The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-07-26
With Makers an0 Lovers of Literature
IS THE READING OF FICTION
 JUSTIFIABLEs AND BENEFICIAL?

Much has been said pro and con on this important subject; and probably 1t will never be a settled issue so long as human minds differ as widely as they do in gen eral makeup and as long as the fiction literature of the lands is so full of bad as we'll as good novels
 In a sense there is great benefft to be derived from the reading of good fiction; and at times a bad novel will teach lesson to the reader which no amount of ''moralizing" could possibly accomplish. Those persons who come out boldly and put the ban of condemnation abslutely upon what Is commonly called bad novels are acting surely in an un- thoughted way; proper discrimination of course must be used, but 1t sometimes takes the portrayal of a deadly sin in all It's ugliness to cause a wilful per- former of such sins to take warning and desist.
 Recently there appeared in religious paper the following timely and well writ ten article on novel reading:
 'Ts it right to read novels? Yes and no! We recall now a college graduate lying on his back in his room and gulplng down one after another of Sir Walter Scott's works; and an anxious mother looking upon her sons employment, and with sad face turning away. In her Puritan home she had been taught to regard novel reading as essentially sinful, and would have endorsed the condemnation con- sidered to be sufficient. It is all lie anyway. It was forgotten that there is sence in which the stories of the nursery, the fables of books, and even the parables of our Lord are fictitious. One not wanting in reverence to the Holy Scripture thus defines the parable: A narrative moving within the sphere of physical or human life, not protesting to describe an event which actually took place, but expressly Imagined for the pur- pose of representing in pictorial figure a truth belonging to the sphere of religion. and therefore referring to the relation of man or mankind to God (Goebel.p To object then to fiction on the ground Of its nctitiousness is unreasonable: the dress may be imaginary. but the teaching truthful and that truth Of the highest kind The question as to right and wrong in the case must frequently turn on other considerations. and principally upon quality and quantity"
 There are novels which should not be read by either young or old, because of literary defect. Slipshod in style or suited in language. they cannot be read without detriment to ones own taste and elegance of expression. There are others horrible in details, sensational in design which should be ignored, like highly spiced diet. they destroy the appe- tite.
 for good and nurishing food. There are others positively poiuting. salacious by expression, oftener by implication, which should be avoided as one would a drug marked with skull and bones. There are novels which teach false ethic especial ly of marriage which should be discarded for that reason. There are works of fic- tion which have as their motive exploita- ton of some heresy in religion, which should be put under the ban. save as read for continuation. There are novels decid- edly infidel in spirit, which. of course are unwholesome and especially hurtful to the young. These exceptions, while they include a vast number of works of fic- ton, still leave enough of excellent pub lications to satisfy the largest appetite for romances. There are the older clas- sics: The Waverly novels. Dickens null titudinous volumns. Thackeray Mullock, Bronte. Cooper, Hawthorne. new to each generation in turn, and, among uloderns, Ian MacLaren, Barre. Page, Collins, Johnson and q host of writers, male and female. whose performances are marked by good literary finish and purity of treatment, Of course, even Scott and