“There is no such thing as a moral or immoral book” Really? (Venue: Starbucks)

(Scroll down for topic intro)

THE VENUE: Starbucks

It's not quite spring yet so we will continue to meet indoors for the next few weeks.

When we meet indoors, we run the same event in two locations: Caffè Nero and Starbucks, so as to provide capacity for as many people who would like to attend, without overwhelming any one venue. Thus, there will be two events published, and you can choose which one to attend. Please don't sign up for both. This event is for the Starbucks location.

We meet upstairs at Starbucks. An organiser will be present from 10.45. We are not charged for use of the space so it would be good if everyone bought at least one drink.

An attendee limit has been set so as not to overwhelm the venue.

Etiquette
Our discussions are friendly and open. We are a discussion group, not a for-and-against debating society. But it helps if we try to stay on topic. And we should not talk over others, interrupt them, or try to dominate the conversation.

There is often a waiting list for places, so please cancel your attendance as soon as possible if you subsequently find you can't come.

WhatsApp groups
We have two WhatsApp groups. One is to notify events, including extra events such as meeting for a meal or a drink during the week which we don't normally put on the Meetup site. The other is for open discussion of whatever topics occur to people. If you would like to join either or both groups, please send a note of the phone number you would like to use to Richard Baron on: website.audible238@passmail.net. (This is an alias that can be discarded if it attracts spam, hence the odd words.)

THE TOPIC: "There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book." Really?

Thank you to Richard for preparing this week's topic.

In the preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray, Oscar Wilde wrote:
"There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all."

It is not surprising that he wrote this. He added the preface after first publication, in response to claims that the story was itself immoral. But was he right?

In favour of the claim:

A book may portray immoral characters in a good light. But it is up to the reader how to respond. The reader can deplore the portrayal of those characters and regard it as a test of his or her moral perception. The same goes for highly moral characters who are portrayed in a bad light.

Likewise, it is up to the reader how to respond to a book that preaches morality. The effect it has depends on the reader's response.

Sometimes the option of how to read a text is explicit. Daniel Defoe, in the preface to Moll Flanders, said as much, but promptly added that the reader would see examples of ruinous misconduct and beautiful repentance.

Accepting Wilde's claim opens us to read what we like and expand our minds. If we think that there is morality or immorality in books themselves, we may constrain ourselves. This is not an argument in favour of the factual correctness of the claim, but it is a recommendation to go along with Wilde.

Against the claim:

It may not really be up to the reader to decide how to take a book. It may be written in such a way as to convince, using subtle tricks of language. If advertising and political oratory can work, maybe novels can too.

Some books are widely regarded as highly moral. Religious texts are obvious examples. They are certainly moralising, and people might indeed be improved by absorbing what they say. Moreover, successful religions and their texts might have endured because the texts were written in ways that made absorption of their message almost automatic.

The belief that some books are immoral has been widespread, and this might (or might not) be evidence that it is correct. Some books have even been banned.

Rejecting Wilde's claim may encourage us to be careful what we read, thereby improving ourselves and our lives. This is not an argument against the factual correctness of the claim, but it is a recommendation to refuse to be guided by it.

Films

We can also ask whether there are moral or immoral films, or only films that are well or badly made. Does the more direct impact of a film on our consciousness, with visual and auditory stimulation, make a difference?

Please do come along on Sunday, and bring the titles of your favourite examples. We promise not to burn them.