The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1890-04-26
INFLUENCE OF FicTioNF ~
1t Does Not Amount to as Much as Some
Would Have Us Believe.

Would Have Us Believe.
The time being one in which fiction
has triumphantly asserted it's supremacy
over every other form of literature, it is
not strange that it 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 lind
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 moderate 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
maJerialistic, and to this is not infre-
q emily added the charge that even art
has come to be looked at from its utili-
itarian sides, so that one expects to find
that fiction has come to be the vehicle
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 frame of mind to receive
instruction. Wo have never been able
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 oven when it strains after 1t,
but only gets outside of it's own doma z
without comprising that of\ the other
If good is to be done by fiction it must
be done in tho 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 conscious and obvious inten-
ton to teach it all goes for little Fic-
ton 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-
ton is usually matter of amusement,
pure and simple. People road and for
get what they are, what encompasses
them, and the things that wear life out
il looked at too long or too closely. In
other words, it may as we'll 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 arc concerned,
by absorbing the attention upon I'M
realities. OF course, if meanwhile fc-
ton is what it should be, and appeals
to its readers through its proper sphere,
its 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 ali likely to effect it's purpose.
1t is precisely when they do not know
that they are being preached to that
people are most influenced. The age 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
they are shown the ideal and the possftfs?
Theories are all very we'll, 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
run 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
reached effectively?