The Love of Novels: Reading at all Costs
The Prize-winning Essay competition from The Juvenile Library utilized the question of “Whether such a Love of Novels as excludes all other reading, or no reading at all, is most to be condemned?” to frame the arguments on this phenomenon of the novel as a wave of obsession just a little over a hundred years after its first appearance in the literary scene. Remembering how short a time the genre had to emerge highlights its incredible reception; yet, as we will see, it also brought with it many skeptics who question whether such an enthusiastic welcome could diverge into a mania of infatuation. The four students whose essays won a place in this competition ultimately articulated the main points in favor of reading only novels and excluding all else, which I align myself with, or in opposition, taking the stand that reading nothing would be less harmful.
The winner of the competition, Elizabeth Parker, took the side of reading nothing at all. Honing in on the effects of novel reading on a more vulnerable audience, such as young girls, she states that “The love of novels is, without a doubt, extremely pernicious, as it introduces false ideas into the mind, vitiates the taste, and has a tendency to corrupt the heart”(Parker 252). Her summation indicates that it would be better to be free of such obsession, which young readers are so apt to, and instead advocates for girls to form their opinions through natural experiences. Eliza Sinclaire augured similarly to Parker, going against novel reading that excludes all else. She claims a familiar argument of falsehoods but introduces another vital point, “A love of Novels…destroys an inclination for serious reading; for after suffering the imagination to wander in “the fairy land of fiction”, we do not feel much desire to peruse books of instruction”(Sinclaire 256).
The second prize winner, Eleanor Smith, countered Parker’s view and took the side of novel reading. Though the arguments against are quite similar, as they suggest that distortion of reality can occur; nonetheless, reading nothing would prove far more harmful. She says, “The minds, however, of persons who are total strangers to books, become brutalized and immersed in ignorance; and their faculties, unimproved by reflection, degenerate into imbecility”(Smith 255). In fourth was Jane Lewis, who also defends novel reading to be the best of the two disagreeable options. She mentioned the idea that they “run the risk of receiving a few false notions of society”(Lewis 257), but that in no way should it prevent the benefits of novel reading from being considered. Her last point stems from a common theme we have seen emerge through this era: forming observational skills and practicing good judgment.
The arguments made by the girls appear to adhere to the main elements of the professional literary critics, especially the aspects of portraying a false depiction of life. Also, keeping in mind that both of these choices were offered to the girls as harmful, the key to the argument was which was “ most to be condemned”. Knowing this and the nature of the question, it seems fair to allege that Parker’s first-place essay would focus on the negative aspects of novel reading due to the enormous amount of societal interest in critiquing novels. From a modern-day context, I was expecting a more positive response based on how culturally, youth tends to engage in new forms of entertainment in a much more enthusiastic way than adults who critique. The arguments the girls made in favor of reading only novels tended to center around the fear of ignorance developing through no reading whatsoever. I find it more persuasive when they examine elements of forming judgments, opinions, and making observations and how that could be realized through novels.
Though the girl’s statements were very abstract, as they did not cite any particular source, connecting those arguments to examples from our course’s variety of novels both reinforced the ideas mentioned in favor of the novel and countered the arguments against it. For instance, I looked at Miss Smith’s claim that “…we shall perhaps find that the most efficacious method of communicating instruction, is by amusing and interesting the imagination” (Smith 255). Then, by shifting to Fanny Burney’s Evelina, reviewers felt that it was within the realm of possibility despite its easy style, entertaining characters, and amusing events. Evelina could be viewed as frivolous, yet the storyline could entertain readers, though not too much to detract from the deeper message. This quote relays just that, “…but you must learn not only to judge but to act for yourself: if any schemes are started, any engagements made, which your understanding represents to you as improper, exert yourself resolutely in avoiding them…”(Burney 166). In direct contrast to an argument raised in Miss Parker’s essay in which she alludes to novels depicting perfection among characters, we see a subtle but essential message from Burney highlighting the opposite. She chose to immediately disclose, “Let me therefore, prepare for disappointment those who…entertain the gentle expectation of being transported to the fantastic regions of Romance…The heroine of these memoirs, young, artless, and inexperienced is No faultless Monster, that the World ne’er saw, but the offspring of Nature, and of Nature in her simplest attire”(Burney 10).
Another element that I found related to what Lewis’s essay raised was the ability of novels to be a source of instruction and able to transfer skills and experience into real life. She stated that “No reading makes them incapable of forming any just observations: deprived, as it were, in some measure of the use of reason, they toil through life without being able to taste any mental gratification…”(Lewis 257). As a class, we surveyed Sarah Fielding’s The Governess, or The Little Female Academy, and a prominent message is viewing stories as more than a leisure activity but as a guiding hand in growing up learning how to behave in different situations. From the very beginning of The Governess, Fielding states that the novel is meant to instruct young girls through stories and friendship but always implies significant moral benefits to follow. For example, in Fielding’s preface, she writes, “When you run thro’ Number of Books, only for the sake of saying, you have read them, without mankind any Advantage of the Knowledge got thereby, remember…That a Head, like a House, when crammed too full, and no regular Order observed in the placing what is there, is only littered instead of being furnished”(Fielding 47). Perhaps, some of the novels Miss Lewis and or Miss Smith read had similar attributes that swayed them toward highlighting the good outweighing the negatives.
If I were to answer this question in its original form, I would take the side of “…such a Love of Novels as excludes all other reading” from a strict sense that I do not feel I could ever argue or believe that no reading is ever a better choice than reading something, whatever it may be. Part of my contemporary views that may hinder some of the contexts of this prompt from 1800 is this notion of the more significant advantages of reading than just moral instruction. My parents had always instilled a love of reading in me early in my childhood. In addition to an exciting and entertaining book, I knew that I was advancing my reading comprehension skills, elevating my grammar and use of vocabulary and that my schoolwork may improve. If I were to update this question, part of my analysis would be to consider the benefits of reading novels that transcend strictly moral and virtue-based stories to highlight what other aspects of my life could receive the benefits.
Works Cited
Burney, Fanny. Evelina, or the History of a Young Lady’s Entrance into the World. Oxford Univ. Press, 2008.
Fielding, Sarah, and Candace Ward. The Governess ; or, the Little Female Academy. Broadview Press, 2005.
Lewis, Jane. “The Love of Novels.” Nixon, pp. 257
Nixon, Cheryl, editor. Novel Definitions: An Anthology of Commentary on the Novel, 1688-1815. Broadview Press, 2009.
Parker, Elizabeth. “The Love of Novels.” Nixon, pp. 252-253
Sinclaire, Eliza. “The Love of Novels.” Nixon, pp. 255-257
Smith, Eleanor. “The Love of Novels.” Nixon, pp. 254-255
