[bigyabai]

I'll steelman against you. Books are inherently neutral in nature, and can be used to spread corrupt or indignant ideas in the same way movies or music can be propagandized. The key operand is the individual, who exercises their personal judgement as a composite of their personal experiences and their interpretations of fiction and history.

Say we had two heirs to a monarchy: one who never read a book in his life, and the other who was exclusively allowed to interpret Mein Kampf and The Fountainhead to formulate their political ideologies. Would the reader really be the more intelligent, grounded leader? Would their surrogate, vicarious experiences in literature give them an advantage over someone who synthesizes their judgement from nothing but personal experience?