“There is no such thing as a moral or immoral book. Books are well-written, or badly written. That is all.”
This aphorism by Oscar Wilde stuck out especially to me for several reasons, the main one being how it is still a relevant sentiment today. Purity culture tries to push the idea that books that tackle controversial topics and try to promote discussion are instead promoting the controversial actions that take place in the books themselves, deeming the novels immoral and obscene.
The first half of the aphorism is the part that sticks out the most to me, because while the sentiment is meant to apply to books, it also rings true for other forms of art as well. Whether something is moral or immoral is a highly subjective question, and is one that relies entirely on cultural context. Ideals that were commonplace in one part of the world fifty years ago could be considered highly immoral today in another part of the world. Likewise, ideals that may have been considered taboo fifty years ago could be considered commonplace virtues in the eyes of modern society. To try to pin down one exact definition of morality is impossible.
It reminds me specifically about the current book banning phenomenon that has been occurring in both school libraries and public libraries across the United States. Books are constantly being challenged and removed from shelves over their inclusion or discussion of sensitive topics such as race or racism, sex and sexuality, or vulgarity and obscenity. However, the problem with removing books with controversial topics is that in the process, you also remove the chance for students and young adults to be able to learn about and participate in these complex conversations in any meaningful or intellectual manner.
Coincidentally, the book that this aphorism reminds me of is also one of the most banned books in America, The Catcher in the Rye. The main character, Holden Caulfield, is a troubled youth, and throughout the novel he undermines many moral values, uses vulgar language, and performs rebellious acts such as drinking, smoking, and hiring a prostitute. One could easily label Holden as an immoral character for these things and claim that he, and by extension, the book, supports immoral values. However, that does not make the book itself problematic. The point of the novel is that Holden has lost his innocence, and no longer has an idealistic mindset; he is going through typical teenage angst.
Catcher in the Rye was not meant to be a moral book or an immortal book. It is simply meant to encapsulate the mindset of a disillusioned teenager who does not know how to deal with his emotions. It is an extremely well-written book which handles the subject matter in a way that is both easy to understand and easy to relate to. And yet a few years after I read it for my English class in high school, it became a challenged book and was removed from the required reading lineup. To limit a book’s worthiness of being shown on the grounds of its supposed morality is to miss the entire purpose of reading entirely. A book should be judged on the quality of its writing, not by how people might incorrectly interpret the message.
This blog post feels a little bit all over the place, but that’s because this quote touches on a subject that I am passionate about. The idea that classical literature is being used to turn children against their parents and to promote rebellious and unhealthy lifestyles is a concept that I find utterly absurd. People are meant to analyze and apply critical thinking to the themes in books, not take them at face value. To do otherwise seems all too similar to judging a book by its cover.