Re: Question: Why did Victorians consider novels "dangerous"?

I've always understood that the Victorians preached against "novels"
because they were frivolous and gave both children and adults bad
ideas. It was seen as if today you gave a someone only soft-porn or
"spicy romance" books to read. Novels featured rakish men "making love"
to women who were flirting and not acting modestly. Louisa May Alcott
references several times about "novels," primarily "French novels,"
including in EIGHT COUSINS. Rose is reading a thrilling novel with lots
of romance in it and when Uncle Alec asks her about it she feels guilty
and blushes. Also her young cousins Will and Geordie are reading
dime-novel stuff with murders, smoking, drinking, swearing and "slang,"
the last which seems to have been considered almost as bad as the other
four. Aunt Jessie wants them to read more instructional books like
"Harry and Lucy" (whatever that was) where the children are polite,
mannerly, speak properly, don't indulge in vices like smoking and
drinking, and there is no violence or implied sexuality. You were
supposed to read books that improved your mind or told a good wholesome
story, things like Bacon's ESSAYS, Emerson's essays, or stories that
had a religious theme. Most of the ST. NICHOLAS magazines I have
continually urge children not to read worthless novels or to grow up to
be the kind of adult that does so.

My parents were children of Victorian parents and although my mother
instilled a love of reading into me--even as a small child I preferred
a book to a toy--she and my dad always worried I was reading too much.
"Go outside and play." My mom was afraid I'd get rickets! ST. NICHOLAS,
while encouraging children to read, urges they not read too much and go
outside for healthful exercise and to observe the natural world: watch
birds, animals and insects and how they lived. Also, girls who read too
much were looked upon with suspicion in some circles. Girls were
supposed to have enough knowledge to care for a home, a husband, and
their babies, and reading of mannish books like wilderness adventures
and advanced "men's" subjects like higher math and science was frowned
upon. Some people said subjects like that "excited" girls and was bad
for their health, or that women's brains were not fit for such subjects
and they were not intelligent enough to grasp them. Or it was
"unwomanly"--there's that word again!--to study those types of
subjects.

Not to mention the fine manly boys who thought boys who read all the
time were "sissypants." Only boys who participated in rough sports and
outdoor activities were "real boys," the others were "grinds." A lot of
these old books have bookworm boys who are gradually reformed by their
athletic classmates so they become good, healthy "whole" boys. Kind of
like the tired movie convention today where the girl in the class who
likes to read suddenly has a makeover, gets rid of her glasses, tries
makeup, and suddenly "blossoms." (God, I hate those stories... <g>)

Linda

.