4 ms·

> These days, I’m much less worried about this admission, in part because the alternative I have gravitated towards has given me greater personal satisfaction a

by zvmaz 3y ago

> These days, I’m much less worried about this admission, in part because the alternative I have gravitated towards has given me greater personal satisfaction and, I hope, insights: history. We have been taught the history of colonialism in school, for many, many years. I don't think I understood what colonialism was, or what it was like to be colonized. Until I read fiction in my adult life. You could know the historical facts by heart, but to get a sense of what something was like from a subjective point of view (which is also a kind of knowledge), I don't think that fiction and history are comparable. I also knew some history about slavery, I also watched movies about it, I thought I knew the salient points about slavery, until I recently read Frederic Douglass, the narrative of an escapee from slavery[1]. Yes, it's not fiction, but I got some insight into what it was like to be a slave, from within, and I don't think I would have ever gotten this kind of insight through history, facts, whatnot. The author clearly underestimates the power of fiction, even as a vehicle of knowledge. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_of_the_Life_of_Frederick_Douglass%2C_an_American_Slave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_of_the_Life_of_Frede...

idoubtit 3y ago
That resounds with me: reading fiction is a great way to share the life of other people. Some prefer movies for this, but it's only after ready novels that I've sometimes thought of people as if I had met them in real life. As a teenager, there were days where most of my thoughts went to Piotr Bezhoukov, Lev Mychkine, Rogojine... I was partly living in 19th century Russia. There's another way to discover history through fiction, which is to read old books and try to understand the author's point of view. For instance, going on with your example of colonialism-slavery, I remember reading "Gone with the wind": I was astonished by the author's racism. Not a slaver's racism, but the permeating belief that Black people where inferior people, a kind of a big children, with big feelings and little intelligence. I've also learned to be wary of history books, which are sometimes very imaginative (like the tale about about José Figueres in the OP's excerpt) and other times bent to suit the author's beliefs. If I'm really interested in the subject, I usually search for multiple sources.
paganel 3y ago
Thing is, one should read lots and lots of fiction until his mid-20s at the latest, if he/she leaves the “reading lots of fiction” part after that timeframe then it would have already been too late. Back to your example, reading non-fiction after you had turned 30 (let’s say some historiography) would have made you more aware that basing one’s perception of a specific past historical phenomenon on one work of fiction is very problematic, you’re practically adopting that person’s whole worldview, with all the pluses and the minuses that come with that. For example reading authors like Douglass doesn’t account for not “explain” how come the abrupt end of slavery was not the best thing ever in the short to middle term for lots of Black people from the US South, we need history books in order to try and make sense of that (interspersed with some sociology, economic history, anthropology and oral history accounts that we were lucky enough to put onto written form).
- apwell23 3y ago
  > Thing is, one should read lots and lots of fiction until his mid-20s at the latest, if he/she leaves the “reading lots of fiction” part after that timeframe then it would have already been too late. sorry but why is this the thing.
  - paganel 3y ago
    Because by around 25 years of age your view of the world is already formed for the great part.
nicbou 3y ago
Some historians are much better at putting you in the shoes of people by picking the right anecdotes. I like when podcasters put the situation before you and asks you "what would _you_ do?" (Fear and loathing in New Jerusalem, about the founding of Israel, all of Hardcore History). Some other books are stories of specific people, and put you close enough to their life to share their feelings. "Gay Berlin" is a good example. I must agree with you that fiction is much better at this, but it might be easy to associate complete fiction with how things really were. I canonised what happens in Grapes of Wrath as history, but those characters are fictional.

by zvmaz 3y ago

idoubtit 3y ago

That resounds with me: reading fiction is a great way to share the life of other people. Some prefer movies for this, but it's only after ready novels that I've sometimes thought of people as if I had met them in real life. As a teenager, there were days where most of my thoughts went to Piotr Bezhoukov, Lev Mychkine, Rogojine... I was partly living in 19th century Russia. There's another way to discover history through fiction, which is to read old books and try to understand the author's point of view. For instance, going on with your example of colonialism-slavery, I remember reading "Gone with the wind": I was astonished by the author's racism. Not a slaver's racism, but the permeating belief that Black people where inferior people, a kind of a big children, with big feelings and little intelligence. I've also learned to be wary of history books, which are sometimes very imaginative (like the tale about about José Figueres in the OP's excerpt) and other times bent to suit the author's beliefs. If I'm really interested in the subject, I usually search for multiple sources.

paganel 3y ago

Thing is, one should read lots and lots of fiction until his mid-20s at the latest, if he/she leaves the “reading lots of fiction” part after that timeframe then it would have already been too late. Back to your example, reading non-fiction after you had turned 30 (let’s say some historiography) would have made you more aware that basing one’s perception of a specific past historical phenomenon on one work of fiction is very problematic, you’re practically adopting that person’s whole worldview, with all the pluses and the minuses that come with that. For example reading authors like Douglass doesn’t account for not “explain” how come the abrupt end of slavery was not the best thing ever in the short to middle term for lots of Black people from the US South, we need history books in order to try and make sense of that (interspersed with some sociology, economic history, anthropology and oral history accounts that we were lucky enough to put onto written form).

apwell23 3y ago
> Thing is, one should read lots and lots of fiction until his mid-20s at the latest, if he/she leaves the “reading lots of fiction” part after that timeframe then it would have already been too late. sorry but why is this the thing.
- paganel 3y ago
  Because by around 25 years of age your view of the world is already formed for the great part.

nicbou 3y ago

Some historians are much better at putting you in the shoes of people by picking the right anecdotes. I like when podcasters put the situation before you and asks you "what would _you_ do?" (Fear and loathing in New Jerusalem, about the founding of Israel, all of Hardcore History). Some other books are stories of specific people, and put you close enough to their life to share their feelings. "Gay Berlin" is a good example. I must agree with you that fiction is much better at this, but it might be easy to associate complete fiction with how things really were. I canonised what happens in Grapes of Wrath as history, but those characters are fictional.