At school, you get to know a wonderful world of novel characters through reading. For example, the world of characters such as: Huckleberry Finn, Heidi, Dracula, Frankenstein, Alice, Tom Sawyer, Marlin, The Count of Monte Cristo, Captain Ahib, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde to name but a few. Even later, we read breathlessly about Ulysses, Madame Bovary, Hamlet, Dr. Faustus, Dorian Gray, Anna Karenina, etc.

I still remember how we – a group of girls – passionately discussed during the school break at elementary school who was in love with which character from the young adult novel “The Paul Street Boys” by Ferenc Molnár and why – who was a fan of Nemecek, Boka or another boy from the novel.

Where do the characters in the novels actually belong?

In other words, a particularly large part of our heaven belongs to our invisible friends from the books. Among them there are also those we don’t like, but who also exist because they are a part of the lives of our favorite novel characters. Well, the fact is that these characters rarely cross the threshold of literature. They always remain anchored in literature, with only one foray happening in the realm of film, in the adaptation of novels. What we get from literature are the clichéd names for certain human characteristics – for example, Lolita as a seductive little girl, Dracula as a terrifying creature, Pipi Longstocking as an eternal child, Don Quixote as a hopeless do-gooder, etc.

My question: Can literature change nothing else?

Does it remain merely an enchanting thing that makes many things clear, stimulates reflection and helps us to articulate?

But not: as soon as literature deals with a political, social, religious or state issue that does not correspond to the prevailing opinion, then it is no longer enchanting. It becomes dangerous, because it can change people’s way of thinking.

The question is: Is such engaged literature timeless as art? Committed literature, like all committed art, is always a double-edged sword, because it lacks something that is intrinsic to art: to be free of expediency. Art should not be bound to a specific time, nor to temporal circumstances. Art is not a companion to politics, science or the economy.

But: without socially committed literature, we wouldn’t be where we are. Such literature is indispensable.

Where is the answer?

When a book combines these opposing poles – temporal engagement and timelessness – then we are talking about great literary works. One example: Shakespeare’s works. Out of the political times with the themes that still touch, inspire and excite us, his works and his characters are still part of us after 500 years.