, is it not wise
to reach them through their prefer
ences; in other words, to reach them in
the only way in which they can be