Is there any point to fiction?

[rubsley]

I'm working on a theory...and trying to propose that there's really not actually that much point to fiction. Which is a strange thing for someone who likes to write to do. But the more I get into it, the more it seems kind of pointless.

Anyways, I'll just blurt some of the things that the embryonic theory hinges around and hopefully get some feedback with some wise quotes to enlighten me.

So...

So much of fiction just seems like a grand distraction: I think people will do almost anything to avoid having to listen to their own thoughts and inner-voices. Rather than sit in silence, they fill it with words that don't mean anything. Rather than do nothing on a train, they pick up yesterday's newspaper and read celebrity stories that have no relevance to them and which are instantly forgotten. Is not fiction just an extension of this? A means to fill the brain with words other than our own? Page after page, sentence after sentence repeated internally and then quickly put aside?

But, ah, people say: fiction can teach us something about the world, about society. But can it? Fiction is made-up, even if based on reality, so how can it teach us about the real world and our lives? How can it really compare to history or autobiography in this regard?

Then again, what's wrong with distraction or entertainment? What's wrong with a bit of escapism? (Did you know the French word for "entertainment" is in fact "le distraction"? Interesting, huh?)

I also think a lot about how so many of our great writers were alcoholics, drug users, committed suicide. That to me means that they failed in life, never mastered its most basic lessons, such as not poisoning their own body. To me, that speaks of a mind that is diseased - so what real value, then, can their words have?

Also, how come the most enlightened people among us have never gone in for literature, or even writing of any kind? Buddha and Jesus and Mata Amritanandamayi appear to have no interest in writing things down, even though people like that perhaps have the greatest reason to. Weird, huh? Even Thomas Aquinas gave up writing once he'd seen the 'beyond the beyond', regarding all his previous work - regarded as masterpieces - as worthless as straw.

So what is literature? What point in it? Half the time when I read fiction it means nothing to me and is just a means of passing the time. Hours and hours invested and so few of thousands of words staying with me. Other times I read to try and learn something - but mostly what I learn from is real life experiences, and in the written world "what actually happened", not fiction. A wise teacher once told me "teach from your own experience" and that seems like good advice. Words of our own experience appear to have substance, but made-up words and abstract theories don't. Even books like 'On The Road', which I love, I feel suffer from not being truly non-fictional, even if they mainly are. Knowing that it's not one hundred percent factual I'm left wanting to know exactly what actually happened and what didn't. The thing is, when you have a notion to do something and you meet someone who tells you a true story about doing it, it inspires you, because you know it's actually possible. But when that story is fictional, it doesn't have the same power. Anything's possible in fiction. Too much.

I'm not sure where I am with this. I still have memories of enjoyable books I've read - but, really, it seems like they are few and far between, and even the greats among them I remember so little about. It's starting to feel like such little return for such big investment - and that there are very few books out there that can satisfy.

Ken Kesey is another man who went off writing in later life. "People just don't talk like they do in books," he said. I know exactly what he means.

It also seems like the happier and more content I get in my own life, the less interest I have in reading, in movies, in escapism.

Is writing the symptom of an illness rather than its cure?

What think y'all?

[DocHeart]

I think it is pointless to theorize about something you feel is pointless.

As for my own response, which is in fact one to a post that theorizes about something which its writer feels is pointless, I view it as a complete and utter exercise in futility. As a matter of fact, the 142 seconds it took me to write it constitute the worst waste of my time since I tried to teach my ex-wife to parallel-park.

DH

[PeterL]

I have thought what you wrote, but I also tried to dfine fiction a few years ago. All I could come up with was that it was the same as non-fiction, but the author called it fiction instead. I see as much of a problem with non-fiction, because that is supposed to be factual comments about something, and it often has been made up. Ficition is oftwn a collection of events from the author's experience in which the names are changed to protect the guilty. Fiction allows readers to see a limited version of the world through the thoughts of the author, and it is a way for authors to express facts and theories that would not be acceptable if they were put forth as facts.

[Greatone]

you are saying that reading books , fiction book , things that never happened are pointless.
boy , me , 100 % agree with you and your deep thoughts
but , did you know that life itself is pointless as reading a fiction book or cleaning under your labtap?
so ... do not search for point in this life , its not there.

[stlukesguild]

I'm working on a theory...and trying to propose that there's really not actually that much point to fiction. Which is a strange thing for someone who likes to write to do. But the more I get into it, the more it seems kind of pointless.

What, to take your theory further, is the point of a great many things? What exactly is the meaning of life itself?

So much of fiction just seems like a grand distraction: I think people will do almost anything to avoid having to listen to their own thoughts and inner-voices. Rather than sit in silence, they fill it with words that don't mean anything.

In other words... the purpose of literature, art, and music is found in the pleasure they bring. Like life itself, its not the end of the journey that gives "meaning"... rather the "meaning" is the journey. Oscar Wilde pointed out that all criticism is a form of autobiography... it tells us more about the critic than the artwork. If you find to meaning in art and literature and music that suggests more about you than anything else.

Rather than do nothing on a train, they pick up yesterday's newspaper and read celebrity stories that have no relevance to them and which are instantly forgotten. Is not fiction just an extension of this?

Rather than sitting bored the individual seeks a diversion which brings some degree of pleasure to an otherwise boring experience and you ponder why they would do so?

A means to fill the brain with words other than our own?

And is this not the same reason we engage in dialog with one another? Is this not one of the core values of literature... that it is a means to engage in
"intercourse with spirits", as Kafka put it... to participate in a conversation with others whom we might not otherwise ever meet... even the dead?

But, ah, people say: fiction can teach us something about the world, about society. But can it? Fiction is made-up, even if based on reality, so how can it teach us about the real world and our lives? How can it really compare to history or autobiography in this regard?

Hmmm... I don't know who says this. It seems to me that the terms "Art" (related to "artifice" and "artificial" and "fiction" seemingly spell out that there is a clear difference between art and life. What it does do is to reveal the ideas and the ideals and the fantasies of others. This seems to trouble you. You seem obsessed with your own ideas, thoughts, values, experiences, etc... to the point that you can dismiss the ideas, values, standards, fears, passions, etc... of others as "meaningless"... where I would argue that if literature had any utilitarian purpose or value, it is in its ability to allow us to enter into the experiences, thoughts, etc... of others... far beyond that which might be achieved by the dry relating of historical fact.

I also think a lot about how so many of our great writers were alcoholics, drug users, committed suicide. That to me means that they failed in life, never mastered its most basic lessons, such as not poisoning their own body. To me, that speaks of a mind that is diseased - so what real value, then, can their words have?

That is nonsense. By this logic any contribution made to society (whether as teachers, lawyers, doctors, politicians, etc...) by an individual who struggled with drugs or alcohol or mental illness, etc... is equally worthless. That would include Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Winston Churchill,
and endless others.

Also, how come the most enlightened people among us have never gone in for literature, or even writing of any kind? Buddha and Jesus and Mata Amritanandamayi appear to have no interest in writing things down, even though people like that perhaps have the greatest reason to. Weird, huh? Even Thomas Aquinas gave up writing once he'd seen the 'beyond the beyond', regarding all his previous work - regarded as masterpieces - as worthless as straw.

The most "enlightened" people? How do you measure "enlightenment"? I would mention that there is a certain degree of irony to the fact that you name two individuals (Jesus and Buddha) whose lives are known mostly through literature... indeed who may both be purely fictional inventions. I guess we can be glad you didn't include Socrates.

So what is literature? What point in it? Half the time when I read fiction it means nothing to me and is just a means of passing the time. Hours and hours invested and so few of thousands of words staying with me.

Again... the value of the experience lies in the experience... in the pleasure of the experience... and not in some vague notion of a meaning or greater knowledge gained at the end.

I'm not sure where I am with this. I still have memories of enjoyable books I've read - but, really, it seems like they are few and far between, and even the greats among them I remember so little about. It's starting to feel like such little return for such big investment - and that there are very few books out there that can satisfy.

Again, what you gain is the pleasure of the experience. The goal of reading a book or listening to a piece of music lies in the pleasure of reading or listening... not is gaining some new insight or enlightenment, or grasping some profound "meaning". If reading does not bring you this pleasure, then it is not for you.

It also seems like the happier and more content I get in my own life, the less interest I have in reading, in movies, in escapism.

Is writing the symptom of an illness rather than its cure?

Having undertaken this response with a clear notion that this thread may be nothing more than the efforts of a bored troll setting out inflame those who do love reading, I will suggest that once again you exhibit a clear inability to empathize... to grasp how another beside yourself might think. Personally, I can't imagine that I read more... or listen to music more... or watch films more when I am depressed. If anything... the opposite may be true. Reading isn't escapism... it is part of life. As with any other experience or activity, you (as an individual) decide just how important it is to you.

[Veho]

A wise teacher once told me "teach from your own experience" and that seems like good advice. Words of our own experience appear to have substance, but made-up words and abstract theories don't.

But fiction isn't written by robots. A human being with experiences, ideas, philosophies, theories and feelings is the writer of fiction. How then can it lack substance? Indeed, a good author should write 'from [their] own experience' and so a book of fiction becomes a reflection of that writer's mind.

(Nice post stlukes).

[ShadowsCool]

Without fully reading what you just wrote. I will later. However, I must add that what is the point of living if not for the arts? Fiction is a form of artistic imagination just as a drawing or music. So what would be the point of living if not for the imagination? Life would become mundane and useless in my opinion.

[BienvenuJDC]

What is the point of life without imagination?

[Charles Darnay]

Fiction has affected the course of humanity far more than the bread-maker. But no one questions the point of a bread-maker, do they?

[FranzS]

I'm working on a theory...and trying to propose that there's really not actually that much point to fiction. Which is a strange thing for someone who likes to write to do. But the more I get into it, the more it seems kind of pointless.

Anyways, I'll just blurt some of the things that the embryonic theory hinges around and hopefully get some feedback with some wise quotes to enlighten me.

So...

So much of fiction just seems like a grand distraction: I think people will do almost anything to avoid having to listen to their own thoughts and inner-voices. Rather than sit in silence, they fill it with words that don't mean anything. Rather than do nothing on a train, they pick up yesterday's newspaper and read celebrity stories that have no relevance to them and which are instantly forgotten. Is not fiction just an extension of this? A means to fill the brain with words other than our own? Page after page, sentence after sentence repeated internally and then quickly put aside?

But, ah, people say: fiction can teach us something about the world, about society. But can it? Fiction is made-up, even if based on reality, so how can it teach us about the real world and our lives? How can it really compare to history or autobiography in this regard?

"Art is the lie that shows the truth."

What do history books actually teach us? Often, a load of facts that don't add up to a sense of the essence of a period. Of course, the best historians do manage to convey this intangible quality, but many don't.

As for autobiography: it's only as good as the author is perceptive and honest. Something that still surprises me is that most people are oblivious to their own motivation.

This is where fiction can come in: all good authors have an exceptional understand of human motivation. Some convey it by showing us the thoughts of their characters (Kundera); others convey it through their characters' behaviour (Dickens); others stand back and analyse their characters from a distance (Eliot).

Literature and life feed into each other. The one helps us understand the other.

Authors indirectly convey their own experience and understanding of life. We get inside the heads of authors in a way that we all too rarely get inside the heads of the people we know in real life. Fiction thus broadens our understanding of the possibilities of the self.

I also think a lot about how so many of our great writers were alcoholics, drug users, committed suicide. That to me means that they failed in life, never mastered its most basic lessons, such as not poisoning their own body. To me, that speaks of a mind that is diseased - so what real value, then, can their words have?

That is missing the point. In one sense, a truly sane mind is a diseased mind: the truth about existence is damaging to one's mental well-being.

Some of the best insights into creative genius I've read come not from an artist but from a physicist, Erwin Schroedinger:

"Men and women for whom this world was lit in an unusually bright light of awareness, and who by life and word have, more than others, formed and transformed that work of art which we call humanity, testify by speech and writing or even by their very lives that more than others have they been torn by the pangs of inner discord. Let this be a consolation to him who also suffers from it. Without it nothing enduring has ever been begotten."

Schroedinger had interesting ideas about intensity of awareness: all conscious activity, he argues, sinks into the subconscious as it becomes habitual. At the deepest level, therefore, we have totally unconscious activity like the heart's beating. The more an activity can be relied on to carry us from one moment to the next, the less conscious it is. In a stressful situation, where our environment is unpredictable, our activity become intensely conscious: every act demands a decision.

Thus, there is an evolutionary correlation between environmental stress and intensity of consciousness. It works both ways: people genetically predisposed to intensity of consciousness perceive the environment as stressful - perceive life as a problem rather than something to be passively enjoyed.

Many of these people are creative geniuses.

Also, how come the most enlightened people among us have never gone in for literature, or even writing of any kind? Buddha and Jesus and Mata Amritanandamayi appear to have no interest in writing things down, even though people like that perhaps have the greatest reason to. Weird, huh? Even Thomas Aquinas gave up writing once he'd seen the 'beyond the beyond', regarding all his previous work - regarded as masterpieces - as worthless as straw.

Citing Buddha and Jesus doesn't prove much. People didn't write much in their day. Jesus was a carpenter, not (as far as I know) a literary man. The Hindu sages and the Old Testament prophets managed to get plenty of brilliant insights written down, didn't they?

Knowing that it's not one hundred percent factual I'm left wanting to know exactly what actually happened and what didn't.

This makes me think of Gabriel Garcia Marquez's comment at the start of his autobiography: "Life is not what one lived, but what one remembers and how one remembers it in order to recount it."

A strict, factual, chronological account of a life would, in most cases, be very boring indeed.

In a moment of self-indulgence I thought about how I'd go about writing my life story. The first thing that strikes me is that the vast majority of things I have ever done I can't even remember. Even if I could remember, say, every meal I've ever eaten, every conversation I've had - who on earth would want to read about them? As for writing about them - I can think of little the would be more boring.

No, if I had to write about my life I'd skip over the boring bits (99% of it) with a summary, and focus on the things that have really made life meaningful for me, for better or worse. I'd probably fiddle with chronology to make it more satisfying and to enhance (as opposed to distort) the meaning.

The thing is, when you have a notion to do something and you meet someone who tells you a true story about doing it, it inspires you, because you know it's actually possible. But when that story is fictional, it doesn't have the same power. Anything's possible in fiction. Too much.

Ahh... You "It's actually possible"... But is it? It might be possible for the other person, but perhaps it isn't for you.

Like most people, when I was younger I thought the world was my oyster, and I thought I could overcome my problems and character flaws by an effort of will and imagination. It hasn't worked out like that and it doesn't for most people. At a certain point you understand to have a life like your happy friend, you'd have to have the personality of your happy friend.

It doesn't help that we live in an age where the media bombard us with constant images of beautiful happy people, and we find it difficult not to identify with them and regard their possibilities as our possibilities. It's all a con, of course: we are being sold these lies by people who want us to Buy Their Stuff because, they make us believe, it is the key to happiness.

I'm not sure where I am with this. I still have memories of enjoyable books I've read - but, really, it seems like they are few and far between, and even the greats among them I remember so little about. It's starting to feel like such little return for such big investment - and that there are very few books out there that can satisfy.

Maybe you're just too much of an extrovert to be a committed reader? I know intelligent people who just can't settle down with books because they prefer interacting with real people. In many ways I wish I was like them.

It also seems like the happier and more content I get in my own life, the less interest I have in reading, in movies, in escapism.

That's true of most people I think. "Happiness writes white," as someone said. On the other hand, I've never been so happy that I lost my interest in literature; that probably says a lot about me I've always felt I needed an "anchor" in my imagination: when I have to spend a lot of time in company, in the real world, I start to feel exhausted, lost and oppressed - I feel I'm losing touch with myself.

Is writing the symptom of an illness rather than its cure?

On balance, probably yes... but it's both a symptom and a palliative.

[dysfunctional-h]

...kind of a thing you think but don't say out loud, least of all in a LIT forum... XP

[Ohmyscience]

Distraction is fine as long as it is mind-meltingly beautiful. As for purpose, does beauty need justification?. That doesn't make it pointless. Also doesn't fiction teach us how to read and write. Seems relevant to me even at its most base form.

Side note. When will people stop saying teaching/learning from experience is best. No one does it and it is not true. It embodies a kind of solipsism that neglects the efforts of great thinkers. It also justifies mistakes such as wars and genocides. As stlukes pointed out, wanting the experience is not the same as learning; the value or lesson at the end isn't relevant.

[hawthorns]

I'm working on a theory...and trying to propose that there's really not actually that much point to fiction. Which is a strange thing for someone who likes to write to do. But the more I get into it, the more it seems kind of pointless.

Anyways, I'll just blurt some of the things that the embryonic theory hinges around and hopefully get some feedback with some wise quotes to enlighten me.

So...

So much of fiction just seems like a grand distraction: I think people will do almost anything to avoid having to listen to their own thoughts and inner-voices. Rather than sit in silence, they fill it with words that don't mean anything. Rather than do nothing on a train, they pick up yesterday's newspaper and read celebrity stories that have no relevance to them and which are instantly forgotten. Is not fiction just an extension of this? A means to fill the brain with words other than our own? Page after page, sentence after sentence repeated internally and then quickly put aside?

But, ah, people say: fiction can teach us something about the world, about society. But can it? Fiction is made-up, even if based on reality, so how can it teach us about the real world and our lives? How can it really compare to history or autobiography in this regard?

Then again, what's wrong with distraction or entertainment? What's wrong with a bit of escapism? (Did you know the French word for "entertainment" is in fact "le distraction"? Interesting, huh?)

I also think a lot about how so many of our great writers were alcoholics, drug users, committed suicide. That to me means that they failed in life, never mastered its most basic lessons, such as not poisoning their own body. To me, that speaks of a mind that is diseased - so what real value, then, can their words have?

Also, how come the most enlightened people among us have never gone in for literature, or even writing of any kind? Buddha and Jesus and Mata Amritanandamayi appear to have no interest in writing things down, even though people like that perhaps have the greatest reason to. Weird, huh? Even Thomas Aquinas gave up writing once he'd seen the 'beyond the beyond', regarding all his previous work - regarded as masterpieces - as worthless as straw.

So what is literature? What point in it? Half the time when I read fiction it means nothing to me and is just a means of passing the time. Hours and hours invested and so few of thousands of words staying with me. Other times I read to try and learn something - but mostly what I learn from is real life experiences, and in the written world "what actually happened", not fiction. A wise teacher once told me "teach from your own experience" and that seems like good advice. Words of our own experience appear to have substance, but made-up words and abstract theories don't. Even books like 'On The Road', which I love, I feel suffer from not being truly non-fictional, even if they mainly are. Knowing that it's not one hundred percent factual I'm left wanting to know exactly what actually happened and what didn't. The thing is, when you have a notion to do something and you meet someone who tells you a true story about doing it, it inspires you, because you know it's actually possible. But when that story is fictional, it doesn't have the same power. Anything's possible in fiction. Too much.

I'm not sure where I am with this. I still have memories of enjoyable books I've read - but, really, it seems like they are few and far between, and even the greats among them I remember so little about. It's starting to feel like such little return for such big investment - and that there are very few books out there that can satisfy.

Ken Kesey is another man who went off writing in later life. "People just don't talk like they do in books," he said. I know exactly what he means.

It also seems like the happier and more content I get in my own life, the less interest I have in reading, in movies, in escapism.

Is writing the symptom of an illness rather than its cure?

What think y'all?

What value??? By your own admission, some of the greatest writers, scientists, painters, inventors, philosophers, and company founders have been a little "off." Imagine if they had never existed. Personally, I think we'd be stuck in the Dark Ages. So I suppose there's some value there

The main problem I have with your opening theory is that you adduce no comparison or define what is a productive reading format. There's hundreds of different "kinds" of fiction, but compared to what? Textbooks, non-fiction, and self-help only? If you feel you haven't gained intellectually, emotionally, or spiritually from what you've read, I might recommend a heavy dose of the hardcore classics. Personally, I feel I've learned more about culture, philosophy, and history from fictional works than I ever did in college. As to other "benefits," I could go on ad infinitum, but without defining a comparison it would be an exercise in futility.

By the way, I used to compete against some of the best athletes in the world. I won't name names or sports, but I'll tell you this: if you think celebrity sports stars are paragons of good behavior and health, think again. The higher up the performance ladder you go, the less normal they become in some form--social, OCD, addictions, aggressiveness, etc. The irony is that those pathologies often contribute to their success (and problems)--myself included. So according to your theory, I hope you don't watch ESPN or the Olympics

You bring up a good question though, one that I asked myself before becoming a reader. But I feel that what I've gained from fiction is a testament to its usefulness.

[Darcy88]

1 - Darcy88 sees thread title and shakes his head.

2 - Darcy88 reads entire opening post of thread.

3 - Darcy88 curses humanity and walks straight out of apartment, down the street to the liquor store.

3 - Darcy88 gets back, starts to drink and to think how he can best convey how saddened and bemused he is by the opening post of the thread.

4 - Darcy88 says **** it, writes this post, clicks reply with intention of going to bedroom to drink and to resume re-reading Blood Meridian, knowing how rare is truth, the beauty and ugliness and sheer marvel of this wide world, so nicely and entertainingly and worthwhilely presented.

5 - Darcy88 wonders whether "worthwhilely" is a word and feels it damn well ought to be if for some stupid reason it ain't.

[hawthorns]

1 - Darcy88 sees thread title and shakes his head.

2 - Darcy88 reads entire opening post of thread.

3 - Darcy88 curses humanity and walks straight out of apartment, down the street to the liquor store.

3 - Darcy88 gets back, starts to drink and to think how he can best convey how saddened and bemused he is by the opening post of the thread.

4 - Darcy88 says **** it, writes this post, clicks reply with intention of going to bedroom to drink and to resume re-reading Blood Meridian, knowing how rare is truth, the beauty and ugliness and sheer marvel of this wide world, so nicely and entertainingly and worthwhilely presented.

5 - Darcy88 wonders whether "worthwhilely" is a word and feels it damn well ought to be if for some stupid reason it ain't.

Drink + Blood Meridian That's a dangerous concoction!