6 ms·

I don't think it's strange that I don't read fiction. I've met plenty of other "creative" people who don't read fiction either. Nothing against other people rea

• axod 17y ago
  Do you not read fiction at all ever, or just not regularly? I don't regularly read fiction, but I have about 3 novels that I've read in my lifetime that were absolutely spell binding, like the best movie * 1000. Never been absolutely tied to a book that you literally can't put it down until you finish it?
  • jasonfried 17y ago
    I don't read fiction at all anymore. Used to, but I have limited time for reading these days so I choose to focus on non-fiction. That's what I find the most stimulating and interesting.
    • jrockway 17y ago
      You don't really get to see into the author's mind when you are reading non-fiction; it's all about the facts. With fiction, the author's creativity is not restrained by actual happenings. (Books like "1984" are worth reading, even if they are not a factual account of events that took place in 1984.)
      • jshen 17y ago
        "You don't really get to see into the author's mind when you are reading non-fiction; it's all about the facts." This is very wrong.
        • jrockway 17y ago
          I should have qualified that with "as deeply".
          • jshen 17y ago
            which is still wrong. If we use your example of Orwell, "homage to catalonia" may be a more deep insight into his mind than 1984.
      • tptacek 17y ago
        So you can't tell the difference between how David Foster Wallace, William Langeweische, and Steven Levitt see the world by reading what they write? Or the difference between a conservative-leaning historian and a liberal historian? Come on.
        • Psyonic 17y ago
          You realize that DFW was primarily a fiction writer, yes? Sure we all like A Supposedly Fun Thing I'd Never Do Again, but Infinite Jest was his Magnum Opus, and was fiction.
          • tptacek 17y ago
            What's your point? Without getting into the Latrodectus Mactans Productions quiz to prove our geek/hipster DFW cred: I just picked three writers of nonfiction with both very different prose styles and very different worldviews, and I don't think you'd disagree with my point.
      • asnyder 17y ago
        Sometimes you can get a good piece of non-fiction that's done very well. For instance, I recently read Newton and the Counterfeiter and found it excellent. In this case fact was far more interesting than any fictional account could've been. Furthermore, I was personally more interested in the outcome since the events actually happened. I get an interesting story, and learn history at the same time. Personally I couldn't ask for more.
    • petercooper 17y ago
      Ditto. Except I do occasionally read some good short stories - particularly J G Ballard's. You can get some really mind-bending stuff in < 20 pages from the right authors. It's a shame the format isn't more popular. You can pick up insights and feelings that non-fiction rarely delivers.
  • tome 17y ago
    Can you share what they are please?
• caffeine 17y ago
  I watch movies and I'll watch TV shows ... There's plenty of creativity in the real world You realize that movies and TV shows most certainly do not constitute the "real world"? Nobody says you have to read fiction. But it's really a shame to take the weaker forms of escapism the world has to offer you rather than the deeper, ecstatic ones, just because the latter are in book form.
  • run4yourlives 17y ago
    I don't think he's taking "weaker" forms of escapism as he's taking shorter ones. I still find his stance different as a lover of fiction, but I can't argue that a good book isn't also very time consuming, and if you allow that your time is precious, there are probably better uses for it.
    • caffeine 17y ago
      I think TV shows and movies are weaker. Movies can't do what books can do because you don't create them in your mind as you consume them (or at least not in the same way). But I can see why for some people, the basic realism of film might take them even further than a book and their own imagination. My original post sounded a bit more judgmental than intended.
    • petercooper 17y ago
      I share your viewpoint. Like Fried, I don't read fiction novels either but.. I do read short stories from time to time. Especially J G Ballard. It's all about the time issue for me. I read lots of long novels as a teen but it's either do that or actually do some work nowadays. As an aside, the death of the short story as a significant literary force is worth mourning here too..
  • buugs 17y ago
    He is most definitely not speaking like TV and movies are the real world as your quote seems to make out. I also tend to stay away from fiction other than the occasional short story and find that autobiographies and other forms of non-fiction offer a nice creative boost in their writing.
• ivankirigin 17y ago
  Check out this story: "How Nonsense Sharpens the Intellect" http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/health/06mind.html?_r=2&em http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/health/06mind.html?_r=2&#3...
• abalashov 17y ago
  I agree strongly with your stance on fiction, and am of a similar mind. I was surprised to see someone share it, especially a known "creative" personality, given the tight coupledness of fiction to the worldview and mass-cultural constellation of the technical profession. Movies and TV shows are principally fiction, sure; I think the salient distinction that people who are prejudiced against "fiction" make is as to the realism and real-world viability of what is involved, i.e. the way that "historical fiction" might stand in contradistinction with Harry Potter-style "fantasy." I, for instance, as an otherwise ardent nonfictionalist, enjoy Star Trek, but don't enjoy Harry Potter or Tolkien novels. Take that for what it's worth.
  • deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
• kingkawn 17y ago
  Some fiction is realer than reality.
  • bradlane 17y ago
    "The difference between fiction and reality?? Fiction has to make sense." --Tom Clancy
  • gord 17y ago
    Thats kind of the definition of good fiction [or good art, even highly abstract art]... eg. Neal Stephensons Young ladies illustrated primer or Cryptonomicon strike me that way - they make you think even more about what is real.
• antonovka 17y ago
  I will come out and say it: categorically dismissing fictional books as "not real" (and therefor uninteresting) is both strange and stupid. Fiction can be as real as the author wishes to make it, as an endeavor to elucidate their ideas and insights regarding the 'real world' through the telling of a story. I'd never be so audacious as to state "I hate non-fiction, there's very little to learn from boorish, presumptuous, and poorly considered interpretations of the author's reality" This sort of navel-gazing article is uninteresting and of questionable real-world value, reminiscent of breathless puff pieces on the (soon to be forgotten) luminaries of .com technology that were so popular in the mid to late 1990s.
  • fnid 17y ago
    It's not real. At best it is anecdotal. It's a story. It's imagination. It's entertainment. It's a very expensive form of entertainment when you value your time.
    • antonovka 17y ago
      It's not real. At best it is anecdotal. It's a story. It's imagination. It's entertainment. Why are ideas presented in the form of non-fiction any more "real" than ideas presented in the form of fiction? Even the most literal non-fiction remains an expression of the author's opinion and ideas. It's a very expensive form of entertainment when you value your time. I find what I learn from well-chosen fiction and non-fiction to be equally valuable, and I value my time quite a bit. I also would be very surprised that anyone who has time to comment here doesn't have time to read a fiction (or non-fiction) book.
      • fnid 17y ago
        It's not about having the time or not, it's about what you choose to read when you do have the time. The difference is that when you read fiction, you are in a world, a physical land that is entirely constructed by the mind of the author. The characters aren't bound by the same laws of physics that you and I are. When characters make decisions, the other characters react in the way the author wants, but real people may not react that way. With nonfiction, there are rules. With fiction, there are no rules. In fact, you don't know what the rules are when you read fiction. You know that quote about those who don't read history are doomed to repeat it? Well, there is a lot of history to read. They're two different universes. One, fiction, is framed in a universe where we don't exist. The other, nonfiction, is in the same universe we all share here. In fiction, what goes up may not come down. If you shape your life or make decisions based on fictional ideas, they don't always apply in the real world. Sometimes they may, but mostly they do not. Yes, you are right, lots of insights can be gained from fiction. I learned a lot reading slaughterhouse five. It's fiction, but it's also pretty real in a way. I learned a lot from 1984. I learn a lot from science fiction. But there are is also a lot to learn and a lot of insights to be gained from nonfiction as well. Truth is stranger than fiction. Think of it this way. If you only read fiction for the rest of your life, could you program a computer? Could you build a house? Could you understand quantum mechanics or any myriad other practical skills? Probably not. This of course is my opinion, but if I had to choose between a future life of only fiction reading or a future life of only nonfiction reading, I would choose nonfiction. I think nonfiction is a better learning tool and a greater benefit to my life than fiction, because through nonfiction, I can learn facts that I can't learn through fiction. It's actually difficult and confusing sometimes to decipher truth from fiction.
• alnayyir 17y ago
  I love that on hackerne.ws the poster/creator of the content you're discussing is far more likely to respond to what you're saying. I've been a programmer (professionally) for 3-4 years now, been coding far longer than that and was wondering what your feelings were regarding CompSci degrees and the necessity (or not) of them. Also, have you considered separating the "less is less" product and then creating the more "enterprisey" product as a separate entity and allowing your customers to upgrade within your product range instead of having in and out customer numbers? I mention this as I think of companies that exercise pretty vigorous product differentiation (Microsoft's OEM versus Corporate licensing, Apple-anything) and your comment regarding not wanting to make your flagship product intimidating to new customers. Just wondering what your thoughts were on those two questions, thanks.