I figure the wrong sorts cause harm, those not worth reading give no benefit – the storytelling doesn’t give insight into the subject matter, the characters don’t give insight into society and the way people think, act, and behave, and the setting and background of the story don’t give information about life, living, history, or anything else. I think the books and stories ‘not worth reading’ happen most often when the reader is disengaged from the story. Sometimes this happens permanently, sometimes this is a periodic thing. Sometimes I may be in a mood or frame of mind to appreciate a certain story, and not other times.

What harm can the wrong sorts of book do? By focusing attention on particular acts or scenarios, a book can create changes in the reader. Patriotic stories increase patriotism, or we would never read of the ride of Paul Revere, never sing the Star Spangled Banner. We would never read and study religious references and fiction, if they didn’t focus attention, increase awareness and affect character. Murder novels, gruesome crime stories in general, whether fictional or fact, tend to generate copycat criminals. The immense media attention to the Columbine shootings .. The intense scrutiny of bomb making such as Timothy McVay in the Oklahoma City bombing of the Murrow federal building indicates law enforcement at all levels believe there is a chance of others using similar materials and tactics. And books that deliberately scare, disrupt sleep, or cause character changes similar to bullying and other emotional abuse .. In my opinion.

I suspect very few books can be considered wholely ‘right’. We should be aware, though, of those that are likely to cause harm.

You keep all your smart modern writers
Give me william shakespeare
You keep all your smart modern painters
Ill take rembrandt, titian, da vinci and gainsborough,

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/k/kinks/20th+century+man_20079051.html

And, on technology: I just spent a few hours reading about medieval technology. By the 13th and 14th centuries they had plenty of technology and some of it was better than the classical stuff.

I got over worrying about what people would think of what I read when in my early teens. I had to. (Unfortunately I didn’t get over everything else they might think of me until decades later).

Yet even saying the above, there is limited time, and the time you spend on one book is time spent away from another. One must have priorities!

For instance, ‘Cross Time Engineer’ and following titles, Leo Frankowski. A modern engineer falls, drunk, into an unsuspected time portal, wakes up hung over in 12th century Poland. The novel paints an interesting perspective of what life might have been like back then, socially and economically. The novels describe the re-invention of technology 6 centuries early, and possible impacts on history. Including a version of a bunny club, ‘The Pink Dragon’, that all the nobles want near them. Is this a ‘men’s adventure’ with plenty of adventure and sex, basic SF time travel, or SF alternate history? Do we get an inkling of how the introduction of change impacts society? Of how morals tend to vary with poverty/affluence levels? I find the basic story telling amusing and rewarding, and I re-read them every year or two.

What about ‘The Great Gatsby’? That sordid tome might be great at depicting a (decadent) moment in an isolated community in America, but the characters are all despicable, murder is covered up, and the innocent allowed to be slandered and slain. Yuck. I waited 45 years to actually read that waste, and wish I had shelved it with the ‘Texas Chainsaw Massacre’ movies and materials, which I have no intention of ever viewing or reading.

Some books are meant to entertain. Most give some glimpse and insight into living and how people act and think. Some books are wonderful expressions of good storytelling, others are avant garde, and dedicated to depicting some literary variant or aspect. The first entertain. The second are useful in studying literature. Only rarely are powerful, edgy books also good storytelling.

I enjoy the good storytelling, and am not ashamed to tell people, ‘I am reading SF’. I cannot find the reference any more, but I read that Joseph Campbell wrote in the 1950′s that “A good science fiction story is a good people story.” Also, “SF is 90% drekh. But 90% of everything is drekh.” Try C. J. Cherryh’s “Pride of Chanur” for a ‘good people story’. And the second part? Reassures me that SF is no better nor worse that Dickens, bodice rippers, crime novels, or ‘On the Conquest of Gaul’ (attributed to Julius Caesar).

Sign me ‘Not Anxious’. Now I want to go read my two new books, the new Harry Potter and ‘Beguilement’, the new Sharing Knife story from Lois McMaster Bujold. Right after I finish my re-read of “Lt. Leary Commanding”, David Drake.