When it comes to selecting books to read, I try to alternate between fiction and non-fiction. Of course I will occasionally break the rule if I become very engaged with an idea or with an author, but as much as possible, I try to stick to this heuristic. I like rules of thumbs and this one helps me to ensure that I am reading a good balance of fiction and non-fiction.
Some of my friends claim to only read non-fiction. This always strikes me as odd; my initial reaction is you're missing out on so much! When I ask why, people usually tell me that they feel like it would be wrong to waste time on fiction when there is so much out there for them to learn and become aware of. As the thinking goes, why read a made up story when there are real things to learn about. Surely our western revere for the liberal arts should leave us better off than to fall prey to this deeply flawed and illogical conclusion. To think that we don't learn from literature is deeply disrespectful to the world of art and betrays an arrogance in placing other fields of knowledge on a pedestal.
Fiction, and the fine arts generally, teach us things about humanity and emotion that we cannot always gleam from non-fiction. You won't learn as many facts. I can acknowledge this, but when did knowledge ever end (or even begin) with facts? Art gives us a better understanding of the peripheries. Fiction is a part of this tradition.
Oddly, I hear this sentiment most often from those friends who have some political and social awareness and engagement. Implicit in their reasoning is a haughty self righteousness: these people are too principled to waste time on fiction when there is a world to better. To this, I would respond: it is no coincidence that so many great thinkers have lauded the critical importance and indeed necessity of a vibrant arts community in any successful democracy. This is not just fluffy feel-good talk. Where else can we explore the boundaries of acceptability and possibility? In fiction and make believe, we can explore our potential. We can subtly dissent and ask questions of authority that in other forums may prove to be more uncomfortable. We can be provocative and say: "Oh that? It was just make believe." All the same, people will be thinking.
It seems to me that fiction is particularly important as an antidote to the worship we accord to free market capitalism in so many developed economies. In choosing to read fiction and partake in the arts, we acknowledge the inherent limits of the market-based analysis that so often consumes us. We acknowledge that not everything can be priced and that the best of an enlightened society means broadening our thinking beyond a cold and simplistic understanding of utility. Moreover, as I alluded to above, the arts provide a safe space where we can collectively challenge prevailing norms and explore our limits in a socially acceptable way.
I would love to hear from some of you who choose to only read non-fiction. From my vantage point, you are stunting your own personal development and also failing to engage fully as social and political beings. I'd welcome your arguments otherwise.
These people are full of crap. Almost all of them watch at least some fictional TV shows and movies. It's just an attention span issue.
ReplyDeleteI am one of those who read mostly non-fiction, but its not because I don't appreciate fiction or think I'm "too busy" or "too important" to "waste time" with fiction. Indeed, as Mr/Mrs Anonymous above points out, I enjoy fictitious films and shows immensely. And I should point out as well that while fiction is not a big part of my casual reading, most of my all-time favorite books are fiction.
ReplyDeleteThat said, why don't I read more fiction? It's really not that complicated or haughty/self righteous, I don't think. Two main reasons: 1) I really like learning about things that actually happened, because I find it exciting/fascinating; and 2) the style of non-fiction writing is a style that MY brain is better equipped to process/enjoy. For whatever reason, I'm not a very artistic or creative person when it comes to literary pursuits, and I guess I naturally gravitated to more journalistic writing styles and real-world storytelling over fiction storytelling. But I don't think its fair to say I look down on fiction at all - I think of people who read more fiction as having different preferences than me. That's all. I feel the same way about artists and philosophers - like, I get it, but it's not for me.
So I think its a bit unfair to ostracize people like me who read primarily non-fiction and state that we "should" read more fiction. That's like someone who likes pop music telling me I should listen to more of it. Well, no, I shouldn't. I should respect and appreciate fiction (and the arts) and the people who enjoy it more than I do (and I should dabble in it myself when I feel compelled to do so). I actually think its more haughty and self righteous to take the normative stance of "Hey you! Read more fiction or you're stunting your own development!" You could replace the words "read more fiction" in there with anything - listen to more pop music, watch more reality TV, protest more, etc. Why single out fiction as the one thing that people "should" do more?? That only reveals your own preferences, but does not make a compelling case that literary fiction is uniquely important.
Lev Grossman (book critic for Time) made the point a while ago that the predominant mode of the modern novel is highly plotless:
ReplyDeletehttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574377163804387216.html
He argues that more traditional plot-heavy narratives are still found in genre or young-adult novels, both of which are still widely read. (How many people do you know who don't read fiction...except Harry Potter?) Lots of non-readers still make time for fictional narratives if it's plot-heavy stuff like 'Mad Men' or 'The Wire'...