Literature can make us a better person, if we have a great desire to become better, to learn from the examples in literature (or history) what are the weaknesses that we should overcome.  For example, I learn the great benefits of being patient from the characters in literature or history, and I strongly desire and strive and discipline myself to be more patient.  (Similarly, from literature, I can learn that honesty is the best policy and dishonest gain from corruption is not needed for a reasonably comfortable passage through this temporary world.  Let's see what others bring into the discussion.  Thanks.)

Where did Eagleton say this? I does not sound like him. He is not that naive.

Lilliana

I think liteature shows the story of various charactors playing their roles in different settings. There are positive and negative charactors. It depends on how we look at these charactors  and how we are impresssed with them. However, it mainly depends on the set of our own values, beliefs and tendency which may  have a driving force in our lives and try to guide us in the good or bad direction.

Literature expand our imaginations and refine our moral and social sensibilities.We need to go beyond the appeal to common experience and into the territory of psychological research. people are more prone to do that when the story is set away from home. The emotional situations and moral dilemmas that are the stuff of literature are also exercise for the brain studies suggest, increasing our real-life.

I surely believe that literature has a great role to play in the society. To make us a better human beings literature plays a great role. At least we become sensitive and start taking our roles and responsibilities towards society seriously. We also become sensitive towards other human beings. And our family and social relations depend upon our sensitivity towards other. If one aspect of our life is science and technology, then the other aspect which is more important is human relationships which if not satisfying can lead to disastrous consequences and can be the reasons for a number of psychological disorders. Literature teaches us how we can be happy and satisfying in our means.

However, at the same time it depend upon the person also how he takes it. But still the ultimate message of literature should be understood and taken positively.

Somebody in this forum was asking where Eagleton was critiquing the liberal humanist and social realist's idea of the use of literature. I suggest he or she should go and read Introduction to literary theory very well, especially the conclusion on practical criticism, where Eagleton was critiquing what the liberal humanists and social realists think literature's use is or should be., precisely on page 181 of the Anniversary Edition.

Well, the idea that art ( in any form) make people better is rooted on Shelley's "On the Literature, the Arts and the Manners of the Athenians" and, specially, " Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man", because he thought that aesthetical revolution were a condition to political revolution.

 Really eternal question... partially and differently answered by Plato (Republic), Aristotle (Poetics), Aristophanes (Frogs)... It is interesting, that "catharsis" of  the literature (or of the art, generally) as an emotional  purification of the person  was attested by modern experiments in behavioral neuroscience.

In addition to some of the classical works mentioned above, there are modern writings on the ethical function of literature. I might mention the work of Wayne Booth, Martha Nussbaum, and Iris Murdoch. Maybe start with the essays in Nussbaum's "Love's Knowldege."  Literature can be an exercise in empathy, a sort of dry-run to face the ethical challenges in our own lives, and a mirror of human virtues in context.        

There is no doubt that literature develops better understanding about life, about relationships. Whether literature makes you a ‘better person’ or not, can be argued and counter argued with loads of examples.  The point is not changing into ‘better’ or ‘otherwise’ person; rather the point is that literature affects you. It certainly exposes you to the myriad lanes and by-lanes of life. Literature not only sensitizes you to important issues but it certainly makes you realize your own level of sensitivity and insensitivity. It ignites a spark in you. There are certain habits, behavior, unique ways of doing things which are very insulting or humiliating to others but we keep doing them unknowingly. Literature shows us the mirror

Yehuda Amichai, Israeli  Poet became a writer by discovering the latest London poetry in an Egyptian desert  where he was stationed as a soldier (Ludwig Pfeuffer)  in British Army. He admits: ´ There had been some kind of storm, and one of the mobile libraries had overturned into the sand, ruining or half-ruining most of the books. We came upon it and I started digging through the books and came upon a book, a Faber anthology of modern British poetry, which I think came out in the late thirties. Hopkins was the first poet, Dylan Thomas the last. It was my first encounter with modern British poetry—the first time I read Eliot and Auden, for example, who became very important to me. I discovered them in the Egyptian desert in a half-ruined book. This book had an enormous impact on me—I think that was when I began to think seriously about writing poetry.

I think that you talk about two differents things. One is the plot of the books that you read: its characters can be bad or good, and you don´t always imite all you read in the books or see in the TV.

Spanish writter Cervantes says in the "Quixote": "el que lee mucho y anda mucho ve mucho y sabe mucho" (in English: "the person who reads a lot and walks much sees much and knows a lot"). This is the other question: the books give you knowledge and this knowledge could make you a better person.

Dear Ile, it is never good to make shaky generalizations. The fact is that most of what we learn comes from reading just because reading gives us experiences that we usually do not get from reality. In fact, reading is a shortcut to a great variety of experiences. We learn a lot by reading. It is almost necessary to conclude that reading literature, among other things we can a do read, brings us intuitions and knowledge that definitely improve our lives by making us more knowledgeable, more learned in many subjects, and better critics, as many thins we read do not agree among themselves. If one or two persons in a million kill others because they read a novel about serial killers, that  should not be statistically worrisome. Much more people kill other people because they want money or other property. Should we renounce to having a car because some people are killed to be robbed of their car? Frankly, Ile, your conclusion is not logically correct, nor correct in real life. Literature and reading do makes us better. This has been expressed by time and again in the past, way before we could talk about "liberal humanism"...

Best regards, Lilliana

Dear Ramos-Collado, I don't know what is there that is not logical in my conclusion: in fact, what I said follows the way of logic -that is, if literature makes us better person, then it is only logical to assume that it also has the capacity to make us otherwise. You see, literature can never act of its own: it always needs human agents to make sense of its body of knowledge. And if one has knowledge and keeps it to oneself, the one has it for its own sake. But if one tries to apply the knowledge, that knowledge becomes functional. I have watched an FBI documentary of a writer, who wrote about crimes, in fact his novels depicted the life of a serial killer and his escapades. It turned out that the writer was the perpetrator of the series of serial killing he had depicted in his works. Indeed, when we choose to do good with the knowledge or experiences we have, it is just because we have decided to align ourselves with the good forces of the universe that are pressing toward the ideal. Some may (probably propelled by some bad forces beyond their control) choose to align themselves with bad forces!

Again, dear Lillian Ramos-Collado, regarding what you said about shaky generalizations and statistics, I don't know how it is not a shaky generalization to think, as you put, that

"It is almost necessary to conclude that reading literature, among other things we can a do  read, brings us intuitions and knowledge that definitely improve our lives by making more knowledgeable, more learned in many subjects, and better critics,..."

You see, we almost always make statements that others may consider a generalization. But such statements open up space for discourse! You will agree with me that we would rather be dead than have no discourses!

  Furthermore, as you put it, "If one or two persons in a million kill others because they read a novel about serial killers should not be statistically worrisome. Much more people kill other people because they want money or other property. Should we renounce to having a car because some people are killed to be robbed of their car?"

The problem with that posture is that we assume that because we heard the story of one person, such occurrences may not be rampart and so we try to console ourselves not to be worrisome when indeed we should; even in scientific investigation, we extrapolate.

Finally, I never suggested we should stop reading because literature can also make us bad persons. To imply that would mean that we are all robots of sorts without spirit and good conscious: even somebody who becomes a serial killer by reading a novel about serial killing cannot be said to be totally finished in terms of salvation. We may all well be Goethe's MR FAUST, who in spite of his many sins, challenges and trials, was able to be saved in the end!

Best Wishes!

Ile

Ile, what I say is obvious. If you want to compete as generalizations go, you win because I am just answering you. I believe what you say is a very general, unwarranted opinion that leaves behind the whole history of both literature and reading. "Lliberal humanism" is one among many cultural phenomena. It has a date and its has its attackers and its defenders. It is always a pose to attack literature. Many libraries have been burned because of that hate. Every time a library burns, humanity becomes poorer.

Lilliana 

Undoubtedly people imitate their favourite characters in books and integrate factors of their favorite literature into life. So, the answer to your question is:yes, potentially. I know, there is always a catch, and here the outcome on the person and what they are reading. For example, a person may read the philosophies of the cynic philosophy, begin to contribute nothing to society and believe themselves righteous. Values are at play here. A person reading the Screwtape Letters will have a very different outlook on life than a person reading the Satanic Verses.

When Aristotle in his "Poetics" wrote about "catharsis" or purification of the persons through watching the tragedies in ancient theater, he meant   that by compassion to the main dramatic  heroes man can be "cleaned"  or "liberated"  mostly from  negative emotions... The same can be said about comedies. So "tragic catharsis" and :comic catharsis" exist in both cases.

It depends on what you consider to be a better person. I think that in primitive societies it was a great truth, but not in historical societies, where literature is far from certain anthropological rituals of social cohesion.