What do you think?
Rate this book
The Undercover Revolution: How Fiction Changed Britain
"Iain Murray has put his finger on the turning point that sent western culture down the path to immorality. It is a persuasive explanation that we need to hear."
John MacArthur, Pastor/Teacher, Grace Community Church, Sun Valley, California, USA
How Fiction Changed Britain!
Late Victorian and Edwardian Britain saw a mega-change in reading habits. For the first time fiction took the primary place in book publishing, and the medium was taken up by brilliant and entertaining authors with an agenda for a brave new world . Such men as Thomas Hardy, H. G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw were the opinion-makers for coming generations. With the next phase of Victorian fiction , wrote G. K. Chesterton, we enter a new world; the later, more revolutionary, more continental, freer but in some ways weaker world in which we live today.
Chesterton did not live to see the full consequences of the change but W. R. Inge predicted what was coming when he
No God. No country. No family. Refusal to serve in war. Free love. More play.
Less work. No punishments. Go as you please. It is difficult to imagine any
programme which, if carried out, would be more utterly ruinous to a country
situated as Great Britain is today.
FROM THE PREFACE, by Iain Murray, "My theme - the influence of fiction on society - is worthy of much more expansion than I have given to it here. I hope I have said enough to alert others to the importance of what is too commonly overlooked."
John MacArthur, Pastor/Teacher, Grace Community Church, Sun Valley, California, USA
How Fiction Changed Britain!
Late Victorian and Edwardian Britain saw a mega-change in reading habits. For the first time fiction took the primary place in book publishing, and the medium was taken up by brilliant and entertaining authors with an agenda for a brave new world . Such men as Thomas Hardy, H. G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw were the opinion-makers for coming generations. With the next phase of Victorian fiction , wrote G. K. Chesterton, we enter a new world; the later, more revolutionary, more continental, freer but in some ways weaker world in which we live today.
Chesterton did not live to see the full consequences of the change but W. R. Inge predicted what was coming when he
No God. No country. No family. Refusal to serve in war. Free love. More play.
Less work. No punishments. Go as you please. It is difficult to imagine any
programme which, if carried out, would be more utterly ruinous to a country
situated as Great Britain is today.
FROM THE PREFACE, by Iain Murray, "My theme - the influence of fiction on society - is worthy of much more expansion than I have given to it here. I hope I have said enough to alert others to the importance of what is too commonly overlooked."
104 pages, Paperback
First published August 1, 2009
About the author
Iain H. Murray
61 books249 followersIain Hamish Murray is a British pastor and author. He was educated in the Isle of Man and at the University of Durham before entering ministry in 1955. He served as assistant to Martyn Lloyd-Jones at Westminster Chapel (1956–59) and subsequently at Grove Chapel, London (1961–69) and St. Giles Presbyterian Church, Sydney, Australia, (1981–84). In 1957 he and Jack Cullum founded the Reformed publishing house, the Banner of Truth Trust, of which he continues to serve as a trustee.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
May 14, 2026
Murray begins this little volume by stating that "it is not my belief that the writing of fiction is wrong in itself" (vii). He continues by recommending to the reader Invitation to the Classics by Louise Cowan and Os Guinness. The rest of the book must be read with this in mind. To quote Murray or present his arguments as somehow anti-fiction is simply to misrepresent him.
Murray rightly recognizes that narrative will almost always have a greater influence upon persons and society than mere propositional truth because narrative touches the heart in addition to the mind.
While he makes a case for the de-Christianizing influence of Thomas Hardy, George Bernard Shaw, and H. G. Wells, his chapter on Robert Louis Stevenson lacks the same power. (Though he may be merely showing trajectory here rather than condemning Stevenson's writings outright, since indeed he does not condemn them.) Murray admits that he himself enjoyed Treasure Island as a boy (9) and that some of Stevenson's books are "no more than exciting adventures" (18). He spends the bulk of the chapter on Stevenson showing how Stevenson rejected the Christianity of his upbringing. However, unlike the other authors Murray covers, Stevenson's books and poetry do not reflect this rejection but rather carry a strong moral tone (a correct, objective sense of right and wrong) and many redeeming qualities and strong storylines that uphold—rather than reject—Christian values. One can only conclude that Stevenson's own writings do not reflect his life but rather conform to the pervasive Christian influence of his upbringing and of society at large in the 1880s. In chapter five ("General Lessons"), Murray even states that "Stevenson had to be guarded in the opinions he made public, so much so that when he died in 1894, a fellow Scot and Presbyterian minister could write of him as 'a bright soul with faith in God and man'" (59), demonstrating that despite Stevenson's personal rejection of God, his writings reflect Christian values.
What I would add here is the important point that an author's life does not necessarily create meaning or morals in his books. First of all, words have meaning in and of themselves. Words mean what they mean despite the life of the one who wrote them. Beauty is beauty, and truth is truth. Second, an author does not necessarily have to write from his own personal point of view or belief system; he can intentionally conform to what he expects his audience to understand or desire. Third, an author can be unconsciously influenced—whether by a heavily Christian upbringing, as in the case of Stevenson, or by the literary tradition in which he is well-read—and that can be reflected in his books in themes, word choices, character development, etc. Thus, an author's life is not the only test of merit or appropriateness for Christian readers and cannot be solely used (or used as the main argument) to dismiss an author as unworthy.
Chapter three discusses Thomas Hardy, and chapter four discusses H. G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, and Bertrand Russell. Murray's inclusion of Bertrand Russell, however, seems inconsistent, as Russell is not known at all for his fiction. He wrote mathematics, philosophy, and social reform books. What little fiction he attempted was not well received in his lifetime and is not much read today, if at all. Thus, this section neither supports nor furthers his argument that "fiction changed Britain."
Chapter five gives "General Lessons" from the previous chapters. I will address each of these in turn because, while fine points, they neither support Murray's subtitle nor are most of them drawn from support presented earlier in the book. (In fairness, Murray did state that he intended to argue from the standpoint of the author’s lives, but the way he did do does not fit with the title and subtitle of the book.) His first lesson is that fiction changed the "moral standards of a nation . . . gradually and with a degree of deception" (59). This is no doubt true to various degrees, but this is not the case he has made in the previous chapters, so as is, this is an unsubstantiated claim. His second lesson is that common thought suggests science, especially evolution, "led to the setting aside of the Bible as revelation from God" in the Victorian era, but really it was the "hostility of the human heart to the holiness which the Bible reveals and requires" (61-62). However, the condition of the human heart does not make fiction culpable for the de-moralizing of a nation in the 1800s. The condition of the human heart is as it ever was, and unbelievers have been writing popular fiction since ancient times. His third lesson states that "while the men we have considered were cautious, especially at first, in challenging Christian moral standards," their lives were not moral. Again, this has nothing to do with fiction changing Britain. An author's life does not prove anything about his fictional writings without further substantiation from the fiction itself. (Some of Hardy's, Wells's, and Shaw's writings reflect questionable morals and some do not, while Stevenson's writings uphold Christian morality.) His fourth and final lesson is the strongest. Here he makes the case that words do matter and can be dangerous. If this book had spent more time on the words of the books themselves—the actual fiction that Murray argues changed Britain—then he may have made that case. Instead, he almost argues that the meaning of words is trumped by the lives of those who wrote them, which is essentially to deny that language has inherent, objective meaning (something I'm sure Murray does not believe). However, he is correct that words contain ideas, and that doesn't have to be propositional but can be contained in literary form, in character's attitudes, in moral tone, etc. What they can't be contained in, however, is the author's life outside the fiction. The author’s life may give us clues of things to look for in discernment, but the author’s life doesn’t make meaning in a book.
He devotes the last chapter of the book to arguing that Christianity is not fiction but rather is historically true. I heartily concur. This chapter, however, seems tacked on—perhaps better as an appendix—as it has nothing to do with the rest of the book or its argument. However, I'll not fault him for including the gospel in his book.
Murray rightly recognizes that narrative will almost always have a greater influence upon persons and society than mere propositional truth because narrative touches the heart in addition to the mind.
While he makes a case for the de-Christianizing influence of Thomas Hardy, George Bernard Shaw, and H. G. Wells, his chapter on Robert Louis Stevenson lacks the same power. (Though he may be merely showing trajectory here rather than condemning Stevenson's writings outright, since indeed he does not condemn them.) Murray admits that he himself enjoyed Treasure Island as a boy (9) and that some of Stevenson's books are "no more than exciting adventures" (18). He spends the bulk of the chapter on Stevenson showing how Stevenson rejected the Christianity of his upbringing. However, unlike the other authors Murray covers, Stevenson's books and poetry do not reflect this rejection but rather carry a strong moral tone (a correct, objective sense of right and wrong) and many redeeming qualities and strong storylines that uphold—rather than reject—Christian values. One can only conclude that Stevenson's own writings do not reflect his life but rather conform to the pervasive Christian influence of his upbringing and of society at large in the 1880s. In chapter five ("General Lessons"), Murray even states that "Stevenson had to be guarded in the opinions he made public, so much so that when he died in 1894, a fellow Scot and Presbyterian minister could write of him as 'a bright soul with faith in God and man'" (59), demonstrating that despite Stevenson's personal rejection of God, his writings reflect Christian values.
What I would add here is the important point that an author's life does not necessarily create meaning or morals in his books. First of all, words have meaning in and of themselves. Words mean what they mean despite the life of the one who wrote them. Beauty is beauty, and truth is truth. Second, an author does not necessarily have to write from his own personal point of view or belief system; he can intentionally conform to what he expects his audience to understand or desire. Third, an author can be unconsciously influenced—whether by a heavily Christian upbringing, as in the case of Stevenson, or by the literary tradition in which he is well-read—and that can be reflected in his books in themes, word choices, character development, etc. Thus, an author's life is not the only test of merit or appropriateness for Christian readers and cannot be solely used (or used as the main argument) to dismiss an author as unworthy.
Chapter three discusses Thomas Hardy, and chapter four discusses H. G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, and Bertrand Russell. Murray's inclusion of Bertrand Russell, however, seems inconsistent, as Russell is not known at all for his fiction. He wrote mathematics, philosophy, and social reform books. What little fiction he attempted was not well received in his lifetime and is not much read today, if at all. Thus, this section neither supports nor furthers his argument that "fiction changed Britain."
Chapter five gives "General Lessons" from the previous chapters. I will address each of these in turn because, while fine points, they neither support Murray's subtitle nor are most of them drawn from support presented earlier in the book. (In fairness, Murray did state that he intended to argue from the standpoint of the author’s lives, but the way he did do does not fit with the title and subtitle of the book.) His first lesson is that fiction changed the "moral standards of a nation . . . gradually and with a degree of deception" (59). This is no doubt true to various degrees, but this is not the case he has made in the previous chapters, so as is, this is an unsubstantiated claim. His second lesson is that common thought suggests science, especially evolution, "led to the setting aside of the Bible as revelation from God" in the Victorian era, but really it was the "hostility of the human heart to the holiness which the Bible reveals and requires" (61-62). However, the condition of the human heart does not make fiction culpable for the de-moralizing of a nation in the 1800s. The condition of the human heart is as it ever was, and unbelievers have been writing popular fiction since ancient times. His third lesson states that "while the men we have considered were cautious, especially at first, in challenging Christian moral standards," their lives were not moral. Again, this has nothing to do with fiction changing Britain. An author's life does not prove anything about his fictional writings without further substantiation from the fiction itself. (Some of Hardy's, Wells's, and Shaw's writings reflect questionable morals and some do not, while Stevenson's writings uphold Christian morality.) His fourth and final lesson is the strongest. Here he makes the case that words do matter and can be dangerous. If this book had spent more time on the words of the books themselves—the actual fiction that Murray argues changed Britain—then he may have made that case. Instead, he almost argues that the meaning of words is trumped by the lives of those who wrote them, which is essentially to deny that language has inherent, objective meaning (something I'm sure Murray does not believe). However, he is correct that words contain ideas, and that doesn't have to be propositional but can be contained in literary form, in character's attitudes, in moral tone, etc. What they can't be contained in, however, is the author's life outside the fiction. The author’s life may give us clues of things to look for in discernment, but the author’s life doesn’t make meaning in a book.
He devotes the last chapter of the book to arguing that Christianity is not fiction but rather is historically true. I heartily concur. This chapter, however, seems tacked on—perhaps better as an appendix—as it has nothing to do with the rest of the book or its argument. However, I'll not fault him for including the gospel in his book.
August 1, 2019
This is an interesting book, it could have done with being longer. I didn't find the discussion to be in-depth enough.
Mr Murray makes an excellent point that we should be aware of how our culture and biases influence fiction, and how fiction can, in turn be used to subtly influence us. However, the claim that fiction has been a major cause of the decline of Western Christianity needs to be substantiated. I recognise that fiction *does* have an influence, but it's (at least) as much symptomatic as causal and I've yet to be convinced that it plays as great a role in the decline of faith as Mr Murray suggests.
The biographies of the writers are interesting, and Mr Murray makes good points about how their upbringing and rebellion against faith has influenced their writings (and through their writings, their readers), but the main thesis of this little book simply doesn't stand. Though I'm not against being persuaded, a more in-depth and detailed discussion is needed. Fiction in itself is not worldly and wrong.
Mr Murray makes an excellent point that we should be aware of how our culture and biases influence fiction, and how fiction can, in turn be used to subtly influence us. However, the claim that fiction has been a major cause of the decline of Western Christianity needs to be substantiated. I recognise that fiction *does* have an influence, but it's (at least) as much symptomatic as causal and I've yet to be convinced that it plays as great a role in the decline of faith as Mr Murray suggests.
The biographies of the writers are interesting, and Mr Murray makes good points about how their upbringing and rebellion against faith has influenced their writings (and through their writings, their readers), but the main thesis of this little book simply doesn't stand. Though I'm not against being persuaded, a more in-depth and detailed discussion is needed. Fiction in itself is not worldly and wrong.
September 10, 2021
A short book about the pernicious influence of late 19th and early 20th century fiction in Britain. Though somewhat interesting, I am not entirely persuaded that the author makes his case. Correlation does not prove causation.
However, chapter 6 of the book, “Is Christianity Fiction?”, is excellent and is worth the price of the book. It is one of the best short apologetic pieces I have read.
However, chapter 6 of the book, “Is Christianity Fiction?”, is excellent and is worth the price of the book. It is one of the best short apologetic pieces I have read.
July 7, 2018
It has been noted by other reviewers that Murray utterly fails to substantiate his claim regarding “the influence of fiction upon society” (vii). He claims that fiction is the reason why “Christianity is a thing of the past for most people in Britain today” (3), that “books were the main means by which it came about” (4).
I bought and read this book because Robert Louis Stevenson was reported to be treated prominently, and as I find Stevenson’s fiction to be delightful and profound, I wondered what dangers Murray found in it. Though he has an entire chapter devoted to Stevenson and a few reflections in a later chapter on him, in all of it Murray gives not a single example of Stevenson’s fiction producing the effects he claims.
Instead, he focuses on Stevenson’s personal life, and his rejection of the strict Scottish Calvinism of his parents, and indeed of Christianity itself. Having recently finished a full length biography of Stevenson, I can attest that this is all true, but really beside the point, if the point is that his fiction is what did the damage.
Further, I’m afraid Murray’s treatment of Stevenson is a bit unfair in places. In one place he quotes W.E. Henley’s criticism of RLS as “incessantly and passionately interested in Stevenson,” i.e. self-absorbed (66). However, the context of their relationship reveals a disgruntled Henley, extremely bitter over a perceived slight on the part of Stevenson’s wife, and perhaps an expression long-standing jealousy. Is that really a fair way to portray Stevenson? Hardly a reliable perspective.
As a way to prove a point, he points out that “the last three years of Stevenson’s life were deeply unhappy” (69). However, context again elicits compassion rather than victorious comparisons. His wife suffered from mental illness and her behavior was a source of deep trouble for RLS. Nevertheless, he stayed with her to the end, and did his best to accommodate her. Stevenson’s physical ailments also were a source of pain, and his poor diet and alcohol and tobacco consumption didn’t help either. I read the same biography that Murray quoted from here, and my reaction was the opposite.
His personal life aside, I actually think the opposite is true of Stevenson’s fiction. He explores the complexities of human nature, of relationships, and of our experiences of good and evil in ways unlike any other writer. The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is the most famous treatment, but The Master of Ballantrae, Kidnapped, The Black Arrow, even the boyish Treasure Island and the much maligned (but a personal favorite) Prince Otto all push the reader to wrestle with reality which is often more messy than our preferred idealized constructions. Stevenson makes you feel like few other writers to, and I think his fiction should be welcome to a thoughtful Christian, contrary to Murray’s (unsubstantiated) claims.
I bought and read this book because Robert Louis Stevenson was reported to be treated prominently, and as I find Stevenson’s fiction to be delightful and profound, I wondered what dangers Murray found in it. Though he has an entire chapter devoted to Stevenson and a few reflections in a later chapter on him, in all of it Murray gives not a single example of Stevenson’s fiction producing the effects he claims.
Instead, he focuses on Stevenson’s personal life, and his rejection of the strict Scottish Calvinism of his parents, and indeed of Christianity itself. Having recently finished a full length biography of Stevenson, I can attest that this is all true, but really beside the point, if the point is that his fiction is what did the damage.
Further, I’m afraid Murray’s treatment of Stevenson is a bit unfair in places. In one place he quotes W.E. Henley’s criticism of RLS as “incessantly and passionately interested in Stevenson,” i.e. self-absorbed (66). However, the context of their relationship reveals a disgruntled Henley, extremely bitter over a perceived slight on the part of Stevenson’s wife, and perhaps an expression long-standing jealousy. Is that really a fair way to portray Stevenson? Hardly a reliable perspective.
As a way to prove a point, he points out that “the last three years of Stevenson’s life were deeply unhappy” (69). However, context again elicits compassion rather than victorious comparisons. His wife suffered from mental illness and her behavior was a source of deep trouble for RLS. Nevertheless, he stayed with her to the end, and did his best to accommodate her. Stevenson’s physical ailments also were a source of pain, and his poor diet and alcohol and tobacco consumption didn’t help either. I read the same biography that Murray quoted from here, and my reaction was the opposite.
His personal life aside, I actually think the opposite is true of Stevenson’s fiction. He explores the complexities of human nature, of relationships, and of our experiences of good and evil in ways unlike any other writer. The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is the most famous treatment, but The Master of Ballantrae, Kidnapped, The Black Arrow, even the boyish Treasure Island and the much maligned (but a personal favorite) Prince Otto all push the reader to wrestle with reality which is often more messy than our preferred idealized constructions. Stevenson makes you feel like few other writers to, and I think his fiction should be welcome to a thoughtful Christian, contrary to Murray’s (unsubstantiated) claims.
July 10, 2013
Iain H. Murray's book, The Undercover Revolution: How Fiction Changed Britain, has a fascinating premise--that the sharp uptick in the popularity of novels in the 19th and 20th centuries, particularly novels written by secularists both ambivalent and hostile toward Christianity and her moral and social norms, was the catalyst for the massive cultural shifts that British culture (and Western culture at large) underwent during that time. In other words, Murray argues that it was the subtle, worldview-shaping power of stories--not science or rational inquiry, per se--that shaped and defined the religious and sexual mores of modern society.
It's an unexpected argument, although it seems reasonable and intuitive once considered. But I remain unconvinced--not because I think Murray is wrong, but because he doesn't really explain why or how the fiction and authors he reviews directly support his thesis. This is an extremely short book, almost a pamphlet, and can be read in one sitting. Murray provides a some brief biographical info and analysis of Robert Louis Stevenson and Thomas Hardy, and to an even lesser extent Bertrand Russell, H.G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw. He shows that their personal lives directly rebutted their public statements about religion, morality and and human sexuality. Despite proclaiming that one can be happy without monogamy (or marriage at all, for that matter), satisfied by "free love," and fulfilled by agnostic or atheistic philosophy, their lives were absolute wrecks and utterly failed to vindicate their worldviews.
All this is no doubt true, but there virtually no discussion of the contents of their novels, which I found curious. Beyond an introductory statistic about the skyrocketing popularity of novels in this era--and the correspoding decline in popularity of other literary forms--Murray simply doesn't present much evidence for his thesis. Knowing what I do about worldviews and how people develop beliefs, I am sympathetic to his conclusion. But with so little supporting content (in this book, at least), the argument is unconvincing.
With a more sympathetic perspective, pastor Douglas Wilson thinks this is a "good book for jump-starting your brain." Wilson has some solid insights about how Murray illuminates the power of story and narrative in cultural development. I first heard about this book from him, and I encourage anyone to
It's an unexpected argument, although it seems reasonable and intuitive once considered. But I remain unconvinced--not because I think Murray is wrong, but because he doesn't really explain why or how the fiction and authors he reviews directly support his thesis. This is an extremely short book, almost a pamphlet, and can be read in one sitting. Murray provides a some brief biographical info and analysis of Robert Louis Stevenson and Thomas Hardy, and to an even lesser extent Bertrand Russell, H.G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw. He shows that their personal lives directly rebutted their public statements about religion, morality and and human sexuality. Despite proclaiming that one can be happy without monogamy (or marriage at all, for that matter), satisfied by "free love," and fulfilled by agnostic or atheistic philosophy, their lives were absolute wrecks and utterly failed to vindicate their worldviews.
All this is no doubt true, but there virtually no discussion of the contents of their novels, which I found curious. Beyond an introductory statistic about the skyrocketing popularity of novels in this era--and the correspoding decline in popularity of other literary forms--Murray simply doesn't present much evidence for his thesis. Knowing what I do about worldviews and how people develop beliefs, I am sympathetic to his conclusion. But with so little supporting content (in this book, at least), the argument is unconvincing.
With a more sympathetic perspective, pastor Douglas Wilson thinks this is a "good book for jump-starting your brain." Wilson has some solid insights about how Murray illuminates the power of story and narrative in cultural development. I first heard about this book from him, and I encourage anyone to
June 25, 2019
Some good material throughout, but he misses pointing out that it was not the medium of fiction itself that was the problem but the ideologies which it promoted. Fiction is an excellent form of promoting any idea (Just think, for example, of how much good was done by Pilgrims Progress) Unfortunately, the more skillful writers of the nineteenth century were using it to promote godless ideologies and it was interesting to learn about these things in a brief format. The second part apologetic for the message of Christianity is excellent and would make a good stand alone.
January 4, 2013
An interesting idea, but not really long enough to really develop it.
September 26, 2013
Wonderful thesis but too briefly considered to do anything more that whet the appetite for perhaps a fuller treatment. Much assertion without support.
Read
January 23, 2020This is a strange and rather slipshod book. It falls into two halves, the second of which is a well reasoned, if conventional, defence of the historicity of the gospel accounts, showing that at no stage could Christianity have been “made up”, followed by a well written gospel appeal to the unconverted. This section would have made quite a good evangelistic tract on its own. It's relationship to the first half of the book which claims to discuss “how fiction changed Britain” is tenuous, hinging only on the answer to the question “Is Christianity Fiction?” which this half of the book answers.
The first half of the book demonstrates that Robert Louis Stevenson, Thomas Hardy, George Bernard Shaw, H G Wells, the Bloomsbury Group and Bertrand Russell (fiction writer?) were immoral and anti Christian. This is true and sad but hardly a new revelation. It is also pointed out that novels became more popular than religious reading matter as the Victorian era moved into the Edwardian. This is also undisputable but the author does not demonstrate that this is related to a decline in morals or Christianity as a matter of cause and effect. I find it hard to follow his reasoning at times as for instance when in chapter five he asks “how a group of authors could produce such a change in the moral standards of a nation” and answers that it was done by deception. He cites that fact that Stevenson ( judged presumably on his literary output alone) was considered “a bright soul with faith in God and man” after his death, as evidence of this. Yet presumably this only indicates that Stevenson's output was not affected by his lax morals to an extent which would have an effect on national morality and the actual sad nature of his life and thought was only evident when his Letters began to be published. I also wondered why the author began at the point he did. What about the very anti Christian writing of George Elliot and the Bröntes? What about the strange mixture that we get in Defoe?
I heartily concur with the diagnosis that there was something wrong with the reading habits and the literary productions of the era under consideration but I think the novels maybe symptoms rather than agents of change. Publishers, after all, are driven by considerations of sales.
It needs a bigger book and more extensive research and thinking to deal properly with this fascinating issue. I was hoping for an explanation of such questions as:
Why were there many very popular Christian writers such as Mrs Henry Wood who never achieved the highest literary rank and so few Christian writers who did? What criteria do we use, as Christians, to make such literary judgments in any case? Can we look at fiction in the light of common grace and distinguish those productions by non Christians that espouse good morals and Christian values from those that promote non Christian values? How clear cut is this? Could there be examples of both in the same book? What percentages of the general public read books by Hardy and Wells and how does that compare with the percentage who read Mrs O F Walton and Mrs Wood? Was there a tendency for younger adult readers to read worse books than their parents? Was there a class difference in reading matter and if so did the “lower” classes read better of worse fiction than the “upper”? What about the rise of juvenile fiction?
I have a suspicion that it was evolutionary theory that enabled Victorians and Edwardians to cut loose from Christianity and led to the novels not that the novels drove people away from Christian morality but I could be wrong and I was hoping for a book that would deal with the issues. I was disappointed.
The first half of the book demonstrates that Robert Louis Stevenson, Thomas Hardy, George Bernard Shaw, H G Wells, the Bloomsbury Group and Bertrand Russell (fiction writer?) were immoral and anti Christian. This is true and sad but hardly a new revelation. It is also pointed out that novels became more popular than religious reading matter as the Victorian era moved into the Edwardian. This is also undisputable but the author does not demonstrate that this is related to a decline in morals or Christianity as a matter of cause and effect. I find it hard to follow his reasoning at times as for instance when in chapter five he asks “how a group of authors could produce such a change in the moral standards of a nation” and answers that it was done by deception. He cites that fact that Stevenson ( judged presumably on his literary output alone) was considered “a bright soul with faith in God and man” after his death, as evidence of this. Yet presumably this only indicates that Stevenson's output was not affected by his lax morals to an extent which would have an effect on national morality and the actual sad nature of his life and thought was only evident when his Letters began to be published. I also wondered why the author began at the point he did. What about the very anti Christian writing of George Elliot and the Bröntes? What about the strange mixture that we get in Defoe?
I heartily concur with the diagnosis that there was something wrong with the reading habits and the literary productions of the era under consideration but I think the novels maybe symptoms rather than agents of change. Publishers, after all, are driven by considerations of sales.
It needs a bigger book and more extensive research and thinking to deal properly with this fascinating issue. I was hoping for an explanation of such questions as:
Why were there many very popular Christian writers such as Mrs Henry Wood who never achieved the highest literary rank and so few Christian writers who did? What criteria do we use, as Christians, to make such literary judgments in any case? Can we look at fiction in the light of common grace and distinguish those productions by non Christians that espouse good morals and Christian values from those that promote non Christian values? How clear cut is this? Could there be examples of both in the same book? What percentages of the general public read books by Hardy and Wells and how does that compare with the percentage who read Mrs O F Walton and Mrs Wood? Was there a tendency for younger adult readers to read worse books than their parents? Was there a class difference in reading matter and if so did the “lower” classes read better of worse fiction than the “upper”? What about the rise of juvenile fiction?
I have a suspicion that it was evolutionary theory that enabled Victorians and Edwardians to cut loose from Christianity and led to the novels not that the novels drove people away from Christian morality but I could be wrong and I was hoping for a book that would deal with the issues. I was disappointed.
July 26, 2026
A short little book exploring an interesting idea. Can fiction have a negative impact on someone's life? More specifically was fiction a tool utilized by some to undermine the Christian faith in 19th century Britain? That seems oddly specific. And I'm not sure the Murray provides enough evidence to support his thesis. But there are some interesting things I learned about along the way. Welcome to The Undercover Revolution: How Fiction Changed Britain by Iain Murray.
1) Robert Louis Stevenson, Thomas Hardy, and H.G. Wells all achieved high status in British society through their writings. They all scorned the Christianity they grew up around and made it a target of their criticism. They considered themselves above the religious fray, adults in a world of infants held back by childish faith in a stern disciplinarian of a deity who deserved to be replaced with a more enlightened view of the world.
2) Their books reflect their worldview and pushed the bounds of what was considered appropriate in literature. Their fiction was a vehicle used to transport their worldview. And it picked up a few passengers along the way. But after the ink dried on the page, and those pages were read, what were these men remembered for? How did they live their lives outside of their literature?
3) Shattering the glass window of their cultivated images, this book lists numerous quotes and summaries of what their contemporaries thought about them. While claiming to be liberators, seekers and discoverers of happiness, and sexually unrepressed agents free to love for love's sake, these men in reality left behind a broken trail of shattered relationships imploded by their self-obsessed, lust-driven habits. By far the most interesting part of this booklet was seeing the incongruence between these men's lives and their literature. The hypocritical divide separating the two is a cautionary tale that reveals the different between an author's portrayal of reality and how they actually live in reality
4) The title of this book does seem a bit exaggerated. Or at the very least not fleshed out enough. Stevenson, Hardy, and Wells were influential writers. And they definitely furthered the cultural drift away from Christianity. But this is just a fraction of the entire pie.
Overall, some biographical sketches of men who wrote and lived out their tragically chosen worldviews.
1) Robert Louis Stevenson, Thomas Hardy, and H.G. Wells all achieved high status in British society through their writings. They all scorned the Christianity they grew up around and made it a target of their criticism. They considered themselves above the religious fray, adults in a world of infants held back by childish faith in a stern disciplinarian of a deity who deserved to be replaced with a more enlightened view of the world.
2) Their books reflect their worldview and pushed the bounds of what was considered appropriate in literature. Their fiction was a vehicle used to transport their worldview. And it picked up a few passengers along the way. But after the ink dried on the page, and those pages were read, what were these men remembered for? How did they live their lives outside of their literature?
3) Shattering the glass window of their cultivated images, this book lists numerous quotes and summaries of what their contemporaries thought about them. While claiming to be liberators, seekers and discoverers of happiness, and sexually unrepressed agents free to love for love's sake, these men in reality left behind a broken trail of shattered relationships imploded by their self-obsessed, lust-driven habits. By far the most interesting part of this booklet was seeing the incongruence between these men's lives and their literature. The hypocritical divide separating the two is a cautionary tale that reveals the different between an author's portrayal of reality and how they actually live in reality
4) The title of this book does seem a bit exaggerated. Or at the very least not fleshed out enough. Stevenson, Hardy, and Wells were influential writers. And they definitely furthered the cultural drift away from Christianity. But this is just a fraction of the entire pie.
Overall, some biographical sketches of men who wrote and lived out their tragically chosen worldviews.
January 25, 2022
This was an accidental read for me. I thought it was an entirely different book about the environmental history of my local area. Not sure how that happened.
Still, I enjoyed this quick read, in which the author claims that fiction is the reason why Christianity is a thing of the past for most people in Britain today. He takes as examples the writings of Robert Louis Stevenson, Thomas Hardy, George Bernard Shaw and HG Wells, who claimed that they were presenting the kind of life that would make people happy and free. They all believed and practised what they called open marriage, yet none of them were happy.
Still, I enjoyed this quick read, in which the author claims that fiction is the reason why Christianity is a thing of the past for most people in Britain today. He takes as examples the writings of Robert Louis Stevenson, Thomas Hardy, George Bernard Shaw and HG Wells, who claimed that they were presenting the kind of life that would make people happy and free. They all believed and practised what they called open marriage, yet none of them were happy.
June 13, 2020
In “The Undercover Revolution” Iain Murray sets out to examine how fiction may have helped change the moral landscape in Britain. I found the topic to be a fascinating study, but as others have mentioned, this is a relatively short book that only scratches the surface of its topic. In the preface, Murray acknowledges that the work is worthy of more expansion, so I think it was always his intention to just write a primer on the topic. I do wish that the book had been longer to allow for a more in depth look. However, I still quite enjoyed the book, and it has piqued my interest to search out more books on the topic.
While I was familiar with works Murray uses as examples, a lack of familiarity with some of the works/authors discussed put me at somewhat of a disadvantage to approach from a more informed vantage point. Familiarity isn’t necessary, but I do feel that if you’ve read the authors Murray mentions you’ll feel you have more input on the discussion at hand.
Generally though, Murray really spends more time examining the individuals creating the works of fiction, rather than the fiction itself. We’re given several short biographical looks at various authors, including Robert Louis Stevenson and Thomas Hardy, who each have a chapter devoted to them. Additionally Murray discusses H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, George Bernard Shaw, and others. He examines their personal philosophies, specifically in regard to Christianity, as stated in their writings, letters, and public statements. Again, these are quick overviews. Some similarities in their backgrounds, and places of overlap in their stories were quite interesting.
Murray states from the outset that he does not believe the writing of fiction is wrong in itself. Undoubtedly, there have been, and likely still are, Christians who would disagree with him on that. Many would agree with 18th century theologian John Brown who said, “…few plays or romances are safely read, as they tickle the imagination, and are apt to infect with their defilement,' so that 'even the most pure, as Young, Thomson, Addison, Richardson, bewitch the soul, and are apt to indispose for holy meditation and other religious exercises..”
But it’s not Murray’s intention to make a case against all fiction. Rather, I think he’s trying to make a point that it matters what we feed our minds on, and it also matters who is creating the content we consume. Over time, what people consume will have an effect on the society around them, and thereby, the people creating the content can effect cultural change. For good or ill. Robert Louis Stevenson himself is quoted saying, “ The most influential books, and the truest in their influence, are works of fiction.”
From the Christian perspective, fiction can effect change negatively in two ways: by open hostility in opposing Christianity and its values, or more passively by just completely excluding Christianity from the conversation, and promoting a completely secularized outlook on life.
In one section, Murray cites 1 Cor. 15:33 “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.” He goes on to comment, “A description of the dissolute, and their irreverent language, does injure. Nor is it even necessary for literature to be specifically immoral to have this effect. Books that constantly convey a purely secular mindset, that treat the present world as though it were the only world, that studiously avoid truths revealed in scripture (unless to scoff)- such books impart a godless view of life, and teach their readers to regard this world as the only ‘reality’.”
Entertainment seems to be able to gain a foothold in us, and culture, where other things may not. This can be true of all entertainment mediums; books, TV shows, movies, video games, and music. Within its confines we “entertain” thoughts, and allow for compromises that we may not abide in reality. After all, it’s only fiction, just some innocent make believe. But for the Christian it can potentially be something that hinders spiritual growth, and for society at large it can serve to move them further away from Christianity in general.
Personally, I think fiction has a tremendous capacity for good in our reading lives. Perhaps better than most mediums, it provides the ability for us to walk in another's shoes, and see through another's eyes. Which in turn, hopefully, leads to fostering empathy and charity in our interactions with others. It can instruct, challenge, encourage, take us on adventures, and inspire an adventurous spirit in us. But it’s not a medium without dangers. The influences can be good or bad, depending on the content, which we should be aware of. And rarely does a creator not infuse his work with something of his philosophy, so it matters not only what, but who, we read.
You may not fully agree with Murray’s assertions, but it’s difficult to argue against the fact that fiction exists which sometimes negatively impacts us personally, or the culture around us. Murray looked at specific points in fictions history in an attempt to illustrate this, but a secondary purpose of the book was to issue a call for discernment in our reading. To examine the types of fiction we read. To consider the authors whose philosophies we frequently digest through their work. And to also ask ourselves the question, will this work benefit me spiritually? Is it God honoring, and encouraging me in the faith? When it comes to what we read, there are lots of options available to us. May we all exhibit discernment in which books we choose.
While I was familiar with works Murray uses as examples, a lack of familiarity with some of the works/authors discussed put me at somewhat of a disadvantage to approach from a more informed vantage point. Familiarity isn’t necessary, but I do feel that if you’ve read the authors Murray mentions you’ll feel you have more input on the discussion at hand.
Generally though, Murray really spends more time examining the individuals creating the works of fiction, rather than the fiction itself. We’re given several short biographical looks at various authors, including Robert Louis Stevenson and Thomas Hardy, who each have a chapter devoted to them. Additionally Murray discusses H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, George Bernard Shaw, and others. He examines their personal philosophies, specifically in regard to Christianity, as stated in their writings, letters, and public statements. Again, these are quick overviews. Some similarities in their backgrounds, and places of overlap in their stories were quite interesting.
Murray states from the outset that he does not believe the writing of fiction is wrong in itself. Undoubtedly, there have been, and likely still are, Christians who would disagree with him on that. Many would agree with 18th century theologian John Brown who said, “…few plays or romances are safely read, as they tickle the imagination, and are apt to infect with their defilement,' so that 'even the most pure, as Young, Thomson, Addison, Richardson, bewitch the soul, and are apt to indispose for holy meditation and other religious exercises..”
But it’s not Murray’s intention to make a case against all fiction. Rather, I think he’s trying to make a point that it matters what we feed our minds on, and it also matters who is creating the content we consume. Over time, what people consume will have an effect on the society around them, and thereby, the people creating the content can effect cultural change. For good or ill. Robert Louis Stevenson himself is quoted saying, “ The most influential books, and the truest in their influence, are works of fiction.”
From the Christian perspective, fiction can effect change negatively in two ways: by open hostility in opposing Christianity and its values, or more passively by just completely excluding Christianity from the conversation, and promoting a completely secularized outlook on life.
In one section, Murray cites 1 Cor. 15:33 “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.” He goes on to comment, “A description of the dissolute, and their irreverent language, does injure. Nor is it even necessary for literature to be specifically immoral to have this effect. Books that constantly convey a purely secular mindset, that treat the present world as though it were the only world, that studiously avoid truths revealed in scripture (unless to scoff)- such books impart a godless view of life, and teach their readers to regard this world as the only ‘reality’.”
Entertainment seems to be able to gain a foothold in us, and culture, where other things may not. This can be true of all entertainment mediums; books, TV shows, movies, video games, and music. Within its confines we “entertain” thoughts, and allow for compromises that we may not abide in reality. After all, it’s only fiction, just some innocent make believe. But for the Christian it can potentially be something that hinders spiritual growth, and for society at large it can serve to move them further away from Christianity in general.
Personally, I think fiction has a tremendous capacity for good in our reading lives. Perhaps better than most mediums, it provides the ability for us to walk in another's shoes, and see through another's eyes. Which in turn, hopefully, leads to fostering empathy and charity in our interactions with others. It can instruct, challenge, encourage, take us on adventures, and inspire an adventurous spirit in us. But it’s not a medium without dangers. The influences can be good or bad, depending on the content, which we should be aware of. And rarely does a creator not infuse his work with something of his philosophy, so it matters not only what, but who, we read.
You may not fully agree with Murray’s assertions, but it’s difficult to argue against the fact that fiction exists which sometimes negatively impacts us personally, or the culture around us. Murray looked at specific points in fictions history in an attempt to illustrate this, but a secondary purpose of the book was to issue a call for discernment in our reading. To examine the types of fiction we read. To consider the authors whose philosophies we frequently digest through their work. And to also ask ourselves the question, will this work benefit me spiritually? Is it God honoring, and encouraging me in the faith? When it comes to what we read, there are lots of options available to us. May we all exhibit discernment in which books we choose.
July 27, 2021
William Cowper, “The Progress of Error.”
John Brown, “The Resurrection of Life.”
Mackenzie, “The Life of H.G. Wells, The Time Traveler,” p. 102:
“In 1891, in The Quintessence of Ibsenism, Shaw remarked that the implication of Ibsen’s plays was that it might be morally right to do things one’s predecessors had thought infamous—right…in tens of self-realization, because moral emancipation was paramount over moral duty. It was that single thought, more than any other, that energized the shift from Victorian to Edwardian values.”
John Brown, “The Resurrection of Life.”
Mackenzie, “The Life of H.G. Wells, The Time Traveler,” p. 102:
“In 1891, in The Quintessence of Ibsenism, Shaw remarked that the implication of Ibsen’s plays was that it might be morally right to do things one’s predecessors had thought infamous—right…in tens of self-realization, because moral emancipation was paramount over moral duty. It was that single thought, more than any other, that energized the shift from Victorian to Edwardian values.”
March 20, 2020
The first two thirds were an expose of darkness and thus quite negative. The last one third was edifying and reinforcing of truth.
Seems to be written to those who study literature. A good book and apologetic material.
Seems to be written to those who study literature. A good book and apologetic material.
November 23, 2024
Interesting topic but too little depth. We need to see evidence of the actual impact of the case studies but there is very little. Write a bit more!
July 19, 2026
Iain Murray is simply brilliant at writing biographies and weaving in gospel-saturated application throughout.
August 28, 2013
This book wasn't what I expected, but it was still profitable. I thought it would talk about fiction in general, but instead it focused on a particular class and era of novelists such as Robert Louis Stevenson and Thomas Hardy. It devotes a chapter to each of those two men and seeks to show that their lives tell a very different story than their books. Their books paint the "new morality" or rather immorality of "free love" and other sins in glowing colors and soft lights. They make sin look happy. But when you look at their lives as they seek to live this way, the picture is very different. Their lives are not like the lives of their characters. Reality shows sin in all of its ugly colors and there is nothing happy about it.I think this is a danger in much of fiction. It is dangerous to be able to write the world anyway we want. Even Christian fiction writers can fall into describing the world the way they want it to be (i.e. Christians always prosper) and not the way God in his wisdom allows it to be.
Here is a favorite quote:
"A description of the dissolute, and their irreverent language, does injure. Nor is it even necessary for literature to be specifically immoral to have this effect. Books that constantly convey a purely secular mindset, that treat the present world as though it were the only world, that studiously avoid truths revealed in Scripture (unless to scoff)-such books impart a godless view of life, and teach their readers to regard this world as the only 'reality'. page 69
Here is a favorite quote:
"A description of the dissolute, and their irreverent language, does injure. Nor is it even necessary for literature to be specifically immoral to have this effect. Books that constantly convey a purely secular mindset, that treat the present world as though it were the only world, that studiously avoid truths revealed in Scripture (unless to scoff)-such books impart a godless view of life, and teach their readers to regard this world as the only 'reality'. page 69
July 23, 2012
A slim volume that discusses the impact of late Victorian novelists (e.g., Robert Louis Stephenson, Thomas Hardy), who were reared in Christian homes, who, having rejected their early faith, strongly influenced readers to turn away from Christianity. They claimed to have found something more satisfying, but their lives tell a different tale. In Part Two, Murray poses and answers the question, "Is the Bible fiction?" Murray's thesis is that Englishmen at the turn of the 20th Century did not so much reject Christianity because of "the findings of science" as they were led away by these apostate intellectuals and artists.
September 24, 2013
Murray's description of the lives of Robert Louis Stevenson, Thomas Hardy, George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, and Bertrand Russell was interesting and sad. His larger thesis, that their books played a major role in the decline of the Christian faith in Britain, didn't have enough evidence to be persuasive.
You can see an article by John Piper that reflects on this book's section on Robert Louis Stevenson here: http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-l....
You can see an article by John Piper that reflects on this book's section on Robert Louis Stevenson here: http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-l....
December 30, 2013
Murray explains the role that fiction played in the theological climate of Britain around the turn of the 20th century. He briefly examines the lives and writings of Stevenson, Hardy, Russell, Wells, and others, revealing their personal disdain for Christianity and their desire to see it eradicated. Murray reveals how fiction skyrocketed up the charts as Brits embraced the fantasy over the reality. He concludes with a very helpful section detailing the veracity of Christianity itself.
April 25, 2022
I read this book 2 years ago but want to re-read it or skim it at least, in light of what I’m reading by Carl Trueman (the rise and triumph of the modern self, and the shorter version: Strange New World)… he makes a similar point, that the massive political and cultural changes we have seen in the last century are not from so many people reading Marx, Freud, etc. but because we have consumed these ideas secondhand via artistic expression, including but not limited to fiction.
July 8, 2014
This book is so short and Murray is so well informed that he probably composed it one night when he was having trouble sleeping. It actually left me wanting more, much more. Iain Murray uses Robert Louis Stephenson and Thomas Hardy and others of their era to demonstrate how fiction writers served to undermine evangelical belief in England.
September 19, 2013
Fascinating book. One cannot help but draw a similar comparison to how a more advanced form of fiction- current media in television and movies- has contributed to a similar moral decline in Britain's daughter across the Atlantic.
April 2, 2013
A must read (a short read, too) in our current days. The testimony of history and the history of Christianity is much needed today.
October 24, 2013
Very informative.
February 9, 2016
A surprising premise - that fiction played a culture-shifting role in the moral state of Britain. Fascinating.
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews