Te Aroha AND Ohinemuri News. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1908. IMMORAL LITERATURE.

Te Aroha News, Volume XXVII, Issue 43382, 6 October 1908, Page 2

Te Aroha AND Ohinemuri News.

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1908. IMMORAL LITERATURE.

Ihis above all—to thine own self be true , 1 nd it must follow as the night the day 7hou canst not then be false to any man Shakespeare.

News comes to us from Christchurch this week of no less than five persons being charged with sellnig immoral literature, and this recalls atteniton to the fact that there is a section of even our popular writers apparently whose theory of conduct is not to be accepted as a rule in life. The magistrate who presided at a sittings of the Court, Mr W. 11. Bishop, remarked upon the fact of the popularity of a book being no test of its safe moral tone. And indeed this is unfortunately too true. Booksellers would probably find that a book if only denounced from the pulpit in sufficiently strong terms, while not forbidden sale by the censorship of the Press, would sell right out. Indeed we have heard of a case whore condemnation of a book has greatly promoted its immediate demand by tho reading but undefied public.

And this points to tho une3capable conclusion that the reading public is suffering from a dangerously vitiated taste for unwholesome mental and emotional fare. Decades ago one of our. greatest English writers, the poet Wordsworth spoke of the public thirst for “outrageous stimulation.” What- would Wordsworth have said had he lived to see the decadent moral sense of modern times reflected in the decadent modern yellow press ? and in applying the term 41 yellow ” we do not wish to be understood to mean only that class of trashy novel which is commonly sold by the lower class bookseller. Tho term applies equally to all those writers who, as Ruskin says betray the reader into a false conception of right and wrong Any production which raises the question as to whether wrong is really wrong after all, as to whether the austerities of

“ Struggling, taxed morality,” should be uncomplainingly accepted, when the tired spirit might take a little less steep a road in life, any production which tends to ungird the mind and send the pilgrim through the world with a less lofty aim in view Ilian the defeat of temptation and the perfecting of character, any such production is “ yellow ” in the worst sense. It does, not matter who is the author, a book with this tendency is not,

worth the paper it is printed on. ! Indeed, the very fact of the author’s being well-known only makes the production the more potent for harm, more likely to mislead the unreflecting public. Perhaps among the most dangerous of these modern promoters of social disorder are those books which tend to weaken the foundation of family life- They ire dangerous because they strike at the very foundations of family life. They are dangerous because they strike at the very foundation of our national existence. Once allow the idea to become general that marriage is a matter to be lightly treated, that divorce is a reasonable method of severing unhappy ties, and marriage will be rushed into wihtout due reflection and its sacred responsibilities flung aside just when one or both parties to it are tired of its restraints. And with the examples of history before our eyes there is no need to point out what that spells to the nation. .

The question naturally arises, what ought to be done to counteract the influence of dangerous reading —we will not continue to dignify it by the name of literature ? The answer is ito be sought along the lines of natural lawi: provide and promote the use of a powerful antidote. And be it said to our shame that if ever a nation fell into illhealth with an antidote lying at hand we are that nation. It may be well to remind ourselves that among other pre-eminence enjoyed by us English is the pre-eminence in modern literature. And yet with the greatest of modern literatures to mr credit (by the gracious kindness )f providence ) we for the most part ,reat the works of our greatest vriters much as a child, who would jrefer a popular entertainment to the performance of a Kubelik or a Marie Jail. This really ought not to be. I our increased educational faciliies do not do much to elevate our itandard of enjoyment here then, on his point, education has failed. In he old days, when some of us went o school there was a certain reader {n use in the upper standards which was a delightful selection from the famous English writers. We might do worse than re-introduce that reader. It included a period from about Chaucer to Froude —it was a reader worth the name ! And as to those who really are too tired when a little leisure comes their way, for the perusal of essay or history, are there not the novels of Kingsley, Scott, Charles Reade, Dickens and others, not to mention lesser names such as Ralph Connor ? Let us give them a chance with us. For readers with a taste for some of those exquisite childrens’ stories, which somehow always command a grown-up perusal, Mrs Ewing’s delicious sketches, such as her Mary’s Meadow for instance are most refreshing in their unique charm. We would urge that the antidote of a better class of reading be applied, and the taste for unwholesome, or at least unrefreshing, and unimproving reading will die out.