People who don't read books.

Chinafoot

Dudess wrote: »

Took the words out of my mouth.

Fiction may be a sub-genre, but it is MUCH too broad to compare it to such limited ones. It's a discipline of its own, even if technically a sub-genre.

Absolutely, there are sub-genres within the sub-genre. How someone can't get that is baffling.

Edit: Wiki actually has a fairly detailed list of fiction genres.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_literary_genres

CatFromHue

Tesco Massacre wrote: »

Anyone who reads and enjoys a Cecilia Ahern novel is a bit thick.

Can we all agree on that at least?

I wouldn't agree with that.

I'm sure there are plenty of books I read that others would consider thick e.g. I liked Andy McNab's book on his time in the SAS which I'm sure many would consider a bit thick.

For me anyway books as opposed to films are much more layered, there is so much more going on in a book than can ever be shown in a film. Most film adaptations of books are never as good as the book if you ask me because of this.

I do know people who don't read books, they've said so themselves. They've also told me about this great book they got for Christmas or as a present that they're really enjoying. So maybe the reason why they don't read books is because they haven't found enough of them that they like.

booboo88

Tesco Massacre wrote: »

Anyone who reads and enjoys a Cecilia Ahern novel is a bit thick.

Can we all agree on that at least?

No, it may not be your cup of tea but each to their own.


why does everyone have to fit in the same bloody box, why cant we just appreciate individuality, rather than just being sheep. I dont like horrors, my father loves them, why would we have to like the same thing?
As much as I dont like ahernes books, theres a innocence to them. I actually still love p.s I love you.

Tesco Massacre

That was a throwaway comment about Cecilia Ahern's novels. It was meant in jest.

People can read/watch whatever they like.

Gummy Panda

I just bought a kindle so I expect lots of reading from now.

In regards to leaving cert English teachers, mine was dreadful. I was doing higher level and he taught ordinary level to us. Didn't even go through the list of poems. Me and three others ended up having to teach ourselves before exams using past papers.

Scrapped a C iirc

Chinafoot

Gummy Panda wrote: »

In regards to leaving cert English teachers, mine was dreadful. I was doing higher level and he taught ordinary level to us. Didn't even go through the list of poems. Me and three others ended up having to teach ourselves before exams using past papers.

Scrapped a C iirc

I had a decent teacher up to Junior Cert. but Leaving Cert. was an entirely different story. She disappeared for most of 5th year to get married (she was even on the cover of some bridal magazine....*shudder*) and in her place we had a woman who was a former pupil and was recently qualified. She was really good. When our teacher came back we were told to disregard everything we had learned because "that girl isn't in a position to be teaching this class".

On the first day that we started Hamlet she opened the class with the words "I haven't read this yet." We were gobsmacked. She would take a dislike to certain people and give every piece of work they handed up the same grade. She clearly wasn't reading the work. It got to the point where one of the girls put a line in her essay that said something like "I know you're not reading this and you're just going to give me a D again." Surprise, surprise thats exactly what she got and no mention of the comment in the essay. Thankfully I left that school in 6th year and went to the Institute of Education where I had four English teachers. It was a really great way of doing it; there was a teacher who specified in Paper One, one for poetry, one for Hamlet and one for comparative studies. Much better

Censorsh!t

I once asked a guy who I was seeing did he like books and he replied with "reading is for gays". I felt like punching the bollocks.

I definitely notice a difference in people who read, and those who don't. A friend of mine has only read books she has had to read for school/college, and Twilight (sigh) in her whole life, and her spelling and ability to put sentences together properly on paper is atrocious. And as someone else said, conversation is often a bit dull. Reading opens you up to lots of new ideas you may never have thought of before.

Da Shins Kelly

Censorsh!t wrote: »

I once asked a guy who I was seeing did he like books and he replied with "reading is for gays". I felt like punching the bollocks.

I definitely notice a difference in people who read, and those who don't. A friend of mine has only read books she has had to read for school/college, and Twilight (sigh) in her whole life, and her spelling and ability to put sentences together properly on paper is atrocious. And as someone else said, conversation is often a bit dull. Reading opens you up to lots of new ideas you may never have thought of before.

On the subject of Twilight, I think it's worth mentioning (may have been mentioned already) that reading bad literature can be just as bad for vocabulary. Twilight is truly horrendous stuff, the writing is terrible and it seems that the vocabulary of the author herself is very limited. So I fear that people who only read something like Twilight are not really expanding their vocabulary either, instead they're just being taught to use the same verbs and adjectives over and over, as well as being overly descriptive when it's not necessary (something that really annoyed me about the small bit that I read of Twilight before I had to put it down).

Muckit

Would reading broad sheet newspapers be classed as 'reading'?

HavingCrack

I actually have a friend who doesn't read, watch television or films, have any interest in sport or listen to music becasue he doesn't have the attention span. He's utterly incapable of amusing himself so he's always ringing people and visiting friends because he has no solo interests. I can't imagine a life like that at all.

Muckit

HavingCrack wrote: »

no solo interests.

Ah I'd say he has one naughty one.... he probably uses his imagination aswel.

oppenheimer1

Chinafoot wrote: »

No. Just no. That is so far from being correct it's quite scary.

There are many, many styles of fiction so your comparison is completely incorrect. I'm actually stunned that you think fiction is comparable to one style of music or one style of food.

Advernture fiction, historical fiction, military/war fiction, westerns, romance, crime, thriller, horror, chick lit, science fiction, fantasy...

You really think that someone saying they don't like fiction because they find it boring, despite the fact that it encompasses all of the above and more, is the same as someone saying they don't like rap music?

If so, then I'm sorry but I absolutely will pity you

Fiction is the genre of imaginative prose literature, including novels and short stories. There are many sub-genres of fiction.

Rap is a genre of music, of which there are also many sub-genres. The two are entirely comparable as they are both genres of an art form. Granted fiction has more sub-genres than rap, but that doesn't take from my point. Perhaps if I had used Rock it would have been a better example as it is a more developed genre. If one can dismiss one genre in one art form out of hand without even trying to like it why is it a problem to do it for a different art form?

If you cannot see that I have compared like with like, then it is I who pity you.

The King of Moo

Muckit wrote: »

Would reading broad sheet newspapers be classed as 'reading'?

Personally I'd consider it a good form of reading as long as it's a good quality paper, though the best ones can still have dodgy columnists.

Though for me I like a good balance of fiction and non-fiction.

Logical Fallacy

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Fiction is the genre of imaginative prose literature, including novels and short stories. There are many sub-genres of fiction.

Rap is a genre of music, of which there are also many sub-genres. The two are entirely comparable as they are both genres of an art form. Granted fiction has more sub-genres than rap, but that doesn't take from my point. Perhaps if I had used Rock it would have been a better example as it is a more developed genre. If one can dismiss one genre in one art form out of hand without even trying to like it why is it a problem to do it for a different art form?

If you cannot see that I have compared like with like, then it is I who pity you.

In fairness, rap probably has more sub genres than fiction. There are freaking loads of em.

Chinafoot

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Fiction is the genre of imaginative prose literature, including novels and short stories. There are many sub-genres of fiction.

Rap is a genre of music, of which there are also many sub-genres. The two are entirely comparable as they are both genres of an art form. Granted fiction has more sub-genres than rap, but that doesn't take from my point. Perhaps if I had used Rock it would have been a better example as it is a more developed genre. If one can dismiss one genre in one art form out of hand without even trying to like it why is it a problem to do it for a different art form?

If you cannot see that I have compared like with like, then it is I who pity you.

I'm sorry but you have not compared like with like.

The initial argument you made was that someone saying they don't like fiction because it is boring is the same as someone saying they don't like rap music or italian food. The vast amount of genres within fiction, most of which are so completely different from each other, make your comparison invalid. Had you said "Not liking historical fiction is the same as not liking rap music" then you would be correct in your comparison. Historical fiction, to continue with that example, could also be argued to have its own sub-genres but the differences would not be great enough to remove it from the overall historical fiction genre. Similarly, while rap may have sub-genres, these sub-genres would not be diverse enough to remove it from the rap genre. Your further example of rock music is the same.

You can't compare the entire genre of fiction with one specific genre within music. Fiction encompasses far too many different styles, something which isn't seen to that extent within one specific genre of music. Comparing music in general with fiction in general is a far more valid comparison, particularly when we are dealing with the argument that "fiction is boring."

Giruilla

stovelid wrote: »

When someone feels the need to question it, I'm inclined not to care?

I would infer that from your original statement.

Dudess

At the risk of being told I'm being elitist (which is bollocks) I find statements/attitudes like "Fiction is boring" dismissive, ignorant and lazy. It's also an assessment a person cannot make in all seriousness unless they're familiar with fiction right across its spectrum.

oppenheimer1

Dudess wrote: »

At the risk of being told I'm being elitist (which is bollocks) I find statements/attitudes like "Fiction is boring" dismissive, ignorant and lazy. It's also an assessment a person cannot make in all seriousness unless they're familiar with fiction right across its spectrum.

To dismiss any opinion is elitism. For all you know those that are not into fiction are aware of how broad it is and its many different facets. It is perfectly reasonable for a person (like myself) to not invest their evenings and free time in 600 page tomes if they like to stay grounded in reality. I don't enjoy fiction because I prefer to use my free time to learn something. I would get bored quickly spending a large amount of time learning nothing, or nothing useful. When I do want to escape from reality, cinema, art, theatre are forms which allow me to without placing great demands on my time. Personally, I find them more accessible, given my lifestyle.

Reading and enjoying fiction is a particularly time consuming form of escapism. There is nothing wrong with that of course, in healthy doses. Each to their own.

Yahew

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

To dismiss any opinion is elitism. For all you know those that are not into fiction are aware of how broad it is and its many different facets. It is perfectly reasonable for a person (like myself) to not invest their evenings and free time in 600 page tomes if they like to stay grounded in reality. I don't enjoy fiction because I prefer to use my free time to learn something. I would get bored quickly spending a large amount of time learning nothing, or nothing useful. When I do want to escape from reality, cinema, art, theatre are forms which allow me to without placing great demands on my time. Personally, I find them more accessible, given my lifestyle.

Reading and enjoying fiction is a particularly time consuming form of escapism. There is nothing wrong with that of course, in healthy doses.

Nobody has been elitist so far. So let me, I am elitist and I think non-readers are not really that well educated. As I pointed out before if all you are doing with the English language education you learned at school is reading signs, menus, and instruction manuals you may as well have abandoned your English education at 12. The rest was really - supposed to be - a grounding in literature and poetry. At 12 you should be able to write and read.


In terms of being "grounded in reality" with the exception of science fiction, all fiction is ground in reality, and science fiction tries to imagine different worlds so it is exempt. Fiction is a way into other lifestyles and minds, and has been shown to increase empathy. There is a causal link between the Enlightenment - and the reduction in criminal offences for instance - and reading. In The Better Angels of Our Nature, Stephen Pinker sees that as the main cause of humanism from the 17th century on.

RichieC

I only read on and off, I was a steady reader before the internet came along, now I'm very picky about what I'll read.

Currently reading the Wheel of time, and only because my bro said it was great.. I agree it is.

oppenheimer1

Yahew wrote: »

Nobody has been elitist so far. So let me, I am elitist and I think non-readers are not really that well educated. As I pointed out before if all you are doing with the English language education you learned at school is reading signs, menus, and instruction manuals you may as well have abandoned your English education at 12. The rest was really - supposed to be - a grounding in literature and poetry. At 12 you should be able to write and read.


In terms of being "grounded in reality" with the exception of science fiction, all fiction is ground in reality, and science fiction tries to imagine different worlds so it is exempt. Fiction is a way into other lifestyles and minds, and has been shown to increase empathy. There is a causal link between the Enlightenment - and the reduction in criminal offences for instance - and reading. In The Better Angels of Our Nature, Stephen Pinker sees that as the main cause of humanism from the 17th century on.

If you think non-readers are not well educated, then what do you consider is education? Is the Mills and Boon reader more educated than a non reading doctor? We learn poetry and literature in school to develop critical thought. Critical thought can also be developed in many other ways. Arguing a scientific paper or debating for example. These are also generally more engaging than passive reading as they require an input and an ownership of view from the student.

Fiction is never fully grounded in reality, because no matter how good the writer, the human spirit and mind cannot be put into words. This is true for all forms of art. Characters in stories are caricatures and composites of people created to emphasise a point. I find it far easier to empathise with a real human story rather than one invented for effect.

Dudess

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

To dismiss any opinion is elitism.

Hardly. Especially when it's well argued against.

It is perfectly reasonable for a person (like myself) to not invest their evenings and free time in 600 page tomes

Never said it wasn't? It's not as if novels are all 600 pages.

I am not saying I look down on you for not reading, I am saying I find dismissal of a huge and diverse discipline, when you don't know that there aren't elements therein that you'd enjoy, to be illogical.
I'd feel that way about any area, not just fiction.

oppenheimer1

Dudess wrote: »

Hardly. Especially when it's well argued against.

But you didn't make an argument. You just stated that it was a dismissive ignorant and lazy attitude to have.

One could argue that your position ironically is also dismissive, ignorant and lazy, since you didn't construct an argument either.

Dudess

Ah I did explain why I think it's dismissive, ignorant and lazy.

Da Shins Kelly

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I don't enjoy fiction because I prefer to use my free time to learn something. I would get bored quickly spending a large amount of time learning nothing, or nothing useful.

It's fine if you don't enjoy fiction, but I really wish people would stop saying that nothing useful can be learned from fiction - that is just utter rubbish.

oppenheimer1

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

It's fine if you don't enjoy fiction, but I really wish people would stop saying that nothing useful can be learned from fiction - that is just utter rubbish.

The point I'm making is not that nothing can be learned from fiction, but that more can be learned from a true story.

Yahew

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

If you think non-readers are not well educated, then what do you consider is education? Is the Mills and Boon reader more educated than a non reading doctor?

The Mills and Boon reader isn't. The reader of good literature is. There is a canon.

We learn poetry and literature in school to develop critical thought. Critical thought can also be developed in many other ways. Arguing a scientific paper or debating for example. These are also generally more engaging than passive reading as they require an input and an ownership of view from the student.

I would be surprised if most debaters, or writers of scientific papers were not also general readers. Education isn't just training ( which is what we do with Doctors, Scientists, or Engineers, like myself). It is knowing a wide body of common art or literature, common to the culture. It is something beyond the training.

Fiction is never fully grounded in reality, because no matter how good the writer, the human spirit and mind cannot be put into words. This is true for all forms of art. Characters in stories are caricatures and composites of people created to emphasise a point. I find it far easier to empathise with a real human story rather than one invented for effect.

Thats absolutely not the case, and is an example of what a non-reader would think. Firstly a "true story" narrated by the actor in that story, or told by a journalist - would often tell us nothing about the internal though processes of that participant because the writer may not be capable of the skills to express his inner thoughts. It is this inner thoughts which is what makes literature great ( or in the case of Shakespeare, the soliloquies) .Characters in great literature, far from being caricatures ( although they may be composites) tell us about our common humanity, not just about their characters, or actions.

And thats the serious stuff. The non-serious stuff, like a Stephen King novel, is just a good romp.

saa

I'm dyslexic so I don't read novels. I read non fiction a lot for research or just to expand my knowledge in the arts, science and so on.


It's not about reading its about wanting to learn more, better yourself which everyone should be doing.

Someone might not read but they might put their energy into working for the community, going to public lectures, raising good kids,
or being complete árseholes but lets hope not.

laoch na mona

reading is optional i enjoy it i know plenty people who don't and plenty of people who do

Da Shins Kelly

saa wrote: »

It's not about your weight, its definately not about looking good or bad, its not about er sinful behaviour.

It's about balance, treating your body and mind well and exercising. If you're doing those both correctly eventually your body will move towards a suitable weight over a year or two or three.

You can eat ice cream, have dinners but if having a nice time with loved ones relies on this I would definately re wire that. Habitual and comfort eating isn't a good thing when it gets out of hand i.e you've put on 50 pounds.

southsiderosie

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The point I'm making is not that nothing can be learned from fiction, but that more can be learned from a true story.

You keep asserting this, but based on what?

I generally prefer non-fiction to fiction, but I strongly disagree that there is more to be learned from a 'true' story. As others have pointed out, Orwell is a perfect case of this: would a book on state surveillance of citizens be a better way to 'learn' about totalitarianism than 1984? Would a history of the Soviet Union be a 'better' way to learn about Stalinism than Animal Farm?

I would also add that it is fiction writers and poets who pick up on social changes much faster than journalists and historians. To return to the example of the Soviet Union, novelists and poets foresaw its demise far before 'real' observers of the situation. To use a more contemporary example, I think Zadie Smith's White Teeth picks up on the tensions and realities of immigrant life in modern London (and in a much more humane and clear-eyed way) far better than most non-fiction works on the subject, and I have read stacks of them. I could make the same argument for Junot Diaz's short stories versus non-fiction writings on second generation immigrants in the U.S. Or Chinua Achebe's work versus histories of colonialism, etc.

This is not to say that fiction is inherently better than non-fiction, or vice-versa, or that one is 'better' than the other. But can you honestly say that The Gulag Archipelago is a more 'true' account of life in a Stalinist labor camp than One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich? Both were written by the same author on the same subject, but are completely different works in different genres. And both have an enormous impact on the reader, but in different ways.

Ultimately, I think that fiction and non-fiction are complimentary. But I would make the argument that sometimes the only way to truly 'see' something, especially if it is particularly contested or difficult, is through the indirect gaze of fiction.

Shivers26

I enjoy reading. I like losing myself in a story. I only like reading books though. The husbag asked if I'd like a Kindle for Christmas and I was scandalised :eek: I tried to explain to him how much I actually enjoy turning the pages and he looked at me like I was nuts.

Currently reading The Hot Zone by Richard Preston and its scaring the bejaysus out of me but I am glued to it.

saa

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

hahaha

Muckie

Love reading, find it a great way to escape.

Remember years ago working as a labourer on the buildings, when lunch

time came around i'd have my tea, sandwhich and start reading.

Pig of a scaffolder asked me "what was i reading, was it the bible!"

I replied, "Yes, yes it is!(it wasn't )" Tool, he then went and sat with

he's mates, stared at he's hands untill he could borrow the Sun, or Star

off he's pals.

Kinda of feel sorry for people like that, so empty and yet full of sh*t at

the same time.

Da Shins Kelly

southsiderosie wrote: »

You keep asserting this, but based on what?

I generally prefer non-fiction to fiction, but I strongly disagree that there is more to be learned from a 'true' story. As others have pointed out, Orwell is a perfect case of this: would a book on state surveillance of citizens be a better way to 'learn' about totalitarianism than 1984? Would a history of the Soviet Union be a 'better' way to learn about Stalinism than Animal Farm?

I would also add that it is fiction writers and poets who pick up on social changes much faster than journalists and historians. To return to the example of the Soviet Union, novelists and poets foresaw its demise far before 'real' observers of the situation. To use a more contemporary example, I think Zadie Smith's White Teeth picks up on the tensions and realities of immigrant life in modern London (and in a much more humane and clear-eyed way) far better than most non-fiction works on the subject, and I have read stacks of them. I could make the same argument for Junot Diaz's short stories versus non-fiction writings on second generation immigrants in the U.S. Or Chinua Achebe's work versus histories of colonialism, etc.

This is not to say that fiction is inherently better than non-fiction, or vice-versa, or that one is 'better' than the other. But can you honestly say that The Gulag Archipelago is a more 'true' account of life in a Stalinist labor camp than One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich? Both were written by the same author on the same subject, but are completely different works in different genres. And both have an enormous impact on the reader, but in different ways.

Ultimately, I think that fiction and non-fiction are complimentary. But I would make the argument that sometimes the only way to truly 'see' something, especially if it is particularly contested or difficult, is through the indirect gaze of fiction.

Couldn't have said it better.

Blowfish

Downlinz wrote: »

I play a lot of video games, its greater immersion and story based games give a greater opportunity for my imagination to run riot with their plotlines and possibilities. The game itself challenges reactions, decision making as well as thought and comprehension that a book would.

I just don't see what I can get from a good book that I can't from a good game, I do read a bit mind but I find video games much more stimulating. People who say "read more" in my experience seem to live in their own bubble of thinking the only alternative is brainless movies/tv and video games are all shooters and sports simulators.

Well I'd still say "read more" and I'm about as big a video game nerd as you'll get.

I'd definitely see Video Games being seen as another art form, but storytelling wise a lot of them haven't caught up with fiction yet, especially when it comes to character development and social commentary.

Acacia

jive wrote: »

But maybe the people who watch Jersey Shore feel sorry for you for not enjoying Jersey Shore? Putting it simply it's different folks for different folks. If people enjoy reading then they will naturally get progress into it just like many other things in life e.g. if you are fast you will probably try your hand at athletics. If you enjoy reading you will end up reading.

The thing is it's obvious in this thread that there are people here who say people shouldn't be anti-intellectual and at the same time they are advocating being anti-reality show (making up lots of anti-anything here). Why not just enjoy the books and worry about yourself rather than feeling sorry for others who haven't found the 'joys' of reading.
.

They might well feel sorry for me, but as Chinafoot said, I'll stick with books. Of course, it's different strokes for different folks, I've said so several times in the thread, what other people do in their spare time is up to them. I'll not lose sleep over it. However, as a matter of presenting an opinion on the matter, and as I've explained before, I don't feel sorry for them out of condescension- it's not the reality-show watchers themselves who are stupid or 'bad people'- it's just that I think it's a shame that people don't give literature/books a chance because they seem difficult/boring/elitist, etc. It's just a bit of a cop-out really.


I'm not advocating being ''anti-reality show" nor am I advocating being an ''intellectual". The people who seem to be ''advocating not being anti-intellectual" are merely pointing out the unfairness of being called elitist/snobby when they show an interest in anything that is remotely 'intellecual', like reading. It's not a case of being ''pro-this'' or ''anti-that''. It's a case of questioning unfair stereotypes that don't seem to have much basis in reality. Tbh, throwing around accusations of snobbery,etc is just a convenient way to shut people up.

I'll finish with this as a better way to illustrate my point- there are thousands of kids across the country who are never encouraged to read. They are never given any help with homework or encouraged to think and learn independently. Why would they ever feel the need the need to open a book? Sure, they're just shoved in front of a TV, because it keeps them quiet. It's those that I feel sorry for, 'cause they really are missing out , through no fault of their own, but their parents' laziness. But of course it's just elitism on my part to think that.

Dudess

Great post Southsiderosie.

John Doe1

So wot dat somez of uz dun reed, fink you better than uz, bunch o faggitz

The King of Moo

Dudess wrote: »

Great post Southsiderosie.

Agreed, she expressed really well the insight fiction can give you into the truth of humanity and society that non-fiction can't provide.

And for me it brings back to me the fundamental problem with people claiming that literary fiction is a waste of time as it's not real (again, people who've tried both non-fiction and fiction and prefer the former, are fine with me).

Surely if you argue that, you have to argue that for all, or at least most, of art in general.

Why, for example, go to see a portrait by a great painter if you have a photo of the subject, or even better, can see them in the flesh?

Why read Wordsworth when you can look outside and see trees and hills?

Why watch a film when you can see people walking on the street for free?

The answer is, because all art, even the most realistic, aims to provide something of more value than a mere slavish reproduction of some aspect of reality, or the provision of purely useful, practical information.

This added value can range from pure entertainment, emotional investment, intellectual stimulation to amazing insight into things pure obversation can't provide.

So for me, if you don't like fiction for not giving you some form of direct reality/truthful information that's fine and perfectly valid, but logically this should apply to all art.

Out of genuine curiosity, is there anyone who only reads non-fiction, and also only watches documentaries or instructional DVD's?

kowloon

Censorsh!t wrote: »

I once asked a guy who I was seeing did he like books and he replied with "reading is for gays". I felt like punching the bollocks.

Did he smash cans with his head when drinking with 'the guys' at the frathouse?

parker kent

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

If you cannot see that I have compared like with like, then it is I who pity you.

Books and music are not the same thing, hence why there cannot be a simple, direct comparison. Her point is correct, there is such a large variety of fiction. Comparing it with a completely different entertainment form is not going to be accurate. Most comparisons between different entities tend to be inaccurate. Items are shoehorned together for the sake of neat comparisons. Music and books are different things and there will not be one form of music that is exactly comparable with fiction.

I know all posts after southsiderosie's are essentially redundant, but if you simply said "i don't enjoy fiction and find other books, media etc to be more worthwhile" your opinion would be accepted. I wouldn't agree with it, but I would accept your right to not like fiction. Instead you are on a weird quest to dismiss everybody and everything associated with fiction.

Snakeblood

The King of Moo wrote: »

Agreed, she expressed really well the insight fiction can give you into the truth of humanity and society that non-fiction can't provide.

And for me it brings back to me the fundamental problem with people claiming that literary fiction is a waste of time as it's not real (again, people who've tried both non-fiction and fiction and prefer the former, are fine with me).

Surely if you argue that, you have to argue that for all, or at least most, of art in general.

Why, for example, go to see a portrait by a great painter if you have a photo of the subject, or even better, can see them in the flesh?

Why read Wordsworth when you can look outside and see trees and hills?

Why watch a film when you can see people walking on the street for free?

The answer is, because all art, even the most realistic, aims to provide something of more value than a mere slavish reproduction of some aspect of reality, or the provision of purely useful, practical information.

This added value can range from pure entertainment, emotional investment, intellectual stimulation to amazing insight into things pure obversation can't provide.

So for me, if you don't like fiction for not giving you some form of direct reality/truthful information that's fine and perfectly valid, but logically this should apply to all art.

Out of genuine curiosity, is there anyone who only reads non-fiction, and also only watches documentaries or instructional DVD's?

Do ladies exercise dvds count?

The King of Moo

Snakeblood wrote: »

Do ladies exercise dvds count?

If you turn on the subtitles and read them, yes. :pac:

Latchy

As with music and film , we are in many respects finding pure escapisim in our reading regardless of the format and genre , be it fiction or non-fiction except with fiction , the author can take and alter from real life happenings and historical facts to captivate and hold interest for the reader .

Eramen

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I love boobs!;)

I can read, I can even understand big words, in fact I love words and language, but i do NOT like novels. Simple as that, I don't find they expand my mind, fire my imagination, help my vocabulary or anything else for that matter - they do precisely nothing for me, so why would I waste my free time forcing myself to read one, when there are so many better, more enjoyable ways I could spend my precious free time?

Never read Fyodor Dostoyevsky or Yukio Mishima?

Chuck Stone

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The point I'm making is not that nothing can be learned from fiction, but that more can be learned from a true story.

Depends how true the story actually is.

southsiderosie wrote: »

I would also add that it is fiction writers and poets who pick up on social changes much faster than journalists and historians. To return to the example of the Soviet Union, novelists and poets foresaw its demise far before 'real' observers of the situation.

Great post. Just wanted to make this point though.

Ludwig Von Mises used economics and sociological analysis to predict the demise of the Soviet Union as far back as 1921. He stuck with that analysis all through the time of the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and lost university professorships because he was skeptical of state intervention in the economy at a time when public works and nationalization were really en vogue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_of_Soviet_collapse#Ludwig_von_Mises

Columbia

I have a masters degree in English literature and I'm an English language teacher. I'll be honest, my ratio of television: books is probably about 5:1 back home, 3:1 when I'm overseas.

The King of Moo

Columbia wrote: »

I have a masters degree in English literature and I'm an English language teacher. I'll be honest, my ratio of television: books is probably about 5:1 back home, 3:1 when I'm overseas.

I'm in a similar position and my ratio would probably be about 3 or 4:1 as well.

I think it's because I can have a few programmes on the go simultaneously, watching an episode of one, then one of another, or a different one each night, but I only ever have one book on the go.

I think it's because I get so immersed in a book, especially a good one, that it's too jarring to move between one and another.

--Kaiser--

Columbia wrote: »

I have a masters degree in English literature and I'm an English language teacher. I'll be honest, my ratio of television: books is probably about 5:1 back home, 3:1 when I'm overseas.

The King of Moo wrote: »

I'm in a similar position and my ratio would probably be about 3 or 4:1 as well.

I'd say my ratio of watching TV/movies to reading to is probably more the opposite, something like 1:4