Biographies vs Novels: do novels really teach us something?

[PeterL]

I know that, but they are heavily autobiographical, to the point that it barely makes a difference. They're at least as factual as Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, and that is shelved in Biography.

That comment is more about the difference between fiction and non-fiction. I have thought about that and came to the conclusion that the difference is the attitude of the author, rather than the veracity of the content. Even some scientific papers are complete fabrications, but they are treated as factual until someone exposes the lies.

But in the cases of those two works, I don't think that there was enough factul content to fill a gnat's navel autobiographical content.

Naked Lunch was derived from delirious ravings of Burroughs that Ginsberg wrote down. Burroughs wasn't even aware that Ginsberg wrote that stuff down at all, and Burroughs was not actually conscious when he was raving.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is autobiographical in that it was based on Dr Thompson going to Las Vegas to attend a conference with a lawyer friend, and that's about it for factual content.

[mortalterror]

That comment is more about the difference between fiction and non-fiction. I have thought about that and came to the conclusion that the difference is the attitude of the author, rather than the veracity of the content. Even some scientific papers are complete fabrications, but they are treated as factual until someone exposes the lies.

Good point. I'll have to think on that.

Naked Lunch was derived from delirious ravings of Burroughs that Ginsberg wrote down. Burroughs wasn't even aware that Ginsberg wrote that stuff down at all, and Burroughs was not actually conscious when he was raving.

There are some rather sizable passages in The Confessions where De Quincey writes about his opium nightmares. It also happens that De Quincey composed the work in question from his sick bed while dictating to an amanuensis.

"Under the connecting feeling of tropical heat and vertical sunlights I brought together all creatures, birds, beasts, reptiles, all trees and plants, usages and appearances, that are found in all tropical regions, and assembled them together in China or Indostan. From kindred feelings, I soon brought Egypt and all her gods under the same law. I was stared at, hooted at, grinned at, chattered at, by monkeys, by parroquets, by cockatoos. I ran into pagodas, and was fixed for centuries at the summit or in secret rooms: I was the idol; I was the priest; I was worshipped; I was sacrificed. I fled from the wrath of Brama through all the forests of Asia: Vishnu hated me: Seeva laid wait for me. I came suddenly upon Isis and Osiris: I had done a deed, they said, which the ibis and the crocodile trembled at. I was buried for a thousand years in stone coffins, with mummies and sphynxes, in narrow chambers at the heart of eternal pyramids. I was kissed, with cancerous kisses, by crocodiles; and laid, confounded with all unutterable slimy things, amongst reeds and Nilotic mud."

What chiefly caught my attention about the work were the stylistic elements, particularly the skewed and exaggerated first person perspective, which obviously influenced Thompson and Burroughs. You can see it on even greater display in his essays.

[PeterL]

Good point. I'll have to think on that.


There are some rather sizable passages in The Confessions where De Quincey writes about his opium nightmares. It also happens that De Quincey composed the work in question from his sick bed while dictating to an amanuensis.

The difference is that de Quincey was conscious.

What chiefly caught my attention about the work were the stylistic elements, particularly the skewed and exaggerated first person perspective, which obviously influenced Thompson and Burroughs. You can see it on even greater display in his essays.

I haven't read much of de Quincey's work, but the pieces that I can remember at all, "One the English Mailcoach" and "On the Knocking at the Door in MacBeth" the Pov was omniscient third person, because those were objective views. That said, de Quincey was an excellent writer who wrote well on a wide range of matters.

[mortalterror]

I haven't read much of de Quincey's work, but the pieces that I can remember at all, "One the English Mailcoach" and "On the Knocking at the Door in MacBeth" the Pov was omniscient third person, because those were objective views. That said, de Quincey was an excellent writer who wrote well on a wide range of matters.

I took a look back at his essays again and for the most part he does use the third person, but where he relates his personal experiences and puts himself into the story he does lapse into the first person. But more than that, there's this sort of sublime sense of horror and decay throughout his stuff which I think bears a certain kinship with Poe, with Conrad, and the other authors I've mentioned previously, like links in a chain or the evolution of an aesthetic. De Quincey for all his objectivity and rationality is fairly well seated in the dark side of the Romantic movement. He's not a happy go lightly flower and song romantic. He's got more in common with Goethe's sturm und drang movement, or Lermontov and what was happening in Russia about that time. The recurring themes of madness and decomposition, make me think he was a forerunner of the French Decadent movement with Baudelaire and Lautréamont, except instead of celebrating sickness he is repulsed by it. As it stands, De Quincey's nightmare visions stand as a sort of midway point in British literature between Coleridge's Kubla Khan and Browning's Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Which one do you think teaches you more about life?

Novels.

I sincerely think biographies are BETTER cause they deal with REAL lifes, real problems, real victories.

No.

They are more relevant.

No.

On the other hand, novels are fiction, they are not reality, they are a story that someone made up in their minds.

And creative expression is bad how?

Do you think we can REALLY learn something from a novel?

Yes. A million times yes. I'm astounded anyone can even think this is a relevant question.

[Modest Proposal]

Has anyone read "How to Write a True War Story" by Tim O'Brien?

He deals with this concept so perfectly--not to mention succinctly and beautifully--that I cannot even try to summarize it. Read the essay. It will change the way you think about writting--or reading--'fact'.

[PeterL]

I took a look back at his essays again and for the most part he does use the third person, but where he relates his personal experiences and puts himself into the story he does lapse into the first person. But more than that, there's this sort of sublime sense of horror and decay throughout his stuff which I think bears a certain kinship with Poe, with Conrad, and the other authors I've mentioned previously, like links in a chain or the evolution of an aesthetic. De Quincey for all his objectivity and rationality is fairly well seated in the dark side of the Romantic movement. He's not a happy go lightly flower and song romantic. He's got more in common with Goethe's sturm und drang movement, or Lermontov and what was happening in Russia about that time. The recurring themes of madness and decomposition, make me think he was a forerunner of the French Decadent movement with Baudelaire and Lautréamont, except instead of celebrating sickness he is repulsed by it. As it stands, De Quincey's nightmare visions stand as a sort of midway point in British literature between Coleridge's Kubla Khan and Browning's Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came.

You may be right, but I think that de Quincey was more of a journalist than were the others that you mentioned. In his works that I have read, I don't recall more skill in communication than imagination. Perhps I should read more of his works.

[keilj]

the only important and lasting things in life can be found in novels.

schoolbooks, universities, TV news, all offer us temporal and fleeting "knowledge".

fiction writers give us the greatest gift of human learning that can be found. period

[Katy North]

I would say that nothing can surpass the lessons learned in novels, because in my opinion, novels teach the reader something about him or herself.

I do enjoy a good dose of non-fiction in addition to novels, but I mainly read books on psychology, philosophy, or history. I believe a certain amount of non-fiction is necessary to be a good scholar, but personally I have never found anything really important in biographies, and frankly, have found any that I've read quite dull. Most anything about another person that is necessary for me to know I find that I can read on the "about the author" page.

The only exception are auto-biographies by comedians, because they're hilarious, and sometimes poignant, because most comedians don't feel like they have to put themselves up on a pedestal.

[African_Love]

Which one do you think teaches you more about life? I sincerely think biographies are BETTER cause they deal with REAL lifes, real problems, real victories. They are more relevant. On the other hand, novels are fiction, they are not reality, they are a story that someone made up in their minds. Do you think we can REALLY learn something from a novel?

I think that both are equally good at forcing you to excercise your empathy skills. I don't really see a difference. I don't see how the fact that a novel happens to be fictitious is relevant.

I only found out years after I read The Autobiography of an Ex-Colored Man that it was fictititious and if I didn't know better and you told me that Finding Fish (Antwone Fisher) was fictititious, I wouldn't be surprised.

[aquarium444]

Which one do you think teaches you more about life? I sincerely think biographies are BETTER cause they deal with REAL lifes, real problems, real victories. They are more relevant. On the other hand, novels are fiction, they are not reality, they are a story that someone made up in their minds. Do you think we can REALLY learn something from a novel?

Is there a conflict between the two forms of writing? I would have thought that a comparison between history and literature might contain some form of rivalry such as what you are suggesting, but only because books might become a substitute for the more objective analysis found in non fiction. I watched the biography of Edgar Allen Poe recently on iTunes and it seems to be a supplement rather than anything that might detract from reading his short stories.

Anyway, one type is fiction and the other is non fiction. You need to separate them.

[spookymulder93]

Lots are biographies are probably more fictitious than actual fiction.

[Stendhal]

Novels/poems, etc. are important not despite the fact that they are not true. In fact, they are important because they are true. I was reading Thomas C. Foster's How to read literature like a professor, and he summed it up by saying that there is only one story, and it is all around us.

Take Pride and Predjudice, for example. The novel's characters are people we all meet in our everyday lives. Not only that, it helps us to understand what makes a good marriage and what makes a bad one. I could go on and on detailing the layers of meaning in the work. Such complexity and such truth is difficult to find in other types of work such as biography.

[minstrelbard]

The original question is kind of silly. It implies that novels and biographies are written for the same purpose, and they are not. Generally, biographies are written to provide factual information on the life of their subjects; if the biographer is a good one, he provides sufficient understanding of his subject's mind and personality that the reader understands why the subject behaved in the way he did and made the important decisions he did.

But novels are different. It's probably impossible to say, generally, what the purpose of novels is. Novels are written for a very large variety of purposes. Joyce, in Ulysses, was not trying to do the same thing that Margaret Mitchell was doing in Gone With The Wind. Nabokov, in Lolita, was doing something very different from what Melville did in Moby Dick. Novels have a virtually infinite range or purpose and effect. A great novel can affect the reader with an emotional power that maybe no other form of art can match.

Most of us here have probably had the experience of reading a novel that "blew our minds"; what biography has blown your mind? I've read biographies, but none have hit me THAT hard.

Fiction has a power biography doesn't have. Or, let me put that another way. I don't think there's anything about the genre of biography that limits it, but if a writer wants to blow the reader's mind (so to speak), he's not likely to choose the biography form to do it - he'll write a novel. The novel provides unrestricted opportunity to blow minds without the responsibility of being factual.