***Discussion: Ben, Charlie & Harriet: But who moves us now?

In the Arianna Huffington nonfiction work I just read, she mentions Benjamin Disraeli and his novel, Sybil (1845), meant to be a wake-up call about the horrible state of the British working class. According to this report the book "became a sensation and the outrage it provoked propelled fundamental social reforms".

Of course Dickens had also written Oliver Twist and Nicholas Nickleby in the late 1830s.

In 1852, American teacher and abolitionist Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin which is credited for greatly advancing the abolitionist cause. The book was THE bestselling novel in America in the 19th century (and the second top book of any kind, behind only the bible).

A few more examples: In 1861 Life in the Iron Mills, a novella by Rebecca Harding Davis was published anonymously in the Atlantic Monthly. It highlights in a rare realism the lives of exploited foundry workers in what is now West Virginia. In 1906 Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle, a novel which sought to expose the corruption in the meat-packing industry (he intended to expose the exploitation of the factory worker but the public latched on to a food safety issue).

Here is a bit more from the Huffington book which is about the declining middle class in the US: "But no matter how sobering the statistics we are getting on a regular basis...the hardships and suffering ten of millions of Americans are experiencing are almost entirely absent from our popular culture. This is a shame, because drama and narrative have the ability to move people's perceptions in a way that raw numbers never can.

Do you believe this statement is still true? If yes, do you believe this is true on a societal (or mass) level or only on an individual level? If yes, what is some contemporary novels whose narrative had the ability to change your perceptions? If no, what in our culture do you feel is now serving that purpose?

(there's more questions I could add, but I thought this would be a good starter. I don't want to discuss Huffington here, but just the idea she has brought up).

It's hard to imagine a novel that everyone goes out and reads - culture is so Balkanized now. The publishers can give each of us lots of exactly what we want, but that will be different from what our neighbor wants and is getting.

Seems like only music or films have the nationwide reach that the books you name had in the past.

>2 dukedom_enough: I thought of that - the effects of the sheer quantity of books being published - but there are books that we DO all read: Harry Potter, Twilight, Da Vinci Code, now the Steig Larsson books...(I mean "we" as a society)

Certainly there are novels we have all read which have tried to change our perceptions, at the very least, to open our eyes and make us more empathetic. But are these the books most widely read?

i'm afraid that at this point in time, in this country, readers select books to fit into their world view in advance rather to create a shared, communal depiction of the world as is. Wasn't always this way...1906 Upton Sinclair's the Jungle, and even up to the early 60s with silent spring showed to potential power of novels and "documentary" reading.

I don't have any idea what makes something suddenly spark a social response. For what it's worth, in the age of the internet it does seem nutty to expect world change from a book - unless perhaps it's one that kids read. We have plenty of books carefully documenting the effects of global warming, in shocking and horrible ways, and yet US culture and politics has barely shrugged. (Have we experienced an overall decline in the potency of journalism?)

"This is a shame, because drama and narrative have the ability to move people's perceptions in a way that raw numbers never can. "

I'm not sure about this is a good interpretation of this record. These books came out before mass media. And The Jungle came out about the same time Ida Tarbell's exposé of Standard Oil, and the effects tend to be group together historically. I suspect value of The Jungle had little to do with the drama, and a lot, maybe everything, to do with the sense of muckraking it brought with it.

Also, it's interesting seeing the list of socially motivating works - Sybil, Uncle Tom's Cabin and The Jungle...these are not fictional masterpieces. I haven't read them, but I think it's safe to say they're literary crap. But still they served as lightning rods...maybe they poor quality was a essential factor, allowing them to be more accessible...??

Sadly, I must agree that the age of books influencing popular culture are probably over. I think we have to look to movies or the internet, and even then I think people tend to read (and watch) what they already believe, as mentioned above.

One book with social implications that people still read, in droves, is To Kill a Mockingbird, but this is safely set in the past, and I don't know if most teachers teaching it use it as a springboard to discussion of racism and oppression today. And, as many of you know, I have mixed feelings about it anyway.

Well, I have to agree with most of the points brought out here. The nature of the fiction which is read in huge numbers are more pure entertainment than anything else. But here one thinks of Oprah and some of her early book club picks - certainly she had the intent of changing perceptions...

And rebecca brings up another point (and Dan also), what our teachers and schools choose to teach can certainly help shape young people's perceptions and can help make a change in society. Certainly, the banning or the controlling of what books are read (controlling in any form, read by children or adults) is a reflection of the power they still have to change perceptions?