[Closed] I don't understand the appeal of reading fiction.

and to a point even the documentary only shows you what the maker wants you to see and the non-fiction work depicts the events and situations from a perspective. Still it does show there is a sliding scale from black to white of mostly grey in that space.

Still not sure on the whats the point of fiction side of the argument though especially when there are bits of drama (see the films above) that try to convey the horrors and emotions of the situation to people.

But the popularity of SF and fantasy could be viewed as a symtpom of a society which creates so many unhappy, unfulfilled, stressed and scared people.

What a load of rubbish! I don't read SF because I am upset with the world and need to ignore it somehow. That's ludicrous. I read it because I love reading about new ideas. I don't have to be miserable and unfulfilled before I pick one up!

Someone doesn't have a good understanding on what it means to read fiction, I think. Do people read crime because they feel too safe? Do people read historical fiction because they feel.. young...?

So, where is the line then OP ?

If you were looked up for a week in a room with the Yellow Pages, and a copy of War and Peace, which would you read ? Accepting your premise that War and Peace was a and continues to be a total waste of a lot of people's time.

Anyone else feel this way? Perhaps i'm simply uncultured.

Not trying to be funny, and less so insulting, but isn't this an indicator of a situation on the autism spectrum?

Overheard in the afterlife ....

IT WOULD APPEAR, SIR TERRY, THAT ALL YOUR EFFORTS HAVE BEEN WASTED.

FANCY A CURRY?

[I]My book collection is almost entirely factual stuff (travelogues, history, war accounts, etc).[/I]

If you were really interested in history, you would realise the "fiction" generated by a particular culture will tell you as much about that culture as any other source material. Its not all kings, wars and acts of parliament you know.

And if you like "war accounts" why wouldn't you read Brooke, Owen or Sasson?

If you were really interested in history, you would realise the "fiction" generated by a particular culture will tell you as much about that culture as any other source material. Its not all kings, wars and acts of parliament you know.

True. But not everyone is interested in the deeper human/cultural elements of history. Take a person who states that they are 'interested in trains' (for example). This could mean various things.

1. I am fascinated by the history of mass transit, how it was built, how it pierced and tamed the wilderness, how it changed our fortunes, our social lives and working lives.
2. I am an engineer by nature. The diesel locomotive is my speciality. I like to read about the different models.
3. I spot trains. That one arriving from Bristol Temple Meads is 37 seconds late (scribbles in pad)
4. Thomas is a 'tank engine'. He's my favourite.

But the popularity of SF and fantasy could be viewed as a symtpom of a society which creates so many unhappy, unfulfilled, stressed and scared people.

I'd say that people that only do non- fiction are the ones unable to emote and relate to the world around them and the above statement sounds like something a cyborg might say; I'm thinking the Conjoiners from Revelation Space rather than a Replicant from Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep 😉

Another way of looking at it is:

There has been fiction (in the sense of telling stories that may or may not be true for entertainment and instructional purposes) for as long has there has been writing, and probably a lot longer.

The ability to tell stories is part of what makes us human. As far as we know, no other animal can do this. It was and is an important survival technique - it helps us empathise with other points of view, explore "what if" scenarios and plan for future possibilities (from "what do we do if there is a lion in that ticket" through "what does it feel like to be a married woman treated as a possession" right up to "what might the world look like as a result of global warming).

Everybody likes stories. Even the OP said he liked films and TV. He just has problems with the written word. Which probably means he just hasn't come across any authors he can really relate to.

The ability to tell stories is part of what makes us human. As far as we know, no other animal can do this.

Think not? Ask your cat who shat in the wardrobe...

Watch in horror as they issue a point blank denial and then gaze in wonderment as they try to fit up an innocent toddler.

I used to love reading Fiction books as a Kid read loads and load and loads. Alot of SciFi + Fantasy to be fair.

As I've got older I stopped reading quite so much fiction.

I still do enjoy the occasional fiction book however.

A couple of years ago I started watching Game of Thrones. I really loved the first series so decided to read the first book.

However I found it very hard going particularly to begin with. It appeared to me the sentence, "John ruffled Ayra's hair playfully" or "John patted Ayra on the head lovingly" appeared at least once a page for the first 20 pages or so.

I expect this is because actually because George R. R. Martin is good with plots (ie good story teller) but not actually a good writer but no one wants to admit it.

I've also tried reading some Bernard Cornwell as well but the prejudices of the writer just come out so clearly and that annoy's me and I have to stop.

Also I used to love Terry Pratchett but I find him quite hard to read now, he's not as funny as when I was a kid, and to a lesser extent his world view and political positions do come across in his writing and it kinda annoys me that Im being preached to again.

I've actually found more less obvious stuff easier to read Fiction wise recently I really enjoyed Wind in the Willows + Jungle Book.
Also Anthologies of short stories are good too.

What I find in my mind is the story is going to be amazing multiplayer characters will be complex and rich. But I usually find the story to be simple and the characters flat and just being reflections of the writers personality. The common one in Fantasy books is the author will be American have had a bad experience with Christianity as a child/teenager and the Christians will all be evil and the pagans good, its so obvious and boring next !

Sometimes I think I prefer TV programmes because having a team of script writers tends to remove these issues.

But I usually find the story to be simple and the characters flat and just being reflections of the writers personality.

Then you are reading the wrong books! The authors you've listed are just the popular simple stuff. What you've done is the equivalent of trundling round the local park on a cyclepath and then deciding MTBing is boring.

Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good. In fact, the opposite is probably true 🙂 Sounds like you need something more challenging.

[img] http://www.iain-banks.net/lib/Matter.jp g" target="_blank">http://www.iain-banks.net/lib/Matter.jp g"/> [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
Of course I'm only reading these to escape my pathetic life but for me they are very well written, hugely ambitious and deliver a great ending and bear many parallels with life.
Inversions could have been a Sheakspear plot.

I understand there are loads of people who can go months without watching a football match or riding a bike.

What's odd about someone not being engaged by fiction?

I've dipped in and out of this thread so apologies if I've missed the context. I just thought it interesting that Mike's images he posted above were of Iain M Banks novels. Am I correct in thinking these are sci-fi? I think some people - me included - really struggle to engage with sci-fi books and maybe that's what some people associate with "fiction" as opposed to fiction being the simple opposite of fact. There have been exceptions, notably the Dark Materials trilogy, but that's not traditional science fiction I suppose.

I do agree with several comments that a lot of fiction is just fact waiting to happen.

I expect this is because actually because George R. R. Martin is good with plots (ie good story teller) but not actually a good writer but no one wants to admit it.

Stick with the series and you'll find he's hopeless at plots, too 🙂

Seriously, he's a good writer (IMHO), actually too good for the type of volume writing that massive fantasy epics demand, so after a great start it's all gone pear-shaped for him. Read some of his earlier stuff and you can see he knows his craft, so I'm a bit surprised to hear you didn't rate GoT as that is a tightly written book.

Am I correct in thinking these are sci-fi? I think some people - me included - really struggle to engage with sci-fi books and maybe that's what some people associate with "fiction" as opposed to fiction being the simple opposite of fact.

they are but Inversions could have been set (mostly) in middle ages Europe. I like his style and it comes through in his non SciFi work (he dropped the M for that)
Sharp, whitty, cynical and engaging. Bringing characters to life in many ways, after reading the books you feel like you could have a conversation with the characters if you ever met them.

What's odd about someone not being engaged by fiction?

Nothing but some of the posts were basically saying it was pointless and redundant.

I'm currently taking my time savouring the remaining Iain M Banks novels. As it happens, I'm half way through Inversions.

They are scifi yes. They deal (amazingly and highly intelligently) with the consequences of scientific advances. They are not simply about spaceships and aliens. Most of them take place on less advanced worlds, which you may find strangely familiar... Try Surface Detail, that's pacy, interesting and thought provoking IMO*.

that's not traditional science fiction I suppose

No such thing any more. Well.. I'm sure there are people who just want to read space fantasy, but as science has moved on, so has SF. It's not the 60s any more.

* struggling to be concise and not rave endlessly about what I think, when taken together, may live among the absolute greatest literature ever written. Once you figure out what they are actually all about...

I like his style and it comes through in his non SciFi work (he dropped the M for that)

I've read The Wasp Factory, but I can't for the life of me remember what it was about 😆

Complicity was the last one I read, smiled and chuckled all the way through the death and killing 😉

Some really strong views in here. I'll tackle a few of the ones aimed directly at me:

Your childhood must have been a bit hard too.

Not the best, but i don't like to use it to excuse my shortcomings (personal, intellectual, professional, whatever.)

This has to be a troll. Surely no one can sit and think about this topic and conclude that? Not liking fiction fair enough, but to consider the creative urge unnecessary? Has to be a troll.....

Erm... I gather a Troll is someone who deliberately makes outrageous statements to generate a response..? Well it certainly wasn't intended that way. Perhaps i should have used the caveat 'in my opinion'.

I assume "fiction" in this context is confined to novels only. So what is their view on poetry? Or satire?

I've had relatively little exposure to Poetry. That said, i have enjoyed the ones i have read, mostly from an appreciation of the use of language / linguistics.

Satire is, in my opinion, drawn from fact and used to influence fact. I don't really see that as fiction.

No fiction makes you firmly non religious then

Correct. Although that is clearly another can-of-worms for another day.

Since this is a thread is a discussion in ethics, where does the OP stand on theoretical physics? Or philosophical treatises?

Physics (as all science) is simply an observation of the natural environment around us, and tries to use the knowledge gained in order to better understand the world around us (i realise this is an overly-simplistic view, but i think it fits the context). Therefore, Theoretical Physics simply extends those models to try and rationalise the parts of the natural world we don't yet understand. I can sort of see how this is related to fiction, however it is ultimately using facts to try and understand more facts.

(I'm not a physicist. Or a scientist. Or an academic.)

No 'Orlando'
No 'Hamlet'
No 'Old Man and The Sea'
No 'The Little Prince'
No 'Three Men in A Boat'
No 'Oh Whistle And I'll Come To You'
No 'Breakfast of Champions'
No 'Odyssey'
No 'Snow Falling On Cedars'
No 'A Christmas Carol'

I've never read any of those (perhaps i should be embarrassed?)

The other point being missed by the OP is that a factual book is based on actual events recorded by someone else, so viewed from their perspective then arranged in a nice story by the writer, adapted by their editor etc

I understand what you're saying, but the fact remains; the events in question took place. You are simply reading an author's interpretation of a real event, as opposed to (in the case of pure fiction) an author's interpretation of an imaginary event.

Ok, let's not criticise the OP too much here. In condemning him for his closed mind you are simply showing your own closed minds!

As Terry Pratchett once said - 'The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.' [/irony]

If you were looked up for a week in a room with the Yellow Pages, and a copy of War and Peace, which would you read ? Accepting your premise that War and Peace was a and continues to be a total waste of a lot of people's time.

Lets compare apples with apples here; if i were to choose between 'War and Peace', and a historical account of the 1812 French invasion of Russia, i would choose the latter. Put simply, i am interested in learning about history - imaginary love stories simply don't interest me at all (excuse me for being slightly patronising / flippant there).

Not trying to be funny, and less so insulting, but isn't this an indicator of a situation on the autism spectrum?

I've never thought about it. I certainly don't seem to have any symptoms of what i know of Autism. Perhaps a professional might see it differently.

I'll stop - this post is already massive!

Physics (as all science) is simply an observation of the natural environment around us, and tries to use the knowledge gained in order to better understand the world around us (i realise this is an overly-simplistic view, but i think it fits the context). Therefore, Theoretical Physics simply extends those models to try and rationalise the parts of the natural world we don't yet understand. I can sort of see how this is related to fiction, however it is ultimately using facts to try and understand more facts.

I'm no physicist, scientist or academic either, but I've always understood things like theoretical physics to be very much about hypothesizing new ideas and then seeking facts to prove or disprove them. The fiction becomes fact. Science at the cutting edge isn't simply about joining the factual dots and requires imagination.

imaginary love stories simply don't interest me at all

I'm willing to bet that there are some out there that would, if you read them. However there may not be many, and finding them could be hard I agree.

I still think that from what you've said, you're simply suffering from not having found the right books. And now clearly not having the inclination to look. Now I'm not going to convince you to start looking or do anything else in particular. Just keep an open mind, you know.

[quote=stilltortoise ] think some people - me included - really struggle to engage with sci-fi books and maybe that's what some people associate with "fiction" as opposed to fiction being the simple opposite of fact.

I did think it kind of interesting - and reflective of the STW demographic - the amount of mention of sci-fi and fantasy on this thread. It doesn't appear the OP thinks that is all there is to fiction - which would be a rather strange perspective given how small a subset of fiction that is (check out what proportion of your local bookshop or library is taken up by that). Personally I read a [b]lot[/b] of sci-fi when I was younger (I've read almost everything by Asimov and the rather less well known James Blish), however I'm not at all interested any more, much preferring books based far more closely on reality - mainly crime fiction, though I do read other stuff as well (which isn't intended to be a criticism of anybody).

The other category I tend to read quite a bit of is historical based novels - like War and Peace I guess. Sure they're imagined, but based very closely on real events, and I'd suggest that even if the OP is only interested in factual history then he's missing out by not trying books such as Imperium - what it might miss out on in strict factual content it more than makes up with getting inside people's heads and imagining their lives in a way which just isn't possible with a pure factual book. It's not just about love stories (most of that is about history and power, very little about love). Or how about Alone In Berlin - very closely based on known facts and again gives you an insight to people's feelings in the way no factual book ever will. On reading books like those I've also tended to go and do quite a bit of background reading afterwards on the real events. Is it that the OP isn't interested in people's feelings?

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z86jhv4 ]Dun't matta,if nuffin else,it could be good fir yir elf[/url]

I meant to add, as a follow on to my first post where I asked what was wrong with escapism - reading fiction is really good for my mental health (one of the things which keeps me sane), and I'm sure that goes for a lot of people.

Garry_Lager - Member
I expect this is because actually because George R. R. Martin is good with plots (ie good story teller) but not actually a good writer but no one wants to admit it.
Stick with the series and you'll find he's hopeless at plots, too
Seriously, he's a good writer (IMHO), actually too good for the type of volume writing that massive fantasy epics demand, so after a great start it's all gone pear-shaped for him. Read some of his earlier stuff and you can see he knows his craft, so I'm a bit surprised to hear you didn't rate GoT as that is a tightly written

No, seriously, he's not a good writer, he can get by. Read some of his earlier stuff and you'll see why he took so long to establish himself. I read Armageddon Rag a few months ago - try the first 30pages of that. Dreadful. However, some of his stuff is good and he can be a good storyteller.

Interesting stuff on this thread, though.

I can't believe we're 4 pages in and no-one has mentioned [url= http://www.amazon.com/Chuck-Tingle/e/B00SF2MTYK ]Chuck Tingle[/url]!

Some of you Philistines will be claiming not to have devoured [b]Glazed By The Gay Living Donuts[/b]?

No [b]Slammed In The Butt By The Living Leftover Chocolate Chip Cookies From My Kitchen Cabinet[/b]?

What about [b]Slammed In The Butthole By My Concept Of Linear Time[/b]?

Surely you can' be so uncultured as to be ignorant of [b]Bigfoot Pirates Haunt My Balls[/b]? No?

You just haven't found the right Chuck Tingle book I guess.... That, and you're a sociopath. 😉

I have never really tried to get into fiction since I grew out of Famous Five books as a kid. I'm just not that interested. No shortage of non-fiction books for me to read, and I do read a lot. Currently reading Wolf of Wall Street and You'll die in Singapore. Once done I'll probably re-read Wings on My Sleeve by the now late, great Eric Winkle Brown.

Still working my way through South by Shackleton as well.

I've never read any of those (perhaps i should be embarrassed?)

No, never been into reading for perceived 'status. Book snobs are the enemy!

I just noted that your post had gotten me thinking about not reading fiction, wether I'd personally miss out on much - and that list of books/stories are some that really stood out for me for a number of reasons. Just musing is all!

Non-fiction is potentially perceived as fiction to some....if you have an interpretive perspective you might challenge there is no one single reality, only various perspectives depending on who's telling it...therefore OP, your war history is one persons perspective/story/account and is probably debatable/incorrect to someone else..therefore what's the difference of that to fiction since its not 'true' to all?

I'll get my coat....

But the popularity of SF and fantasy could be viewed as a symtpom of a society which creates so many unhappy, unfulfilled, stressed and scared people.

Rather than trying to change any of this, we've just found ways to make it more palatable - by blocking the world out.

Wow! I really must have been a thoroughly f*****up kid! I started reading SF when I was around ten or eleven, borrowing EE 'Doc' Smith books from the school library, possibly even earlier, actually, with some of the kids books I read.
So I really must have lived a closed in, closeted life, blocking out the wider world around me.
Except that would be a lie, a complete corruption of the truth; I spent most of my free time away from the house, playing in the woods and streams around the town and surrounding countryside, going further afield with my dad who showed me so much about the world around me, and the life within it, and he left around books that I was free to read, about Changi Goal, the Japanese POW camp in Singapore, and 'A War Is Fought To Be Won', about the Japanese-Sino war.
He was imprisoned in Changi, so I was hardly blocking the world out.
I had the best of both, I have an inquiring, magpie mind, interested in many things. Most of what I read [i]is[/i] SF/fantasy, but I have nearly all of Bill Bryson's books, all of Robert Macfarlane's books, books on the history of snipers, music, biographies of musicians, maps...
The quote above is a sweeping generalisation, and, frankly, has little connection with the real world.
A fiction, in fact...

Not entirely on topic but I'm involved in a play that's running over two weeks, we're halfway through and so far there's been much laughter and positive feedback, so there's 500 folks who've enjoyed this fiction with another 500+ this next week. I don't know that it can be said to guarantee quality, but many people are enjoying it.:)

^

I never got 'plays'. I mean, it's just grown-ups playing, isn't it? Made up lies plus dress-up?

And comedy - what's that? Which reminds me - I once read 'Jeeves and Wooster'. Couldn't seem to stop self, thought it was a well-observed serial biog re an upper-class buffoon. Roared with laughter at the parade of twits nearly pissing myself until someone twigged me that it was fictional at which point I slapped self hard and repeatedly about the face; mainly for being such a gullible dullard.

The quote above is a sweeping generalisation, and, frankly, has little connection with the real world.
A fiction, in fact...

Of course it's a generalisation. You can't really talk abount anything, other than your own personal experience, without generalising.

But saying it doesn't apply to me so it has no validity is a bit daft. Very few of us think advertising has any effect on us - but it obviously does.

I never got 'plays'. I mean, it's just grown-ups playing, isn't it? Made up lies plus dress-up?

Pretty much, yeah - it's an odd hobby. But there's no shortage of people wanting to do the playing, and plenty of people who sufficiently fork out to see such playing not only to make it financially viable but to make it a profitable business. I can't explain the attraction but it's evidence to say that there's enough people who enjoy the fiction thus presented to make it worthwhile.

until someone twigged me that it was fictional at which point I slapped self hard and repeatedly about the face; mainly for being such a gullible dullard.

Probably the best test, can you tell which account is fiction or which is autobiographical?

Caught this yesterday on R4:
[url= https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQmh6l-fqRs7nnWI8eytDOaGOnimpapXtBhoc2635Q9tAb7rZ9H ]Beyond Belief.[/url]
A discussion regarding the origins of Biblical mythology.

Quite pertinent and an excellent discussion.

Tuck in.

Caught this yesterday on R4:
Beyond Belief.
A discussion regarding the origins of Biblical mythology.

That link takes me to a picture of Helen Mirren. As lovely as she is, I don't understand.... 😆

That was supposed to be my post on the Tom Petty cool people thread.
🙂

Honest.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b072j3g0 ]Link.[/url]

Non fiction is about worlds which others imagine and you can interpret. I only started reading Stephen King's The Dark tower recently and the textured and interwoven world he has created is fantastic and now I get why he has become such an acclaimed writer. The guy who writes the Jack Reacher novels on the other is utter pish by comparison. Is fiction escapism? maybe, maybe not. I mostly detest the subject matter in Irvine Welsh novels but his ability to create an image and express it so clearly is really quite fantastic. I expect most people on here could easily change the names of authors above but with similar sentiment.

I like reading fiction, but rarely do it unless I'm on the tube/train, which means it only happens 2-4 times a month as I'm usually on my bike. Unless I'm on holiday

I've not got to the position of reading instead of watching TV, which is a shame as I'm sure it would help me sleep better (blue light etc)

I only started reading Stephen King's The Dark tower recently and the textured and interwoven world he has created is fantastic and now I get why he has become such an acclaimed writer. The guy who writes the Jack Reacher novels on the other is utter pish by comparison.

One of Stephen King's motto-y things is "it is the tale, not he who tells it", and whilst I think he's generally bob-on, in that respect I think he's wrong - I think a good author (like him) can make any and all kind of stories interesting, but a Clive Cussler or a Gerald Seymore, for all their success and interesting plot lines, just totally turn me off through very ordinary writing.

I can't help thinking that the Harry Potter saga would have been much shorter and funnier if Frank Richards had been into witchcraft.

I feel compelled to drop back into this thread with a quick and pointless update.

After finishing Robert Gordon's masterful "The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The US Standard of Living Since the Civil War", I picked up a copy of Iain M Banks' "Look To Windward".

I am enjoying it very much. I might well make a habit of reading a novel right after a book containing lots of graphs and footnotes. Mix things up a bit...

🙂

Ah thats one of the more bonkers ones if I remember rightly 🙂

I was starting to feel the same as a the OP until recently.

Then I heard an interview with Yann Martel ... author of Life of Pi. A housewives favourite with more Cod (spelt right) philosophy then you could shake a stick at... but still a book I enjoyed immensely.

Anyway, Martel sent a work of fiction to the Canadian PM every two weeks until he'd sent 100 books/pieces of poetry... the PM has said he only read non fiction .... http://www.ctvnews.ca/no-more-books-for-stephen-harper-yann-martel-vows-1.602455

Why ? ... Well to paraphrase ... Great literature is a wonderful way to explore and understand what it is to be human... And as such, what could be more important to PM than that.

Soulful

Now thanks to this thread (or its resurrection)... I've remembered I'm going to work my way through those 100 books