5 ms·
Amusing that this starts with a dismissal of the utility of fiction. Stories can be a powerful way of communicating subtle cultural artifacts and historical di
by m0llusk 4y ago
Amusing that this starts with a dismissal of the utility of fiction. Stories can be a powerful way of communicating subtle cultural artifacts and historical distinctions. Death of intellectual curiosity, indeed.
- elliekelly 4y agoI don’t understand why this myth persists? Why do so many people view reading fiction as an unworthy waste of time?
- Jensson 4y agoFiction isn't a waste of time, but you can't say it is intellectually interesting compared to science. You can read about magical physics in science fiction books or you can read about real physics in science books. The later is much more interesting than the former, there is no comparison. There is a middle ground in PopSci, still not as interesting as real physics but better than science fiction books.
- Enginerrrd 4y ago>Fiction isn't a waste of time, but you can't say it is intellectually interesting compared to science. I am of the camp that real physics is far more interesting than fiction to me personally, and I crack open textbooks far more often than works of fiction. However, I must opine that to say that fiction isn't as intellectually interesting compared to science probably speaks more to your own lack of understanding of the subject of fiction than to fiction itself. Fiction is far from a settled science! There is tremendous room for creativity. Many competing mental models for how to compose a story, character, the prose itself, how literary themes should interact, etc. etc. What makes a best-seller different from a mediocre book? An endless number of things that can be dissected, experimented with and evolved. And that's to say nothing about the concepts that can be toyed with through fiction and stories. Setting up a fictitious universe and exploring the consequences of that setup is not so different from asking the 'what if' questions assuming certain mathematical axioms or different sets of physical laws and symmetries.
- HKH2 4y agoDo you view reading the Bible or the Koran as an unworthy waste of time?
- nfw2 4y agoThis is a bit of straw man because the author is specifically dismissing certain genres of fiction like romance and thrillers, rather than fiction as a whole. It's hard to argue that books like The Da Vinci Code, as much I enjoy them, deliver the same sort of commentary on the human condition as something like 1984.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y agoI think it's also worth mentioning that the author is specifically criticizing the motivation of it being #1 on NYT's best seller list (or a similarly vapid thing). I guess there is this line (emphasis mine), which is suggestive of all fiction but, to use your examples, I'm not convinced the author would attribute it to 1984 the same they would to The Da Vinci Code. > There is nothing wrong with reading these kinds of books, but you do not learn anything new (besides who committed the murder).
- elliekelly 4y agoWhat about fiction like American Psycho, We Have Always Lived in the Castle, Pride and Prejudice, or The Tempest? Do they not deliver social commentary on the human condition that equals (or maybe even surpasses) 1984? Are you equally dismissive of thrillers and romantic films? Is Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy vapid? Was Titanic a froofy waste of film?
- wincy 4y agoI mean we have a word for those books. Books of literary fiction are worth reading. Which is a tautological statement since literary fiction is just a term snobs who don’t read fiction invented for “books that have special artistic merit so I’ll read them even if they’re fiction”.
- nfw2 4y agoI did not call anything vapid nor a waste of time, nor would I, personally, make the same claim as the article author that any sort of literature is without value to society. My point is that the author of the article was a criticizing a specific category of book, so any counter-argument against that criticism should also be specifically about that form. Just saying "fiction as a whole is valuable" seems both obviously true and not relevant to the discussion.
- mjfl 4y agofiction carries lots of falsehoods tho. If you actually 'learn' from fiction and try to apply it to real life, that's usually a bad thing. A silly example is Naruto running - it doesn't make you faster, or cooler, yet a few humans sincerely Naruto run in public. And if you can't learn from fiction, and it's possible to learn BAD things from it - what's it for? Fiction is guilty until proven innocent for me.
- Swizec 4y agoSomething doesn't have to be factual to be true. And not all factual things are true either. Lying with facts is very easy – texas sharpshooter fallacy for example. And telling deep truths is easier with non-factual stories – 1984 for example. As for Naruto running: let people have fun.
- karaterobot 4y agoInterpreting it generously, the author was more focused on the fact that the imaginary strawman he was referring to didn't read anything besides number one bestselling thrillers. Emphasis on best-selling as much as on thrillers. This illustrates a lack of intellectual curiosity, because this person doesn't seek out challenging books, they just read what's popular and what they already know they'll like. Remember that the focus of the article is on curiosity, not just on acquiring new information.
- 998244353 4y agoI don't think they are necessarily dismissing fiction as a whole; rather it seems they are dismissing what they see as the shallowest form of reading - reading only fiction and even then only books that are most likely written to be as appealing and captivating as possible without necessarily having much deep content.
- drewcoo 4y agoI have a strong preference for first novels. Typically someone's first novel has significantly more polish than later ones. And it's a new voice. Anything else is likely to be either sequels or dressed up leftovers and also-ran ideas.