Tim Challies has a post about a Human Events list of the 10 Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries. You can check out the list at either link.

The most interesting thing about the list to me is that there no fiction books on it. Is fiction not influential enough to be harmful? Or did Human Events magazine limit the conservative scholars who chose the most harmful books to nonfiction only? As I thought about the question last night in bed, I realized that I was having trouble thinking of well-written fiction books that are harmful or pernicious. Could it be that it is difficult to write a good story that has an evil message? Maybe I’m just not thinking. What fiction books would you nominate for 10 Most Harmful Fiction Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries? What about the 10 Most Helpful (Encouraging to Virtue) Fiction Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries? (I’ll post my lists of both in a day or two after I’ve had time to think—and incorporate any suggestions that you have.)

As an aside, the publication Eye Weekly has its own liberal anti-religious list of harmful books, and its list does include some fiction. The Eye list also starts with The Bible and The Koran, a beginning which should tell anyone what the rest of the list looks like. After listing ten books considered to be harmful in their effects, the article ends with this rather nonsensical statement:

There’s a moral here, one many American conservatives should easily recognize: books don’t harm people; people harm people. And people who think books are harmful tend to be the most harmful people of all.

SO if I think that the ideas contained in Das Kapital and Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book have harmed many, many people and added to sum total of sin and misery in the world, I am one of the most harmful people of all????

I have a better aphorism: Ideas have consequences, sometimes unexpected consequences, but consequences nonetheless. Some ideas, put into practice, are actually perniciously evil and cause great harm.