The Emotional Connection

[Alexander III]

Recently I have read Kerouac's On The Road, and Rousseau's Confessions. I made the sudden realization that I enjoyed the two books more and I felt more emotional attached to their two stories, as the people, places, occurrences all were real. The level of connection I had with these two books could never be paralleled by the emotional connection I could have with a novel.

I was wondering are you guys like this as well ?
Has a novel ever given you that level of emotional connection which compare to that given by a memoir such as the two books above ?

[The Comedian]

You're not the only one. I tend to prefer non-fiction to fiction (with many, many exceptions, of course) for these same emotional-connection reasons that you stated in your post.

One of my theories for why I (generally) feel a stronger connection to nonfiction, is not, ironically, nonfiction's nonfiction-y-ness. I think it's that I prefer (generally) a first person narrator. I've noticed that the fiction I've most enjoyed (well, most of it) employs a first-person narrator too. There's something intimate, personal, and captivating about having that "I" speaking directly to me.

[Alexander III]

Yea the first persona narration has the same effect on me. The thing about non-fiction for me is I stop and think and what I just read, this occurred in the fabrics of time somewhere along the fragile line of it all. It just gives me that warm feeling in my chest as it makes everything feel connected and beautiful in a sort of ethereal same **** happens everywhere type of way.

[dfloyd]

I believe one should read the best of both worlds. While fiction is not real, it can deal with real life by the examples it provides. People in certain technical professions tend to never read fiction (engineers, computer nerds, doctors, etc.) and I believe they are the less for it.

Kerouac is interesting, but you wont gain much insight from him except how to ruin your liver. Rosseau, on the other hand, should be a very informative read. I have two copies of Confessions and it is high on my list of to-reads. I'm almost through with Carlyle's The French Revolution and Confessions is next on my list.

The well educated person reads both fiction and non-fiction, but you have to be selective. Other autobiographies I have read include Benvenuto Cellini's And Benjamin Franklin's. I also like histories such as those of Herodotus and Livy's History of Early Rome. But I wouldn't have wanted to miss out on Dickens', Hemingway's, or Scott Fitzgerald's novels.

[Vautrin]

I can't speak for everyone, but I think I personally approach fiction and non-fiction differently when it comes to how I expect to connect with the material. The emotional weight of fiction pales in comparison to that of non-fiction due to the very obvious fact that the stories and events described in the latter genre actually occurred. That is not to say the things described in some fiction novels did not occur and were changed to be read as fiction, or at least, were inspired by true events. However, with non-fiction it is understood the author intends for his/her work to be taken literally. A People's History of the United States, for instance, exposes the reader to many of the unsung heroes of the various social movements in American history. When reading about how they sacrificed and what they did in the context of whatever struggle they were going through, you can't help but feel all kinds of emotions and simultaneously reflect on your own life in a much more profound way than a novel.

With fiction I tend to envision the author making it up as he goes along. As strong as his characters or prose may be, it's hard to shake that thought from your mind. That said, I still feel a strong connection to fictional characters and stories. I just see fiction more as art and non-fiction as a better source of real world inspiration.

[kelby_lake]

Most non-fiction novels are dramatised and a lot of fictional novels have elements of truth in them and can even be based on true stories.

[Buh4Bee]

One possible way to think about the idea of comparing fiction and non-fiction would be to find fiction that can be compared to these two stories.

I have read On the Road, but never finished Rousseau's Confessions. Kerouac's On the Road is a coming of age story that really should be read when you are coming of age yourself to really appreciate it. I read it too late. Despite this, I still deeply connected with the characters and Kerouac himself. The story was written where I grew up and I personally walked through many of those arty scenes in my own time. That's why this book is a classic- it's timelessly modern.

Rouseau's Confessions- what can I say- Madame Warrens is quite a "Lady". Rousseau is a delight and I can see why the two had an affair.

To answer your question: When a connection is made to a character/person in a book, it is really just a personal connection with your own ideas. No one else is there except your own voice. I have to admit though, I have formed crushes on characters I have read about in the past.

[mal4mac]

I have enjoyed many novels far more than Kerouac's On The Road, and felt more emotional attachment to their main characters, even in works of total fiction - for instance the major works of Cervantes, Dickens, Hardy, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Shakespeare... Lear & Hamlet are considered by most critics to be greater than his 'fact based' history plays. In any case, great fiction is based on real life, so the 'fiction isn't real' argument is a non-starter. Fiction gives greater freedom to the author, allowing their genius to shine more brightly. To read something only because it is obviously based on gross facts is to put on a severe pair of blinkers. Think of (great) fiction as revealing what is 'most real' to the author and perhaps you can throw off the blinkers.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Recently I have read Kerouac's On The Road, and Rousseau's Confessions. I made the sudden realization that I enjoyed the two books more and I felt more emotional attached to their two stories, as the people, places, occurrences all were real. The level of connection I had with these two books could never be paralleled by the emotional connection I could have with a novel.

Well speaking personally, there is something about the very finest literature which sometimes has the ability to raise the emotional connection "above mere fact" as it is said. There is something about the very best fiction that is more real than reality itself. For example I have said before about my connection with the likes of Jude Fawley from Hardy's novel as being much more real to me than many people I know. More recently the playful joys and woes of Figaro have meant more to me than anything. I mean the very that that "fiction" can do this to the mind suggests to me that it is real. If it is in the head is it not real? Are train time tables better than the novel because they are real (well train time tables in the UK are fiction too, but I'm sure you get the rhetorical question)?

This doesn't mean that I disregard the other excellent points on the thread about first person accounts or non-fiction, it's just that sometimes, fiction is infinitely better and more real than fact or reality.

Also a lot depends upon how facts or non-fiction is related too. An overwhelming attention to unnecessary detail is not going to score many points in anybody's book. Even some of the great non-fiction works surely have large elements of fiction within them, of the narrative, storytelling. It's what it's all about.

Oh, and I only see On the Road as based on true accounts, I’d really still class that as a novel myself, I think most people would really.