As conservatives, we consider ourselves to be the guardians of classics, protecting them from woke mobs. But works like Of Mice and Men were dubbed “classics” as our Western values were already coming to a close. I’m wary of books selected by leftist professors from the ’60s enjoying the same immunity status as veritable classics like Hamlet and Jane Eyre. The difference is that older classics are firmly rooted in our Western values, while many modern works are expressly fatalistic.
In other words, recent wokeism isn’t the only thing we should be looking out for on school reading lists. Literary trash has been the staple of the education system for decades. //
Modern literature shows hardship without hope. Plenty of literature depicts the hard realities of life. The difference is that some portray this in a context of hope, while others don’t. For example, Crime and Punishment portrays Sonya being compelled into prostitution; however, it makes it clear that she can choose a path of redemption. Modern literature, on the other hand, tends to have the message that “life is terrible and that is it.” The characters are not free agents but are acted upon solely for the purpose of affirming the author’s bleak message. They inculcate a victim mentality, not fortitude.
Modern literature focuses solely on negative examples, not heroes. Yes, Anna Karenina depicts adultery, but it also features Kitty and Levin’s loving marriage. In books like Of Mice and Men, there are no heroes worth emulating, just darkness. C.S. Lewis wrote, “Since it is so likely that [children] will meet cruel enemies, let them at least have heard of brave knights and heroic courage. Otherwise you are making their destiny not brighter but darker.” We should reevaluate literature that doesn’t show the good along with the bad.
Modern literature is ineffective in instilling morality. We can’t raise moral individuals by only showing them what not to do. First of all, studies show that when presented with educational TV shows, children are likely to imitate the depicted bullying rather than the problem-solving the programs intend to model. What’s far more likely to inspire virtue in young people is positive examples. But the modern authors that schools tend to favor are too cynical to provide heroes to emulate. //
Overly dark content desensitizes viewers rather than making them more empathetic and moral human beings. Well-intentioned media can have unintended adverse effects. Even if viewing violence doesn’t increase aggression in all individuals, studies show that it does consistently desensitize viewers and decrease empathy for victims. This is worth thinking about when deciding which books to expose young minds to.
There’s much better literature out there. Young men used to read riveting works with exemplary heroes like Robinson Crusoe. That has since been replaced with Lord of the Flies. Which one is more likely to teach a young boy about the sort of man he should become?
To be clear, I’m not knocking books just because they’re new; I’m suggesting that they’re a departure from our values and other works merit more attention. For example, The Lord of the Rings and To Kill a Mockingbird were written in the same century as Lord of the Flies, but both depict light and goodness along with evil. While Lord of the Flies only shows the fall of man, Lord of the Rings shows redemption and heroism. It’s interesting to consider that although Tolkien fought in the same World War that turned other writers to the dark and the cynical, he chose to write about goodness and light.
