Twentieth century has been a period of much conflict between hope and disaster. First came a bloody war that shook even Russell's intellect to predict a future of perdition for mankind. Anxiety filled most of the post world war literature. Hope had not yet firmly grounded its base in the human heart when a fiercer blow, the Second World War, battered the human face. Then the UN was formed.

Humans cocked their eyes toward peace. Conquests of science and the triumph of individuality developed the human mind as a mirror where the human, not the institution, was the leading image. To keep this image clear of the past bitterness, many literary figures underscored positive thinking.

This trend lingers in many well-known publishing sources whose policy is to accept only such material that focuses on the positive. Thus the writer's guidelines in some magazines clearly read: No "We are going to hell" articles. Given the psychological point that our self-concept develops in response to how we sees ourselves as told by others, such a policy sounds very legitimate.

But then we know the twentieth century as a period of unprecedented scientific achievement. 'Knowledge' and 'science' in this period come close to be almost synonymous. By the standards of science, however, "think positive" is a confounding cliché. Science stresses truth, which is quite often not so sweet. It does contrive much to comfort human life; however, scientific principles do tell us "we are going to hell" sorts of things:  We know the resources on earth are limited; we know the sun is going to be consumed; and we know that, by the second law of thermodynamics, the overall disorder of the universe always increases.

Is the watchword "think positive!" then a mere blindfold we use to hide our apprehension? And more importantly, is it ethical to think that way? The answers are far from being simple and short.

The best that comes to mind is to find some sort of reconciliation between developing an optimistic view while not deceiving ourselves about the grave realities. Thus, in literature, we need to include "we are going to hell" sorts of things, and do it in an objective and mature way. Talking about entropy will not reverse the laws of thermodynamics, but it is likely to discover more efficient means that might keep the disorder at its minimum.

Pleasing the reader is only one of the functions of literature. But its vital function has always been that of providing a platform for wise opinion on matters of importance. The diversity of literature in the twentieth century alone could not account for the tremendous awareness and rapid development in different disciplines. It is the concern with "we are going to hell" sorts of things that wins the credit for this achievement.

There is a thin line between thinking negatively and overlooking necessity. Through the lens of literature this line can be marked. Marking it is not pessimism but a great job, enjoyed by many who see happiness and the fulfillment of responsibility as twins. It is to be hoped that in the twenty-first century, this flair lingers and prospers.