/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4586638]

What is the point of reading fiction? Is there any useful purpose?

Honestly I don't get it, though maybe 25% of what I read is fiction. People might think "oh look how cerebral he is, nose in that thick tome", but is it really much better than lazily watching TV, or idly browsing 4chan? I mean it can be mildly amusing, but ultimately I'm conscious that everything in the book is a lie. The characters, their words, often the settings- they're all lies! None of it actually happened, so why should I let it affect me? That's always in the back of my head and sometimes it bothers me. Why?

[Anonymous No.4586643]

>>4586638
0/10

[Anonymous No.4586657]

There are messages that can only be conveyed through story, through alternate meaning. Sometimes the author wants to make you think a certain thing that he could not make you think if he spoke directly. Fiction is a sneaky thing that's supposed to slip into someone's psyche and tool around a bit.

This is all ignoring the fact that you think pleasure a waste of time, but whatever.

[Anonymous No.4586659]

>>4586643
I'm not trolling. I often question what is the "use" of reading fiction, beyond some sort of momentary entertainment, or distraction.

[Anonymous No.4586665]

some fiction has value in content expressed through metaphor and anecdote, but you're right, most fiction is worthless.

[Anonymous No.4586669]

>>4586657
so you're saying all works of fiction are just elaborate allegories?

I guess another way of forming my question is: why read fiction when you could be reading non-fiction and actually learn something?

[Anonymous No.4586673]

>>4586669
Like I just said, I was ignoring the fact that you think pleasure is a waste of time. I'm not going to have this argument with you because you'll probably realize it's a stupid opinion to hold in a few years on your own.

[Anonymous No.4586677]

>tfw I spent an entire semester of university talking about that question with professors and people in a seminar

[Anonymous No.4586679]

I never see these sort of threads on the other boards.

What is the point of playing video games?
What is the point of watching movies?
What is the point of listening to music?
What is the point of traveling?
What is the point of playing sports?
What is the point of science and math?
What is the point of photography?

It's only here on /lit/ that you see it. Is it just anti-intellectualism?

[Anonymous No.4586680]

>>4586673
I'm not denying that reading fiction can be pleasurable, but then again any number of other activities can be as well.

My high school teacher always said it was a way to better understand the "human condition" but I didn't and still don't really get what that means

[Anonymous No.4586686]

this might change your view, OP

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

[Anonymous No.4586687]

>>4586679
science and math are pragmatic whereas vidya and fiction and music are pretty useless.

[Anonymous No.4586695]

>>4586679
It's because there are a lot of kids that come to this board because they want to become intellectuals, and kids that want to become intellectuals take anything that doesn't add to their stockpiling of knowledge as a waste of time.

>>4586680
Some people like reading more than watching tv and playing videogames. It's not a waste of time to please yourself or have fun.

[Anonymous No.4586696]

>>4586687
>science and math are pragmatic

>hurr wut is dark matter
>i dont know
>maybe dark matter is everything!

[Anonymous No.4586697]

>>4586679
Yes, but all those questions are pretty easy to answer.

>What is the point of playing video games?
Fun, distraction
>What is the point of watching movies?
entertainment
>What is the point of listening to music?
feels good
>What is the point of traveling?
experience new places and people, become worldly
>What is the point of playing sports?
be fit and learn cooperation
>What is the point of science and math?
the betterment of quality of life for all and to fulfill our curiosity
>What is the point of photography?
capture moments that existed. TRUE moments, I might add

If you're positing that the only purpose of fiction is to entertain or distract us, I would agree, but I was always under the impression there's more to it than that

[AnnieC !m9jxTLhLcw No.4586698]

>>4586679
All those are legit questions, but they belong here rather than on other boards.
It's not anti-intellectualism. Anti-intellectualism would be ignoring questions just because they are difficult and just don't think about it because it's easier to enjoy something without asking yourself why you enjoy it.

[Anonymous No.4586713]

>>4586638
Do you feel that way about other forms of art?

[Anonymous No.4586726]

>>4586697
I wasn't actually asking those questions, I was just pointing out that literature is the only artistic medium/hobby that needs to earn its keep in the 21st century.

[Anonymous No.4586729]

Let me put it another way:

When I read a work of NF, like "The Fabric of the Cosmos" (Greene), or "A Brief History of Time"(Hawking), or "The Selfish Gene" (Dawkins), or "The Golden Spruce" (Valliant), find myself finishing the book thinking "wow, that was truly amazing", and I genuinely feel that I am a more conscious and maybe more knowledgeable person.
But when I read a work of fiction, such as "Cider House Rules", or "I Heard the Owl Call My Name", or "How I Spent My Summer Holidays" or "Pale Fire" or the unbearable "To Kill a Niggerbird", afterwards I will think "hmm, that was kind of interesting I guess". But after that I will remain largely unchanged as a person, and mostly forget about the book. Is this some sort of deficiency on my part?

[Anonymous No.4586733]

Isn't there value to cultural knowledge? Part of the reason we watch shows and movies is to have fun, yes, but also to keep updated and informed and partake in social rituals. Being well-read will give you a wider variety of subjects to speak upon with people and allusions to make and son.

tl;dr you still learn from fiction, just different stuff

[Anonymous No.4586736]

It is the only way you can experience a life that is not yours.

[Anonymous No.4586741]

>>4586729
Maybe you just don't take enjoyment from them. That is entirely possible, but you can't assume that's the case for everyone. Many people enjoy fiction, and if they enjoy it, it is not pointless.

[Anonymous No.4586742]

>>4586733
Sure, but if you were to focus on being well read in non-fiction instead of fiction, I would argue that you have an even wider repertoire of material to draw from in social interactions, as these works can contain universal truths do to with many things, which seem to me to be more applicable than a fictional story

[Anonymous No.4586765]

>>4586669
To answer your question with more questions:

Why value imagination?
Why do people often associate brilliance with people who "live in their own worlds?"
Aren't numerous inventions inspired by peoples' imagination, or by the imaginings of others recorded in what we call 'fiction'? How permeable is that division between fiction and non-fiction? The impossible and possible? I see works of fiction as tangible manifestations of peoples' exercise of one of the profound functions of human beings that distinguish us as a species - our ability to conceive beyond what our physical five senses perceive as "possible" to bring into existence that which does not. Works of fiction represent the seeds of what has pushed the human race forward in radical ways (looking at them within context) like the airplane, the PC, the Internet, just to name a few. Of course, none of these things are near "perfect" as far as we conceive "perfection", but they're steps forward, and many of these things are birthed in the place of imagination - the same birthplace as literary fiction.

[Anonymous No.4586767]

>>4586697
>fun
>distraction
>entertainment
>feeling good
>experience new places and people, become worldly
>betterment of quality of life
through the above
>fulfill curiosity
>campture moments

all of which can apply to literature. if you understand these things about other hobbies then you already understand the point of literature. as you mentioned, some people get something "more" out of literature but this "more" isn't required nor expected of everyone, and can't be said to be the point of literature. there is no single purpose of literature, much the same as any of the other things mentioned. some people have transcendent experiences consuming media. others appreciate or create games/movies/music/etc for what is sometimes a high level of art or craft.

>TRUE moments, I might add

i dont know why this is important to you. there are a lot of ways i disagree here.

1. photographs aren't true representations of what they capture. it is flat--2-dimension, first of all. this is not true of the object photographed, nor is it like actually being in the setting of photograph observing the thing the camera is observing at the time. the lenses used distort the field of view far beyond how the human eye actually can see. cameras can't capture the quantity nor quality of information the human eye can in low light.
2. people find truth in fiction that can't be expressed in non-fiction. the first and most widespread example being orwell's 1984.
3. non-fiction is limited in terms of representing the truth of subjective experience. compare the two sentences:
>John A Doe's wife died on June 9th, 2004
>John A Doe froze upon hearing his best friend say "Jane is dead." He didn't believe Will's words, at least not for a few seconds. He felt his heart sink and he became dizzy. Words failed.

im not the best writer but you get the idea.

[Anonymous No.4586769]

>>4586679
>cries anti-intellectual
>refuses to discuss value of pastimes

[Anonymous No.4586798]

Well, to actually answer OP's question with an objective answer: it has improved my language skills an immeasurable amount. I started reading "serious" literature around sophomore year of high school and have been a voracious reader ever since. Throughout high school, college, and my time in the workplace, in terms of language skills, I've been head and shoulders above my colleagues. Everything from spelling, grammar, and writing ability is improved from reading, especially reading fiction, which illustrates the extent that language can be creatively manipulated. Of course, my real reason for reading so much was simply because I enjoyed it, but I read enough and (maybe) had a good enough natural talent for writing/language that everything else sort of fell into place. I studied English in college, got near perfect grades, and got hired right out of university at a large publisher as a copy-editor (graduated close to a year ago so I still have that position). So yeah, in short, there is a useful purpose.

[Anonymous No.4586800]

And another thing that I don't get, English people always talk about "reading in between the lines" to properly a work of literature

What the fuck does that mean? How can you possibly hope to glean something that may or may not be at all what the author intended based purely on assumptions which are completely arbitrary? How can you make assumptions from fictional lines? What is even the point in that? I don't get how you can hope to make any sensible inferences from actions or words or situations or people which are totally works of falsehood, and never even existed.

And to those of you who say fiction is good because of entertainment/enjoyment, OK, but why not read works of non-fiction then? I would argue REAL people and REAL events are much more interesting than fictional ones, in part simply because of the fact that they're real, but even more so because truth really is often "stranger than fiction". This of course does not apply to science or fantasy fiction. Everyone knows how awesome LoTR and Lovecraftian mythos is, but you NEED fiction to make those stories. So I don't get why we have all these boring as fuck works of fiction like "Vanity Fair", "Cather in the Rye", "Cider House.. " etc. which don't take any of the fictional "liberties" at all, they just create some boring pseudo-realistic setting that is completely false. Call me crazy but it seems kind of hypocritical to me

[Anonymous No.4586809]

>>4586800
>And to those of you who say fiction is good because of entertainment/enjoyment, OK, but why not read works of non-fiction then? I would argue REAL people and REAL events are much more interesting than fictional ones

completely a matter of opinion and taste, therefore subjective, thus you're not really making an argument just saying that you think your way is the right way (and if you really want to argue about subjective/objective when it comes to matters of taste you ought to leave)

[Anonymous No.4586815]

>>4586800

Non-fiction books are terrible. It's just some pretentious jerk masturbating about how much he knows about something. At least if it isn't real, the author knows it isn't real.

[Anonymous No.4586824]

What is the point of anything?

[Anonymous No.4586826]

>>4586800
i dont know why you are confused its pretty obvious.

orwell never wrote "totalitarianism is bad" in 1984
fitzgerald never wrote "the american dream is dead" in the great gatsby
conrad never wrote "for all his pretense man is ultimately savage" in heart of darkness

yet these are very common and popular examples of people "reading in between the lines."

also this should go without saying but authorial intent doesn't get you very far. i can INTEND to write the greatest book of all time but ill still probably write a piece of shit. i can't just say, "the author intended this to be the greatest book of all time, therefore it is true to say that it is." readings, interpretations and judgments of the quality of a book is generally founded in large part outside of author intent.

[Anonymous No.4586837]

cuz you're too retarded to have an imagination or to realize that your entire existence is a lie, not just so called "fiction".

[Anonymous No.4586840]

Seems like a troll, but I've had this conversation with people who are dead serious, so who knows

>is it really much better than lazily watching TV, or idly browsing 4chan?
I think so. TV is a passive activity that just streams to your brain. Books require that you concentrate enough to read them, visualize your own characters and settings, and then bring them to life.

>I mean it can be mildly amusing, but ultimately I'm conscious that everything in the book is a lie. The characters, their words, often the settings- they're all lies! None of it actually happened, so why should I let it affect me? That's always in the back of my head and sometimes it bothers me. Why?
But those "lies" come from somewhere, ie the writer's thoughts and experiences channeled through a work of fiction. And ultimately you have to relate to what you're reading through in your own thoughts and experiences. So you're making connections that's hopefully helping you see the world in a new way.

[Anonymous No.4586849]

>>4586638
You're mostly right. The difference is, when you read a story, you're putting yourself into it. You're engaging your mind, filling in blanks and seeing characters and hearing dialogue. You're working your brain like a muscle.

[Anonymous No.4586851]

>>4586809
Yes, but because something is "true" (obviously I'm not talking capital T Truth here), because it is an account of something that actually happened, doesn't that give it some inherently valuable attribute that a work of fiction cannot have? I mean if something is an account of a real thing, isn't more accurate, more "valuable" in a certain sense, than something of comparable content which is fictional? I think some might argue that, beyond just their taste

>>4586815
>all those textbooks they read in Universities, all terrible. It's just some pretentious jerk masturbating about how much he knows about something

[Anonymous No.4586853]

>>4586800
a good work of fiction is one that the reader recognizes as expressing accurately some aspect of reality. Take, for instance, Ulysses (inb4 >lel pretty shit book m8), whose purpose is to portray the way people actually think through the steam-of-consciousness style. The fact that people have claimed that Joyce did this successfully shows at least for some his rendering of something difficult to describe is accurate and teaches us something about the world/ourselves. A nonfiction book could describe the same thing, like in a work on cognitive sciences or psychology, but 1) more "scientific" perspective change and are discarded often and 2) it's harder for the reader to connect with their insights on an emotional, applicable level. But, you might ask, why should fiction even bother with rendering reality? Shouldn't reality itself be good enough to analyze? The answer is that great fiction captures the moment in an analyzable way. Real life moves too fast, there are too many factors competing for our attention to let us learn as profoundly from our experiences most of the time. In cases of true genius, writers notice aspects of life that none noticed before that could not be communicated any other way (like through the sciences or academic subjects). Basically, the "fiction" part of the story (i.e. the made-up events, characters, etc.) are an entertaining vessel for some real truth about how we act or view the world and a work is successful if we find that it uses these fictional elements to lead us to a real-world revelation.

[Anonymous No.4586872]

>>4586826
>orwell never wrote "totalitarianism is bad" in 1984
>fitzgerald never wrote "the american dream is dead" in the great gatsby
>conrad never wrote "for all his pretense man is ultimately savage" in heart of darkness
that's not really reading in between the lines man. That's just reciting the moral or lesson of those works. I'm talking about how they look deep into the prose itself and say "Oh, I saw this once in X, and again in Y, therefore it means Z. Here he is using these 2 words, which he used again on page 487, which implies..."
It just seems completely arbitrary and illogical to me

[Anonymous No.4586883]

>>4586853
Tv can bring you to real-world revelations as well. Have you seen the south park episode "the tale of scrotie mcboogerballs"? It unveils the pretentious book critics that find vague, deep undertones in shitty books, and try to act like the authors are geniuses, when the authors didn't even intend for those undertones to be in the book.

[Anonymous No.4586901]

>>4586851
So now we're talking about reality? We're going through so many topics here, OP. In my SUBJECTIVE opinion, reality is a joke. Here's a few possibilities of why:

If you believe in the theory about infinite parallel universes it's completely plausible that anything in fiction could happen.

If you believe reality only exists because it's perceived through our own consciences, that makes reality equal to anything made up in our minds, and fiction equal to nonfiction.

If you believe that reality cannot be proven to be real, again fiction is equal to nonfiction.

So just like before, it is up to your subjective taste and opinion, as it is up to everyone else.

[Anonymous No.4586983]

>>4586901
the problem is all those theories of reality you're talking about are effectively fiction.

You can hem and haw about how we can never attain "The Reality, The Truth", etc, but the fact of the matter is that there is an effective, practical consideration of what people consider to be "reality" on common grounds, and if you're throwing that out to the point where you're considering fictional novels to be on the same level as our common reality that we observe daily, you got your head up your pooholio

[Anonymous No.4587000]

>>4586901
Getting a C+ in Philosophy 101: The Comment

[Anonymous No.4587002]

>>4586983
But like I said, that's your subjective opinion. Since it's your opinion, it's of no more value than anyone else's opinion. It follows that reality is no more valuable than non-reality, and nonfiction no more valuable than fiction.

It's completely up to you. It's completely up to me. To each their own opinion and so there you have it.

[Anonymous No.4587015]

>>4587000
Nice trips.

I've never once studied philosophy, and the philosophy wasn't the point. The point was that you can believe in those things or not believe in them and neither opinion can be proven right and thus it's only an opinion which extends to the rest of the argument.

see >>4587002

[Anonymous No.4587026]

>>4586901
>If you believe that reality cannot be proven to be real
circular, meaningless question. Did you also know that if redness cannot be proven to be red, all redness is equal in redness?

[Anonymous No.4587038]

>>4587026
Can we stop changing the subject maybe? The point is OP can't understand subjectivity and thinks reality is more valuable than non-reality because it is what he likes more, which itself is stupid.

4chan is always one to start an argument about one thing then pick away at a response because something is flawed in it that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[Anonymous No.4587058]

>What is the point of reading fiction? Is there any useful purpose?

The point of reading fiction is enjoyment.

For most, enjoyment is a useful purpose.

>Is it really much better than lazily watching TV, or idly browsing 4chan?

We measure intelligence in daily life, primarily, by the ease with which we navigate language. Reading is usually more beneficial to that end than watching television or browsing 4chan.

>None of it actually happened, so why should I let it affect me?

Because that is your role as a reader. To choose not to be affected is to ignore the nature of the medium.

>That's always in the back of my head and sometimes it bothers me. Why?

You're at conflict because the language you've attached to this concept is both incomplete and incorrect.

[Anonymous No.4587086]

>>4587038
look, if you're trying to argue the nature of reality (and argue that it doesn't exist nonetheless) as a way to "disprove" this thread, of course I'm going to pick apart your argument if you make such a simple mistake as being unable to define "reality" by anything other than a circular definition. The point of the thread is that OP is asking what the benefits are of reading something that makes no claim of being about events that actually happened outside of the author's head rather than a book claiming to be about events that actually happened. There's hardly a philosophical distinction here worth arguing about, and yet you brought it up as a shitty attempt to show off your nonexistent philosophy skills. If you're actually curious about subjectivism, trying reading Berkeley, and no, his conclusion is not that "anything that can be thought is possible" or whatever you seem to think (something close to solipsism it looks like). You're the definition of sophist.

[Anonymous No.4587106]

Consider the bible and it's derivatives for a second OP. It's a work of fiction written a couple thousand years ago and it has had a profound impact on history and individual people and still does today. Fiction throughout history has passed down value systems and histories and is partly responsible for allowing ourselves to imagine a world greater than the one we currently live in.

"Official" historical documentation is and has been subject to misinterpretation, malicious disinformation, propagandized accounts, and intentional and outright repression of actual accounts. Fiction in it's modern role has the ability to act as a kind of speculative history. One that doesn't have to pay lip service to power and the establishment's agenda. On the other hand fiction in the form of propaganda has dangerous potential and has the ability to indoctrinate even skeptical and generally intelligent people.

So in closing fiction isn't just stories with entertainment value (although that is one use of fiction) OP and it's increasingly difficult in our hyper politicized world to differentiate the blurred line between fiction and reality.

[Anonymous No.4587109]

>>4586695
>there are a lot of kids that come to this board because they want to become intellectuals
Stop right there. Just stop. What are you talking about? You are assuming.

True, I have no doubt that people under 20 do come on here, but it's best to not dwell on it, lest you cause the culture on here to degrade into supercilious derision.

[Anonymous No.4587118]

>>4586872
There is nothing wrong with that.

YOU ARE AUTISTIC. USE YOUR CREATIVITY.

[Anonymous No.4587141]

>>4587002>>4587086>>4587002>>4586983>>4586901>>4587038 etc.

In language, meaning is derived from shared experience.

The words you're using are abstract and only gain meaning through context.

Neither of you are providing sufficient context to give the words meaning.

Just thought I'd help out.

[Anonymous No.4587143]

>>4587106
>the Bible is a work of fiction

*tips fedora

[Anonymous No.4587153]

>>4587141
>le wittgenstein face
guys I won the argument!

[Anonymous No.4587156]

>>4587106

Very concise.

[Anonymous No.4587160]

>>4587143
He's just being a realist, not a fedorafag.

[Anonymous No.4587165]

>>4587153

I-I don't think I can win an argument I wasn't apart of, anon-kun.

[Anonymous No.4587170]

>>4587165
but there was no argument...it was only language games violating the rules of usage

[Anonymous No.4587171]

>>4587143

I can't believe i'm replying to this bait.

People can believe what they want to believe I don't give a fuck. But if you ignore the bible or any historical theological text within the context of a discussion of the use and and purpose of fiction based off of a juvenile knee jerk reaction to a statement associated with fedora tipping militant atheists then you are no better than the fedora tippers themselves. Especially if you aren't contributing any relative content to the thread.

[Anonymous No.4587179]

Jouissance

[Anonymous No.4587189]

>>4587170

Are you t-trying to trick me again, anon-kun?

P-please...

[Anonymous No.4587194]

>>4587171
Not that guy but it isn't technically fiction, even if its contents are false.

[Anonymous No.4587198]

>>4587179

lewd

[Anonymous No.4587207]

>>4587189
shhhhhh the language games are over now

[Anonymous No.4587216]

>>4586687
Define 'pragmatic.'

There was a pretty harsh reaction to Newton's fluxions if I recall correctly; hell, he wrote the Principia using GEOMETRY not calculus because he wanted the arguments to be "fool-proof." A lot of mathematicians such as Rolle (after whom Rolle's Theorem is named) were harshly critical of differentials.

So just because you think it is not "pragmatic" does not make it so.

[Anonymous No.4587222]

>>4587194

Then what do you propose it is 'technically'?

I guarantee that if you read a book or take a class on the history of fiction the bible will be referenced.

[Anonymous No.4587226]

>>4586687
And Knuth introduced the hyperreals in a work of fiction. Grow up.

[Anonymous No.4587230]

>>4587207
Jesus Christ I loled so hard.

Disturbed the whole damn library.

[Anonymous No.4587235]

OP here, came back after a while. These are the two explanations that made most sense to me:
>>4586849
>>4586853

>>4587058
>You're at conflict because the language you've attached to this concept is both incomplete and incorrect.
Can you explain what you mean by this?

[Anonymous No.4587242]

>>4587207

Oh wiggytines, you always know exactly what to say.

[Anonymous No.4587244]

>>4586800
> everything must be literal, spelled out for me and black and white

You have autism, don't feel bad. Being able to infer and understand subtle, unspoken ideas and desires is the core of interpersonal relationships.

[Anonymous No.4587254]

>>4587235
>Can you explain what you mean by this?
Not him, but only by you reading a book that explains it through the medium of fiction. Anything else would be like telling you the answer is 42 and an overview of the problem isn't sufficient.

[Anonymous No.4587261]

While we're talking about fiction, does anyone have that flowchart thing for fiction that has a shitload of books on it?

[Anonymous No.4587265]

>>4587244
I'm not autistic. I actually have a girlfriend of a few years and a small circle of friends.

>>4587254
are you trying to ruse me?

[Anonymous No.4587298]

>>4586638
Entretaining your life and others. That's the point in art. Photography, literature, cinema, sculpture, painting, music, etc. It exist for the good of all the other things. If it wasn't for the art life would be dull and meaningless, and you couldn't have philoshphy as we know it. Even philosophers apprecietted art and that's how they became what they are (among other things). We need a way to manifest ourselves. Art is as necessary (or more) as science, philosophy, or whatever.

Well that's my opinion...

[Anonymous No.4587305]

>>4587265
Not at all. It's that even in philosophy, a fictional narrative structure is more effective for getting it's point across because the point itself, even if directly directly stated (if that is even possible), requires an abstract equation type...thingy, the narrative, to carry it home, so to speak.

This book as a whole expresses the feeling of disconnect you have with fiction by eventually directly confronting that very issue. Also the first part is the only worthwhile book about war and it's effects that is in no way saccharine, sentimental, preachy or shitty in any discernible way. It's short and worth a read just for that. The big boy shit after that with all the answers is up to you.

https://anonfiles com/file/af3698222d03a1f4de8b684375049131

[Anonymous No.4587335]

>>4587222
It sits in the category for religion, right next to mythology, which is between non-fiction and fiction.

Source: I work in a bookstore

[Anonymous No.4587363]

Underlying your question is another question.

What is added to any life by a drama? Why is living, experiencing, and interacting valuable?

Weather it was fiction or nonfiction?

My answer to that would be that life's value is happiness.
Joy brings justification to being and motivates it further.
Thus the point of fiction is not whether it adds to a rsevior of knowledge, but weather it enriches the happiness of a life.

[Anonymous No.4587367]

>>4587305
I should add that one of the points of fiction is to express a concept in a way that no definitive treatise can, that is, though direct experience not reliant on having been another person. The point where essays attempt this, they transcend, however slightly, into fiction, and without it you have a bad essay that misses it's own point.

[Anonymous No.4587403]

>>4586638
thought experiments are extremely useful for a variety of things

Taking fiction to be a series of thought experiments assisted me in getting over a similar anti-fictionalism a few years ago. Or considering it is an exploration into man's capacity to have internally consistent systems devoid or reality, into man's imagination, which is real.

[Anonymous No.4587406]

>>4587265
>have a girlfriend

so..?

[Anonymous No.4587476]

>>4587335

I've worked in multiple bookstores. Bookstores organize and label things for the customers convenience and consciously avoid offending any demographic because it would result in a loss of sales. Academically outside of theology the bible is regarded as a work of fiction.

[Anonymous No.4587484]

>>4587222
not the guy you are responding to but aristotle's physics isn't classified as fiction just because it's wrong. wrong accounts are still non-fiction.

it's hazy and all but that's the way it works.

[Anonymous No.4587537]

>>4587484

Wrong is a highly subjective term. I'm not arguing that something is or is not fiction on the basis of whether or not something can be verified as 'true' or not 'true' (wrong) because you sure as shit cannot verify the existence or non existence of god. I'm arguing that for the purpose of informing the study of the history of humans writing fiction the bible plays a significant role. An example would be the many archetypes borrowed from the bible (adam and eve, david and goliath, god and satan, cain and abel, jesus) and the example set by parables as wonderfully crafted stories as well as ideological vehicles that appealed to common people at the time it was written. Many famous writers throughout history have been influenced both by the writings of the bible and the questions religion attempts to answer and to understand their works of fiction you often need to understand the work of fiction that influenced them.

[Anonymous No.4587652]

>>4586638
>What is the point of reading fiction
Pleasure
Experiencing the pleasures that are found uniquely in fiction due to its form
Experiencing strange places, people, ideas, times

>Useful purpose
Improve vocab
Understand complex sentences with more ease
Can improve ability to communicate, written and oral
Be able to better empathize with people
Increase creativity and general knowledge
Form connections with people based on shared love of lit

[Anonymous No.4587686]

>>4586800
>I would argue REAL people and REAL events are much more interesting than fictional ones
That's your opinion.

>but even more so because truth really is often "stranger than fiction".
>So I don't get why we have all these boring as fuck works of fiction like "Vanity Fair", "Cather in the Rye", "Cider House.. " etc. which don't take any of the fictional "liberties" at all, they just create some boring pseudo-realistic setting that is completely false. Call me crazy but it seems kind of hypocritical to me
You expand on this phenomenon and deride works that don't fully take advantage of their status as fiction, without ever questioning WHY this phenomenon occurs (and on a minor point, I don't for a moment know where you got 'hypocritical' from).
Yes, truth is stranger than fiction. Because fiction has to make sense. It takes all the arbitrary, out of control, incomprehensible crap of our every day lives and turns it into something simple, something that we can understand, that aids our understanding of life itself by breaking it down into something digestible and even pleasurable, and something that comes full circle and gives us catharsis by actually ending. Real life stories don't end, they just peter out until the next one comes along. Fiction ends, in an emotive enough way that we're force to, gladly, analyse what happened. To ask why everyone did what they did, and why it made us feel the way we did. We can't ignore it like we can in real life, and we don't want to. Reading about a tragedy so unforgiving that it makes us weep is still a rewarding activity that one wont turn away. In real life, the instinct is to simply run and deny. Through fiction, we can cope, and we can empathise, without becoming overwhelmed.
Fiction is safe, and through it's slight distance from reality, the comfort that none if it really happened, we're free to learn from it as much as we can, without the acute fear, sadness, dissatisfaction, or personal vulnerability that might occur if the story was real.

[Anonymous No.4587688]

Art is a lie that makes us realizes the truth. I think Picasso said this.

[Anonymous No.4587721]

>>4587686
>Through fiction, we can cope, and we can empathise, without becoming overwhelmed.
>Fiction is safe (...) we're free to learn from it as much as we can, without the acute fear, sadness, dissatisfaction, or personal vulnerability that might occur if the story was real.
Weak-minded fools. That is your shortcoming.. *tips fedora*

[IMPERATOR BERTRANNVS ARTORIVS (...) !8kI8L5crnY No.4587729]

Considering mathematics (and the mathematically-derived sciences) and philosophy are the only intrinsically valuable things, then yeah, I am tempted to say fiction isn't all some people crack it up to be.

[Anonymous No.4587738]

>>4587729
finally, a sensible man among all this clamor! Only these logics which are capable of proving truths are worthy of time and study

[IMPERATOR BERTRANNVS ARTORIVS (...) !8kI8L5crnY No.4587745]

>>4587738

Well, I would say it has less to do with the ability to prove things, and more to do with the advancement of rationality, but I think the general idea you've got is right. I hope you're not being sarcastic.

[Anonymous No.4587767]

>>4587729
>Considering mathematics (and the mathematically-derived sciences) and philosophy are the only intrinsically valuable things
*flips mathematically derived fedora*

[Anonymous No.4587865]

>>4586638
More often than not, you can at least gain new perspective on things through hypothetical scenarios, i.e, fiction
And don't be so quick to dismiss it ALL as fictitious drivel, some books are littered with factual references, and even some things you've never heard of
Also, there's the imaginative portion. Grandiose adventures unraveling in your head to the best of your perceptive ability
Hope that helps

[Anonymous No.4587868]

>>4586697

>I was always under the impression there's more to it than that

There's more to everything you listed as well you filthy fucking pleb

[Anonymous No.4587870]

Something that no one has mentioned in this thread is the use of fiction as a social commentary. It's one of the few mediums in which one can experience an authentic take on a certain society or time period.

[Anonymous No.4587880]

>>4586729
>Is this some sort of deficiency on my part?
Yes.

[Anonymous No.4587882]

>>4586638
This is exactly how I feel about fiction. It's shit, exactly the same as playing call of duty or going through your facebook newsfeed.

[Anonymous No.4587888]

>>4586638
>what is the point of fapping? Is there any useful purpose?

[Anonymous No.4587891]

To put it bluntly, fiction can be considered as a thought-experiment but it is more than that.

Good fiction can construct an indirect criticism or social commentary by alleviating truth from it so that the reader may be able to form their own response to it in lieu of the bias they would naturally subscribe to if the text were a recount of real-events. You look upon the text as not truth but as a set of possibilities which can potentially alter your perception of reality. It is useful. That is its use. What the author meant is important but not the final word.

It's people who equate fiction with being fully fictional who are the problem. Fiction is language as non-fiction is language. If such people were as analytical as they suspect they are then they'd be able to understand this. I think they just want to think they are getting all of the 'correct' answers because that's the trendy thing right now. It's astounding really considering how the abstract concepts of science and mathematics are principally built from fictional components too. They gather purpose and shared meaning which is derived from their context, which is built upon from (complex) ideas. Isn't language the same?

[Anonymous No.4587893]

>>4587891

>alter your perception of reality

By that I don't mean physically of course (though I suppose it can) and on reflection I should perhaps have said your 'social-reality'.

[Anonymous No.4587900]

>>4587882
That's because you're an idiot anon. And if you refuse or are unable to learn anything from the things you experience, you will forever remain thus.

[Anonymous No.4587925]

>>4586638
>being this fucking pretentious about what you read.

[Anonymous No.4587935]

>>4586638
>being this fucking retarded

only fictions contain worthwhile knowledge, but you're probably too thick to understand that.

[GdlyDmn No.4587941]

I'm surprised noone has brought up science fiction. There are a few things that have only been brought around because of the thought that has been provoked through reading science fiction. I've always looked at fiction as a way to change the way you are thinking. In order to properly enjoy the world you are reading about you have to know it's rules and changes from our own. Then when you do your thinking in our real world some of the way you have to think about the fictitious world rolls into your normal way of thinking and you have a new viewpoint.

[Anonymous No.4587943]

>>4587941
>science fiction
go back to /tv/

[Anonymous No.4587947]

>>4587943

What does science fiction have to do with underaged female celebrities and Breaking Bad?

[Anonymous No.4587955]

>>4587947
it's just as repugnant

[Anonymous No.4587974]

>>4587941
Actually, I did mention this briefly (Im OP), in that they are exceptions to my original qualms, as I guess I was directing my uncertainty more so to realistic works of fiction posing as believable "real" stories, when they are not. Stories of science fiction MUST be fictional, by essence, whereas a realistic work of fiction could possibly be replaced with a true story of non-fiction that would relate the same message

[Anonymous No.4587976]

>>4587974
>having this much elitism about what you read
hows them insecurities boy

[Anonymous No.4587980]

>>4587974
how vulgar are you to always demand that things you read be true?
are you 5, autistic, or american?

spoiler: your life is a lie

[Anonymous No.4587984]

Because it's fun.

Sometimes I think I'm the only person on /lit/ that simply enjoys reading.

I get the same feeling about music when I go to /mu/ or /v/.

[Anonymous No.4587987]

>>4587974
Do you just hate fun or something?

[Anonymous No.4587988]

Congratulations, you're not a /lit/ elitist and realize that reading fiction has as much "value" as watching shows and playing video games.

People enjoy things. To me, if you want to actually learn something you read history/science/philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4587992]

>>4587988
>phil
>learning
b8.

[Anonymous No.4587995]

OP here

To conclude, I thank those of you who helped me reconcile this torment I've been wrestling with. I've been shown my oversights, the products of my ignorance, and so I can now seek to redeem them. The posts that were most sensible to me were
>>4586853
>>4587652
>>4587891

Here is a picture of a most delectable specimen. Her image makes my heart and another organ throb, for indeed I am a helpless sensualist at heart. Hopefully I will be banned, so that I will trouble you all no longer. Farewell to all.

[Anonymous No.4587996]

>>4587992
>I'm a materialist xD
Bait.

[Anonymous No.4587997]

>>4587988
>philosophy

What does one even learn from philosophy? People never come to any concrete conclusions and philosophy is a part of a lot of fiction anyway.

[Anonymous No.4588000]

>>4587995
damn that cock is perfect

[Anonymous No.4588003]

>>4587997
Even if you want to deny any value from philosophy, it's still history. Look at how the greatest philosophers had a profound influence on culture.

[Anonymous No.4588009]

>>4588003
Okay I'll give you that one.

[Anonymous No.4588013]

>>4586696
You have a terrible understanding of science.

[Anonymous No.4588017]

prose fiction is an art like architecture or music
the way it provokes certain feelings within a certain structure w/ comedy/tragedy etc is an end to itself

"what's the point of fiction" "what's the point of music" "what's the point of anything"
personally I like structure and the conjuring of emotions, so I enjoy fiction, but suit yrself

[Anonymous No.4588018]

>>4586687
what's the point in scientific development if we have no art to enjoy?

[Anonymous No.4588083]

>>4586638
What is the point of usefulness?

down to the nihilism we go

[Anonymous No.4588086]

>>4586638
when someone is making up a lie they are using their real world experience

[Anonymous No.4588092]

>>4586687
I would argue a lot of science and math are not pragmatic and even more so, not practical. Just useless knowledge and ideas. What can you get out of know how a black hole works? Nuthin but useless knowledge.

[Anonymous No.4588098]

Why would you read non-fiction?
Why would you learn things?
Why have fun?

You're gonna die anyway, so why bother?

Why not kill yourself right now?

[Anonymous No.4588099]

>>4586638
Because the fact that something isn't real doesn't mean it can't be true.

And it can be hell of enjoyable, plus it's basically only "what if?"s, which can be a vector of progress

[Anonymous No.4588104]

>>4588083
>down
I think you mean up.

One must ascend to existential nihilism

[Anonymous No.4588192]

>>4587476
Regardless of the more over-the-top passages and themes, it is one of the most exhaustive historical documents of the ancient times, conserving names and events that may otherwise be lost or only found in fragments of other cultures' records.

You may only see "oh and then he sicked some bears on the kids", but historians instead find the passages and descriptions of construction, division of land and even hierarchy extremely useful to depict their society.

So, in short, as an academic myself: fuck off with your nonsense.

[Anonymous No.4588239]

>>4588104
When you try to reason the worth of anything, you'll most likely end up in nihilism. The only rational way to do that is to consider the possibility of everything being worthless.

It begs the question: What can we achieved by doing this? We'll just stop right there and stop trying to reason forward because denial is the easy way to go. Sure, just like the existence of god, life's worth cannot be proved at the moment, but we cannot rule out the possibility of its existence being valuable just because we feel like it.

[Anonymous No.4588267]

>>4588239
>value
>self-determined
There's no other fucking way.

You only consider it valuable if you "feel like it".

[The lowest form of philosophy No.4588332]

Why this?
Why that?

Why anything?

[Anonymous No.4588401]

>>4586659
>2013+1
>Still judging things by their utility.
come on now i mean what is the use in anything if humanity will eventually cease to exist in the long run (annie hall problem)

[Anonymous No.4588407]

>>4586697
>TRUE moments.
its not true there is a mediator there.

[Anonymous No.4588708]

>>4588267
Nihilists usually generalize everyone's life being worthless, even to themselves. With us being the primitive monkeys we are, we cannot assume we could possibly work as a society if everyone were to become life-denying nihilists.

[Anonymous No.4588982]

You read for emotions. The better the book, the stronger and worthwhile the emotion, the more colorful life becomes. Your taste in literature and sense of beauty develops proportionally to the width of your scope of knowledge/experience in numerous areas, not just literature. So keep on learning and don't listen to asshats who tell you otherwise.

[Anonymous No.4588986]

>>4586638
I think THIS should answer your questions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hJhmxc3Arw

[Anonymous No.4588987]

>>4588192

I'm going to reiterate something I said in another comment here because it's relevant and you can't be fucked to read the thread in its entirety:

"I'm not arguing that something is or is not fiction on the basis of whether or not something can be verified as 'true' or not 'true' (wrong) because you sure as shit cannot verify the existence or non existence of god. I'm arguing that for the purpose of informing the study of the history of humans writing fiction the bible plays a significant role."

Yes of course it's also an important historical, sociological, and anthropological document. Many works of fiction are. Many works of fiction have a realistic basis in reality and are shaped by factual events and include factual references. I'm not attempting to demean the significance of the bible in any way by classifying it as 'fiction'. I'm simply stating that it is classified as fiction because it is a highly influential document in the study and history of fiction.