Is it possible for a book to make you a "worse" person for having read it?
People will list fictional works that made them better and more well-rounded human beings, it's generally accepted by most that books can have that effect. In addition to the entertainment value, you can have a greater understanding of an otherwise alien point of view, improved sense of empathy, historical context for real world events, exchanges of different ideas, and an understanding of complex relationships.
But my question is, if it is possible to be a better person for having read certainly quality books, would it not be true that there are "bad" books out there that would make you a worse person for having read it?
Attacking bad books is not only a waste of time but also bad for the character. If I find a book really bad, the only interest I can derive from writing about it has to come from myself, from such display of intelligence, wit and malice as I can contrive. One cannot review a bad book without showing off.
>>7731349
I think it depends on how you look at it. Think of The Catcher in the Rye and the guy who shot John Lennon. On one had you can say the book made him worse but on the other hand you can say he misinterpreted it and he was a bad person to begin with and that if it was not that book it would have been another.
I'd agree more with the second one.
(Without trying to start a religious debate) Think of all the people who have killed for their gods. Most recently we have Muslim extremists. Lots claim that this is a misinterpretation of the religion and its holy book.
We can say that bad people will be bad with or without books and that the books are not to blame.
The problem for me is that the same could be said about good books effecting people.
My conclusion is that there are no books that will inherently make someone "worse" or "better", but an individual's interpretation of or reaction to a book is what will make them "worse" or "better"
