It’s not a hot take to say that modern art is trash. While the greats of the past created works that embodied excellence and nurtured our noblest sentiments, the moderns make insolent ugliness that few but deranged college professors love. Yep, I am not saying anything new when I say that modern art is a departure from our Western ideals.
So when are we going to come to the same conclusion about modern literature?
As a high school English teacher, there are many “classics” on my school’s reading list that I don’t think should make the cut, such as “The Lottery,” Lord of the Flies, Ethan Frome, and Of Mice and Men. Some of my colleagues insist that although these works are bleak, they contain essential truths that are somehow going to make the young, impressionable minds reading them better thinkers and better people.
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.
Some people reading this are going to say something along the lines of, “Yes, the modern books you list are gritty, but we shouldn’t shelter kids from reality.” Here are some problems with that line of thinking:
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.
Second of all, it is a truth universally acknowledged that while people are really good at pointing out evil in others, they’re usually pretty bad at seeing it within themselves. This is why members of both parties think their opponents are Nazis. When people see evil in art, they’re not likely to look inward. In my experience, reading Of Mice and Men didn’t seem to have any effect on my students being more empathetic toward disabled or otherwise different people. If we’re going to keep reading it in schools, I’d like to see some evidence that such books effectively create more moral people.
There’s a difference between sad and disturbing. Plenty of uplifting, wholesome works meaningfully portray tragedy and hardship. Even children’s literature like Little House on the Prairie, Little Women, and Carry On, Mr. Bowditch does this effectively; these books are realistic portraits of life with heartache and loss. The difference is that some works of art portray sadness while others are just plain disturbing. Of Mice and Men in particular just feels contrived.
One of my students remarked after reading it, “Some books make me sad, but I still like them. This book just gave me a sick feeling the whole time.” As conservatives, oftentimes we scoff at trigger warnings and the hypersensitivity of the rising generation. But sometimes the tender feelings of the innocent are the product of an untainted conscience and are worth listening to. Why are we looking to disturbing literature for enlightenment?
We’re used to defending content in literature as long as it “makes a point,” but the question we need to be asking ourselves is, does the point really justify the content? I remember wondering after reading a book assigned in my graduate course if the point that sexually exploiting women is wrong is best made by exploring a pervert’s dirty inner thoughts in depth and describing women’s naked bodies as this book did. The destination doesn’t seem worth it if the journey requires trudging through filth.
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.
It’s time to remove the authority of hippie professors from the ’60s to define what a classic is. Just because some literary experts insist a book has value doesn’t mean we have to subject our 14-year-olds to it. It’s no secret that our education system is failing to raise thoughtful, moral individuals. As we go forward, we need to create a literary canon that effectively inspires young people to become principled adults.