2 ms·

I do have kids. Did they teach me something about human nature? Not that I noticed. I still go to the bar often. Do I learn anything about human nature there? A

by bambax 7y ago

I do have kids. Did they teach me something about human nature? Not that I noticed. I still go to the bar often. Do I learn anything about human nature there? A little, yes, but not much (in essence, that people act stupid when drunk. They can be very funny though). Do I travel? Yes. What does that teach me? Mostly, that there's no place like home. I maintain you will learn a lot more, and a lot faster, by reading Shakespeare, or Flaubert, than by talking with any number of people. It's likely that putting yourself in "extreme situations" will teach you something about yourself, and by extension, about human nature in general. But you may die learning. There must be a better way. If you think novels are "made-up stories for entertainment", chances are you didn't read many of them, or many good ones.

philwelch 7y ago
Novels are literally made-up stories. If they actually happened, they wouldn't be novels, they would be memoirs or history or something. We do disagree on whether the purpose of novels is to entertain or to deliver what you call TRUTH. Now, to be as generous as possible to your point, some writers can distill a lifetime of wisdom and experience into a work of literature in a way that expresses some meaningful sense or generality about the human condition. How do we tell those people apart from the ones who fall short of that? I don't think you can tell them apart by just reading their work. You'd need to have enough of a base of reference to understand whether the literature you're evaluating actually matches up to human nature. In other words, you have to already have some understanding of the human condition before you can accurately judge whether a work of literature actually contains the TRUTH about the human condition. It's true that putting yourself in extreme situations will teach you a lot about the human condition. It's also true that you might die learning. It's especially true that most people who have actually been in those situations will almost universally agree that if you weren't there and you didn't experience it yourself, you will never actually know. You can tell because they write about it in their memoirs sometimes. Between the base-of-reference problem and the nothing-perfectly-matches-up-to-the-real-thing problem, I just think it's bizarrely hyperbolic to write in all-capital-letters that novels are the only path to the TRUTH. That's an absurd and unrealistic expectation. Based on what you said, it would certainly imply that the best way to get even more TRUTH would be to have someone spend their life locked in a room doing nothing but reading fiction, and then whatever fiction they wrote based on that would really be the TRUTH. But that's not really how it works at all; most good novelists actually have some interesting real-life base of reference.
- bambax 7y ago
  Capitalization really seems to have upset you! It was more shouting than praying, though. I meant to say NO! to the statement that novels are "lies". They are the opposite of that. Lies are meant to deceive and exploit. Novels want to help you find the truth, any which way you want to type it. And to respond to your 2nd paragraph, I'm not saying that (good) novels contain wisdom plainly stated as clever observations every few sentences. That would be a kind of diluted essay and would be of very little value. That's not the point at all. Novels are machines. They work or they don't. You don't need to have extensive wisdom to decide if they do, just like you don't need to be a mechanic to know if your car won't start. When they work, they show you a true situation. They don't "deliver" anything. They show. They make plain. They are not a list of interesting tidbits ("10 hidden truths about yourself!!"); they are an experience.
  - philwelch 7y ago
    > I'm not saying that (good) novels contain wisdom plainly stated as clever observations every few sentences I'm well aware that you're not saying that, and I'm utterly mystified where you got that idea from. By "wisdom", I meant the basic understanding of the human condition. An author who understands the human condition can express aspects of it in literature by constructing characters, placing them in narrative situations, and so forth. And on that count, I agree that literary fiction can be a way to show the human condition. But that's not what you said. What you said was that literature--in context, meaning fictional literature--"may be the only way to gain an actual comprehension of human nature". That's a ludicrous and hyperbolic statement and if you hadn't gone that far I wouldn't have bothered responding because otherwise I do, in fact, have some sense for what you're getting at.

by bambax 7y ago

philwelch 7y ago

Novels are literally made-up stories. If they actually happened, they wouldn't be novels, they would be memoirs or history or something. We do disagree on whether the purpose of novels is to entertain or to deliver what you call TRUTH. Now, to be as generous as possible to your point, some writers can distill a lifetime of wisdom and experience into a work of literature in a way that expresses some meaningful sense or generality about the human condition. How do we tell those people apart from the ones who fall short of that? I don't think you can tell them apart by just reading their work. You'd need to have enough of a base of reference to understand whether the literature you're evaluating actually matches up to human nature. In other words, you have to already have some understanding of the human condition before you can accurately judge whether a work of literature actually contains the TRUTH about the human condition. It's true that putting yourself in extreme situations will teach you a lot about the human condition. It's also true that you might die learning. It's especially true that most people who have actually been in those situations will almost universally agree that if you weren't there and you didn't experience it yourself, you will never actually know. You can tell because they write about it in their memoirs sometimes. Between the base-of-reference problem and the nothing-perfectly-matches-up-to-the-real-thing problem, I just think it's bizarrely hyperbolic to write in all-capital-letters that novels are the only path to the TRUTH. That's an absurd and unrealistic expectation. Based on what you said, it would certainly imply that the best way to get even more TRUTH would be to have someone spend their life locked in a room doing nothing but reading fiction, and then whatever fiction they wrote based on that would really be the TRUTH. But that's not really how it works at all; most good novelists actually have some interesting real-life base of reference.

bambax 7y ago
Capitalization really seems to have upset you! It was more shouting than praying, though. I meant to say NO! to the statement that novels are "lies". They are the opposite of that. Lies are meant to deceive and exploit. Novels want to help you find the truth, any which way you want to type it. And to respond to your 2nd paragraph, I'm not saying that (good) novels contain wisdom plainly stated as clever observations every few sentences. That would be a kind of diluted essay and would be of very little value. That's not the point at all. Novels are machines. They work or they don't. You don't need to have extensive wisdom to decide if they do, just like you don't need to be a mechanic to know if your car won't start. When they work, they show you a true situation. They don't "deliver" anything. They show. They make plain. They are not a list of interesting tidbits ("10 hidden truths about yourself!!"); they are an experience.
- philwelch 7y ago
  > I'm not saying that (good) novels contain wisdom plainly stated as clever observations every few sentences I'm well aware that you're not saying that, and I'm utterly mystified where you got that idea from. By "wisdom", I meant the basic understanding of the human condition. An author who understands the human condition can express aspects of it in literature by constructing characters, placing them in narrative situations, and so forth. And on that count, I agree that literary fiction can be a way to show the human condition. But that's not what you said. What you said was that literature--in context, meaning fictional literature--"may be the only way to gain an actual comprehension of human nature". That's a ludicrous and hyperbolic statement and if you hadn't gone that far I wouldn't have bothered responding because otherwise I do, in fact, have some sense for what you're getting at.