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 :p

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 :p

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 :shocked: That's a dangerous concoction! :p

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes I'm waiting for a reply from the thread starter.

Question: Do you intend to carry on with your theory in light of the tons of common sense replies? Or, how have the replies affected your thinking?

Thanks.

I remember this time when I was sat in a sandwich shop, reading, waiting for a bacon sandwich (why is it always food?) and I overheard someone comment upon my reading, saying something along the lines that he would be really clever now with all that reading if he only read "proper books" i.e. non-fiction not fiction. :p

On the other hand it does get on my nerves a little with this seemingly constant need to justify reading/literature/art. I'm very tempted to reply with random non-sequiturs in future for the hell of it. I must confess I have had a burning desire to reply with something like this for a long time now:


Example OP:

What is the point in art? What is the point in reading? Is reading a waste of time? Etc, etc.

Reply one, Fred Bloggs - No, reading is not a waste of time there is so much that can be learned from reading, history...

Reply two, Jane Eyre - How can you say that literature is a waste of time? It is good for many reasons, for example learning to read and write...

Reply three, Dante - (brilliant post that kicks ***)

Reply four, Donny Osmond - What? What? How can you say that, you troll?...

I like sausages.

Reply six, Mia Farrow - Reading is fundamental for the...

.......................................

I feel better now.

[Aylinn]

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.

There are psychologists who will not agree with you.
Why fiction is good for you (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/books/why-fiction-is-good-for-you/article2159339/page1/)

It's interesting article and I believe that the metaphor of a flight simulator hits the nail on the head. While I'm reading War and Peace, I imagine that I'm there, in Russia at the beginning of 19th century. I read fiction to experience other worlds, other cultures, even if they no longer exists. I read what writers, often older and wiser than me, thought about humans, the world etc. It's very enjoyable and much more fun than to be continuously anchored to the reality which surrounds me.

[FranzS]

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.

Indeed.

All higher animals engage in some kind of teaching of their young - whether it's flying, hunting or whatever. If the young were left to rely on their own "experience", they wouldn't last long.

The written word is just a rarefication of the same principle: to pass on what we know. The fact that truths are conveyed in a story does not diminish their importance; a story is often the most effective way of conveying them.

That's not to diminish the less virtuous reasons for reading - entertainment and forgetting all the s*** in the real world. There's a lot of s*** in novels too of course, but at least it's somebody else's problem :)

The original poster asks an interesting question - but it is ironic that in suggesting literature is a waste of time, they are implying that debating whether literature is a waste of time is somehow less of a waste of time :)

[My2cents]

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.


It sounds to me like you're trying to rationalize your attempt to give up writing fiction, and you're looking for validation.

Looks like you're stuck with it though. LOL

[fb0252]

for the OP, read The Immortal by Borges. He makes exactly the same point.

[martunia99]

If fiction books are pointless then watching television or playing your computer is pointless too. Even if the book does not teach you anything, it's fun to read. I also find fiction books are full of characters based on normal people which gives us an inside on every day life. Fiction even if it is as stupid as kids fairytales teaches you lessons and I personally love books with a lot of emotion in them which let's me get my emotions out and cry a little bit. That's why I love fiction and I think it's very important

[rubsley]

Thanks all for your comments. Reason I haven't gotten back sooner is simply that I haven't been online. All very interesting and about a million things to contemplate...

First of all, I'm actually trying to address this question for a self-proposed essay that I may do as part of my MA, ironically enough, in Creative Writing. I just feel that personally I may have come to the end of the road with fiction - or broken through into something - and it's kind of fascinating to look into, despite having massive reservations about the idea. And yet...

...one thing that stands out from the comments is the notion that bread-makers are good, even if they don't serve any real deep purpose, man - and that got me thinking that maybe I've been looking for too much from fiction. Probably the main reason I get into any sort of reading or movie-watching - apart from distraction and time-filling - is to learn something about life. But probably I'm expecting too much from fiction - just as I would be if I went to my bread-maker with similar expectations.

Of course, I know that many will argue against that, say that they've learned things about the world, different cultures, the distant past, etc, and there's perhaps something in that. But at the same time I've really started to feel that all we're really getting is one person's made-up perspective on things, and I don't know whether that really tells us the truth about the subject, and therefore how can we learn from it not knowing whether it's true or not? Like someone quote War and Peace - but who's to know whether that was really an accurate reflection of what a person's life was like back then? So that's why I'll always say autobiography or letters or things like that are more where it's at in that regard, flawed though they obviously are as well.

There was a time when I read a lot of spiritual and inspirational writing. And I don't know if you've read that kind of thing but, sooner or later, you'll always run into some anecdote or parable about a monk who does or says something really cool, and that's supposed to inspire us to be like that ourselves. But what I realised after like a thousand of these stories - people like Osho are particularly fond of them - is that this wisecracking, perfectly-behaved, Mary Sue of a monk "never actually happened" and trying to bend your mind to be like them is just silly. Sure, we can take things from fiction and apply them to "real life" and see what happens - but it's really not the same, not in my eyes.

Which is, I suppose, the other big point: that one's view of ANYTHING says more about that person than the thing itself. So the fact that I'm feeling this way in my relationship with fiction and that others feel different ways is all just self-definition and reflections of our own minds. I guess what I'm hoping for - given that I'm maybe going to write an essay about this - is that I can take what people write in reply - hopefully including literary quotes, references to past thinkers (thanks for the nod to Borges) - and use that to develop the idea. Not just for the essay, mind, but for own thinking and proposing too. Like, the bread-maker realisation was perfect. You don't get mad at a cat for not producing milk, right?

What else? I dunno: I guess we've got to do something with our time. Yes, I suppose watching television and playing computer games is "pointless" - or, at least, feels pointless (ie, an unfulfilling use of my time for where I'm currently at) - but then it's better than hitting people with baby seals or burning swans.


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

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?

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?

1. Good point!

2. What I think is that the experience, for example, of reading a newspaper or a trashy novel doesn't bring the reader pleasure, it merely causes to distract them from intercoursing with their own minds, which tends to be a fearful experience. This need for avoidance, I believe, powers a great deal of what we do. It certainly does me, but I think the difference is that I'm somewhat aware of it.

3. I like that, and if that's your experience then I salute you for it. But a key point is that you talk about "conversing with the dead" - which can only come from reading non-fiction - whereas reading fictional characters is "conversing with the made-up and never-alive."


How can fiction lack substance?

Because it's made-up. Or if it contains kernels of truth, how to know where they are? Or why not just put them in non-fiction?


What is the point of living if not for the arts or the imagination? Life would become mundane and useless in my opinion.

Interesting. I can't say I feel that way at all - but there we go again, self-defining. Life as I see it has plenty of point, irrespective of the arts. You feel different. Cool.


History books...autobiography...

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

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

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?

Garcia Marquez: "Life is not what one lived, but what one remembers and how one remembers it in order to recount it."

Maybe you're just too much of an extrovert to be a committed reader?

"Happiness writes white."

1. Agreed.

2. Can you explain that? Can you give examples?

3. In which sense is a truly sane mind a diseased mind? I'm not sure I can agree with that.

4. But Jesus could read and write, I'm pretty sure, and I think it's telling that he chose not to, as many so-called enlightened people do. If he was what people say he was surely he would have known that his words would be repeated, recorded, mis-translated and misunderstood, and used by various people throughout the ages to do all manner of weird and wonderful thing. Why not just write your life yourself? Why not modern-day saints and sages like Ramakrishna and Ramana Maharshi and Amma? I know it's a different question - but seems to me like the most illumined human beings don't have much interest in recording words - and therefore perhaps the less illumined, the more interest (no slight intended).

Not sure how many brilliant insights the Old Testament Prophets got down. Seems like a fairly low strike-rate, though, for shots on goal.

Hindu sages I'm not super familiar with. Nor Schrodinger. Though I would question how deeply he had penetrated into the mind experientially, if you know what I mean.

5. Really? Is that true? Or is that just another quote from a name person that sounds smart and wise on first reading but then actually falls apart on closer inspection, as so many of them do? Seems like he's basically saying "life is memory" - do you really feel that's what life is?

6. Pretty heavy on the introvert scale I think.

7. Nice quote. :-)


Question: Do you intend to carry on with your theory in light of the tons of common sense replies? Or, how have the replies affected your thinking?

See above. ;-)


It sounds to me like you're trying to rationalize your attempt to give up writing fiction, and you're looking for validation.

Ouch! I think you just won the award. ;-)

[JBI]

Meh, it depends which text, the terms fiction, narrative, novel, or whatever are just means of classification - generally most good texts behave differently from each other, and function on their own terms. It is too difficult to generalize about "Fiction" when there is such a difference between The Tale of Genji and Chabon's The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay.

[Charles Darnay]

Rubsley, have you read Don Quixote? I ask because there are some slight parallels between you and the aged knight-errant. You are expecting too much from "fiction" - it is not a guidebook to life. Yes, you find insights into humanity and human existence in many great works of fiction - but it is an art and can guide you no more than a painting or a symphony. It can inspire, and often does, and it can provide perspective ("so that's how prostitutes were viewed in the Middle Ages") - but as preachy as a work of fiction is, it will not give you the secret to life, nor is it meant to.

[hawthorns]

Ok, then how about this:

It keeps me from jumping out of a high-rise window.

[rubsley]

Ok, then how about this:

It keeps me from jumping out of a high-rise window.

Now that is an excellent reason for anything. :-)

Although I suppose it does of course seem to support my distraction hypothesis that so much of what we call 'reading' is actually a band-aid for our own mad heads.

Anyways, I hope you don't jump and carry on reading. ;-)


Rubsley, have you read Don Quixote? I ask because there are some slight parallels between you and the aged knight-errant. You are expecting too much from "fiction" - it is not a guidebook to life.

Right. I'm starting to realise that. Hence the bread-maker epiphany. :-)

[MANICHAEAN]

"Fiction is to the grown man what play is to the child; it is there that he changes the atmosphere and tenor of his life." Robert Louis Stevenson.

"Literature is a luxury. Fiction is a necessity." G.K.Chesterton.

"Fiction, at the point of development at which it has arrived, demands from the writer a spirit of scrupulous abnegation. The only legitimate basis of creative work lies in the courageous recognition of all the irreconcilable antagonisms that make our life so enigmatic, so burdensome, so fascinating, so dangerous- so full of hope. They exist! And this is the only fundamental truth of fiction." Joseph Conrad.

[miyako73]

Where else can you create heavens and gods and destroy demons and hells but in fiction? Are such creations and destructions important? I like to think so. Whatever empowers can be a good thing for the mind.

[JamCrackers]

Is there any point to fiction? The actual meaning of this question is hanging in the breeze. It is an invitation to psychoanalyze the person asking. I like the question because I find it deeply thought provoking. Fiction is ideal for this question as would be sculpture or painting. You really do start with emptiness, a blank page, a block of marble, an empty canvas, or a mass of clay. You could be asked what the point is to your fiction you made. You could be asked what you think the point is to fiction made by someone else. Is Moby Dick a story about fishing or so much more? For those who have read the book and compared that to the movies, the answer is yes, Moby Dick very much is a book about fishing, whaling to be specific; lots of stuff that never gets in movies. It is also much more that does get into the movies. My answer comes from my own life experience. In my opinion, I see much more point to fiction than would other people. I believe we are primates, mammals, just another animal even if a clever or interesting one. Love is fiction. Honor is fiction. Many of the best things humans have to guide their behaviors are fictional in nature. Fiction is what sets us apart from the ‘lower’ animals. There is the hidden answer. If you seek to know what darkness is, you will fail. Darkness is fiction. You have to study light. When you don’t have any light, we call it darkness. What is fiction not? All other animals are hyper-realists. They only experience and live in pure mechanical reality. We humans are different. We have these vast social fictional worlds we share that are not really different than children playing house. The point of fiction is us deciding what we will agree is a good human or a bad human. (random example) Once long ago, some humans fiction decided being gay was bad. In modern times we just fiction decided gay is good. When we make social value decisions, we generally expect others to play along and often punish them if they won’t. In your natural mammal state you are naked. We fiction agreed that you should wear clothes in public, at least in many civilizations, then not in others.
The point of fiction is making ourselves human and less lower animals. We often fail at it. We have as much if not more fiction decision wars on each other than ever before. Fiction is humanity itself.

[tylerdf]

Is there any point to anything?

[PeterL]

Is there any point to anything?

Maybe

[kelby_lake]

The point to reading fiction is to read what other people think. Yes, that novel may be their one opinion, but then you read another one...Let's face it, in life you're not going to come across many people who wish to discuss the meaning of life/deep philosophical questions with you.

[rubsley]

"Fiction is to the grown man what play is to the child; it is there that he changes the atmosphere and tenor of his life." Robert Louis Stevenson.

"Literature is a luxury. Fiction is a necessity." G.K.Chesterton.

"Fiction, at the point of development at which it has arrived, demands from the writer a spirit of scrupulous abnegation. The only legitimate basis of creative work lies in the courageous recognition of all the irreconcilable antagonisms that make our life so enigmatic, so burdensome, so fascinating, so dangerous - so full of hope. They exist! And this is the only fundamental truth of fiction." Joseph Conrad.

1. I'd dispute that. The key is the word "grown" - as though growth had come to an end. There is no such thing as a "grown man", only a "growing man." "Grown" is stagnation and death. I like the analogy though - yes, children play with toys, and adolescents play with sex and intoxicants, and post-adolescents play with other things, like their minds, and maybe fiction. But what's beyond that? That's my point and question. Or do you imagine growth and the possibilities of life at some point stop?

2. That's interesting. Maybe it's right. By "literature" I imagine he means all that poncy, pretentious, overly-poetic stuff. But why is "fiction a necessity"? Can you answer me that?

3. Dig. Isn't that what I'm doing here?


Where else can you create heavens and gods and destroy demons and hells but in fiction? Are such creations and destructions important? I like to think so. Whatever empowers can be a good thing for the mind.

Can you explain that further? What is the benefit of creating demons and hells? How do they empower? How does it bring benefit to you?

JAMCRACKERS: That was interesting; I like your take on things. I'm not sure it was really about "reading literary fiction" - but maybe that's my fault for not phrasing the initial question in a more specific way. Anyways, thanks for the thoughts.


Is there any point to anything?

"Life has no meaning save the one you give it" is a quote I like.


The point to reading fiction is to read what other people think.

I don't think that's true. A novel doesn't necessarily contain what people think: to know what people think you'd have to read their non-fiction, wouldn't you, or talk to them? Think of a fictional writer you've read loads, and now tell me what they think, based on their work. I can't think of how that would work, except in generalised sweeping statements like, "Kurt Vonnegut thought bureaucracy was daft". But do prove me wrong, please.


Yes I'm waiting for a reply from the thread starter.

Ditto, sir!

Anyways, let's try and move this on: I've gone beyond thinking reading fiction is pointless to realising that it's daft to expect too much from it and that that's the pointless bit. I guess I get frustrated 'cos it's such a trumpeted thing whereas I see it mostly as distraction and in many cases the work of people who haven't even begun to figure out the basics about living a happy human life, which is generally all that anybody wants. Sylvia Plath, Virginia Woolf, James Joyce, Ernest Hemingway - I don't give a monkeys that they had a way with words, they were all flops as human beings as far as I'm concerned. Though, having never met them, that may be a little harsh: perhaps they were lovely, kind people in person and the suicidal tendencies and substance abuse could have been...nah, there's no excuse for that: not if you're making yourself out as a purveyor of wisdom. But then are they? And are people even looking at them in that way? I just can't separate the author from their work, and if the author's mind is one that dwelled in hell, I don't really feel much of a need to follow them there, through their words.

And what are words anyway? Mere utterances and sophisticated grunts that stand in the place of thoughts and feelings, always at least one or two steps beyond the impulse behind them. I guess it's the impulse that interests me. The tree behind the apple - and the ground beneath the tree.

Sheet: maybe I should make up a story and put all this in the mouths of characters and see if I can't work it out that way. ;-)

But, c'mon, the distraction hypothesis has gotta be worth looking at - though maybe not here. Who among a literary community wants to stand up and say, yep, I just read to get away from my own inner-being 'cos I don't know what life's really for? Who wants to admit that their intellectualism is just mind games to keep their mind busy from seeing what their mind is really like? I read - sorry, tried to read - a book on critical literary theory the other day - but, I swear, every page I turned to all I could find was gobbledygook dressed up in fancy sentences and the only thing I got from it - from every single of the varied authors and contributors - was, man, these people need to get a life. Imagine that that's what turns you on, tossing over and making up theories about something so abstract as another man's fleeting fictions and dreams. It boggles the braincogs.

[gruntingslime]

Who wants to admit that their intellectualism is just mind games to keep their mind busy from seeing what their mind is really like?

Because one feels lost and reads does not necessitate distraction, one could very well be looking into a work of fiction the way they would look to advise of someone they admire.

Fiction can be pointless, as anything can, particularly if one's chosen meaning chooses to negate it... but it can have direct influences, for example the vision of 1984 standing as a warning for the shifting political climate.

It seems to me that you might be trying to seek out some objective meaning or purpose to existence by which to weigh all elements in the balance.

Do men of presumed importance sometimes take part in frivolous thoughts and activities? I have not had the privilege to oversee their existence but I would wager that it is so.

I think it's a valid basis for study and reflection.

[kelby_lake]

I don't think that's true. A novel doesn't necessarily contain what people think: to know what people think you'd have to read their non-fiction, wouldn't you, or talk to them? Think of a fictional writer you've read loads, and now tell me what they think, based on their work. I can't think of how that would work, except in generalised sweeping statements like, "Kurt Vonnegut thought bureaucracy was daft". But do prove me wrong, please.


Two examples, although when vocalising people's thoughts, they are always bound to sound trite:

Fitzgerald: fascinated by wealth and the lifestyle it brings, although he knows that at the heart of it, there lies unhappiness.
Hemingway: interested in masculinity- what makes a man. Also appears to be interested in androgynous women, so maybe his interest in masculinity is not simply misogyny.

There are certain themes, characters and subjects that run across writers' works that give us an insight into what mattered to them. A writer writing a story about a racist may not be racist himself but race is a subject that interests him. It's just like in real life- we pick up clues about people based on their actions and what they're interested in.

The point is that different writers will have different perspectives. If I raised Fitzgerald and Hemingway from the dead, and then I got them to write a story about a man who shoots his brother, they will have different tones. If you wrote that story, you might do it in a different way from them. Life is too complex for there to only be one take on it.

[cafolini]

Two examples, although when vocalising people's thoughts, they are always bound to sound trite:

Fitzgerald: fascinated by wealth and the lifestyle it brings, although he knows that at the heart of it, there lies unhappiness.
Hemingway: interested in masculinity- what makes a man. Also appears to be interested in androgynous women, so maybe his interest in masculinity is not simply misogyny.

There are certain themes, characters and subjects that run across writers' works that give us an insight into what mattered to them. A writer writing a story about a racist may not be racist himself but race is a subject that interests him. It's just like in real life- we pick up clues about people based on their actions and what they're interested in.

The point is that different writers will have different perspectives. If I raised Fitzgerald and Hemingway from the dead, and then I got them to write a story about a man who shoots his brother, they will have different tones. If you wrote that story, you might do it in a different way from them. Life is too complex for there to only be one take on it.

Adequate.

[kelby_lake]

Adequate.

Not sure if that is a compliment or insult, although saying that, I was aiming to show that one can infer things about the author from the work. A deeper study would have refined my examples.

[The Comedian]

And what are words anyway?

Symbols.


Who among a literary community wants to stand up and say, yep, I just read to get away from my own inner-being 'cos I don't know what life's really for? Who wants to admit that their intellectualism is just mind games to keep their mind busy from seeing what their mind is really like?

Not me. Because this is not true, not for me anyway. First, I'm not sure what the mind is really like. Second, I'm not sure what my "inner-being" really is.

I will admit to not knowing what "life's really for". I don't. Work? Family? Pleasure? Strength? Money? Morality? Heaven? Not really sure.


I read - sorry, tried to read - a book on critical literary theory the other day - but, I swear, every page I turned to all I could find was gobbledygook dressed up in fancy sentences and the only thing I got from it - from every single of the varied authors and contributors - was, man, these people need to get a life. Imagine that that's what turns you on, tossing over and making up theories about something so abstract as another man's fleeting fictions and dreams. It boggles the braincogs.

There is a lot of bad, self-important criticism out there. But some of it is really compelling and insightful. Have you read Northrop Frye or Harold Bloom or Sandra Cisneros? Or maybe Camille Paglia -- Paglia writes in plain language, very intelligent, very outspoken and brazen, but I always think that her interpretations are, if nothing else, a useful addition to my understanding of a text, author, or literary period.

[rubsley]

Two examples, although when vocalising people's thoughts, they are always bound to sound trite:

Fitzgerald: fascinated by wealth and the lifestyle it brings, although he knows that at the heart of it, there lies unhappiness.
Hemingway: interested in masculinity- what makes a man. Also appears to be interested in androgynous women, so maybe his interest in masculinity is not simply misogyny.

See, now to me that supports my point: seems like a pretty poor investment for the time it takes to read an author's work to say, "well this dead guy I never met thought wealthy people weren't necessarily happy." Everybody thinks that. Who cares that F. Scott Fitzgerald did? And that it takes hours and hours to discover it. Pf.

[stlukesguild]

Again... the point in reading isn't found in the "meaning"... the "point" lies in the pleasure the experience as whole brings. If you find no pleasure in reading then that's your loss. Look elsewhere. Perhaps you might find pleasure in trolling the internet and posting inane questions guaranteed to inflame others. You could then sit back and laugh at all the time wasted by those earnestly attempting to answer your question.

In other words... "what is the point of this thread?"

[cafolini]

Again... the point in reading isn't found in the "meaning"... the "point" lies in the pleasure the experience as whole brings. If you find no pleasure in reading then that's your loss. Look elsewhere. Perhaps you might find pleasure in trolling the internet and posting inane questions guaranteed to inflame others. You could then sit back and laugh at all the time wasted by those earnestly attempting to answer your question.

In other words... "what is the point of this thread?"

That must have some meaning. Ha!

[Alexander III]

See, now to me that supports my point: seems like a pretty poor investment for the time it takes to read an author's work to say, "well this dead guy I never met thought wealthy people weren't necessarily happy." Everybody thinks that. Who cares that F. Scott Fitzgerald did? And that it takes hours and hours to discover it. Pf.

http://chzjustcapshunz.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/funny-captions-i-can-count-to-potato.jpg

[cafolini]

Please, people, please. How much confusion can you take before you give up the con and achieve some fusion. Meaning can only occur in what interests you. Words are meaningless without your cooperation.

[cacian]

well the same can be said about about a book
should a book be taught for example?
I consider fiction as denouement of the mind and to teachit is to stick it with an institutional tagging that drags down the idea of writing to a boredom state of analogy without aim.
A book is an art piece and should left to the individual to make out of it what they wish.
teaching it is a right spoiler. That is what I think anyway.

[miyako73]

The point of fiction is to textually experience things that we have not experienced in real life. You can feel the lust, pain, and guilt of an older man falling for an underage girl in Nabokov's Lolita, or you can be a Lolita in your mind feeling or textually experiencing how it is to be desired and lusted for by an older man. For teen readers, that's enough an experience. They don't have to go on dates with grandpas and retirees.

[Drkshadow03]

See, now to me that supports my point: seems like a pretty poor investment for the time it takes to read an author's work to say, "well this dead guy I never met thought wealthy people weren't necessarily happy." Everybody thinks that. Who cares that F. Scott Fitzgerald did? And that it takes hours and hours to discover it. Pf.

Is it better to just tell someone that eating lots of bacon cheeseburgers will cause a heart attack or to actually tell people the story of my uncle Joe who after a hard day's work sitting eight hours at his office desk would head to his local burger joint to pound five bacon cheeseburgers everyday -- and not satisfied with the traditional offerings he would augment the greasy monstrosity he would consume with a few slices of extra cheese and five additional strips of bacon. Unsurprisingly, he just dropped dead one day right in middle of taking a bite of one of those lovely cholesterol bombs, juice still dribbling down his cheek, his heart saturated with what he loved most in this world. My uncle was a kind fat man, a tragic Santa Klauss who always gave back to the grill-working pimpled teens of his community. They said his arteries were blocked worse than a California freeway at rush hour. Every burger I see, every fast food place, every rancid scent of fried potato brings back the specter of my uncle, reminds me of the clandestine death lurking within the tastiness of food.

There is a reason that even nonfiction informative article writers will often include a personal story. Stories are convincing and add an emotional angle to a topic. The prolific nature of stories across cultures and civilizations suggests human beings have an ingrained need to hear and tell stories. It shouldn't be all that surprising that stories with their origin in myths extend beyond mere entertainment and become a mode of understanding our world. Myths transmit values of the culture and understandings of the nature of the world, whereas in later literature adds the function of critiquing and bringing forth problems of a particular society.

[kelby_lake]

See, now to me that supports my point: seems like a pretty poor investment for the time it takes to read an author's work to say, "well this dead guy I never met thought wealthy people weren't necessarily happy." Everybody thinks that. Who cares that F. Scott Fitzgerald did? And that it takes hours and hours to discover it. Pf.

It doesn't take very long to work out his opinions. Besides, a lot of the enjoyment is in his beautiful prose and the entertaining stories.

It's not simply a case of rich people not being happy- it's a case of people who have this god-like existence. They can't be happy in this world but they can't survive without it.

You seem to be reading fiction expecting to find the answers to life. Fiction won't do that- the answers to life are not facts you can look up. It would be like me thinking "Hmm, is there a God? Let's read the Bible and find out" and then being disappointed when somebody told me that there are many books that say that God does not exist.

I think the issue here is that you feel that you don't find the deep emotional layers/symbolism in fiction that other readers find. I'm not saying that it makes you unintelligent or that every piece of fiction is profound, but the more you read, the more you will pick up on things that aren't explicitly said but are implied.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I just can't separate the author from their work
Well, that's your problem then, isn't it?

Seeing as you're pursuing an MA in creative writing, I'm assuming you've lived an impeccable life, free of any downsides, therefore making your writings worthy to be read.

Honestly, seeing as you have such a low view of fiction and writers, I think you've chosen the wrong field to get an MA in.

[kelby_lake]

Honestly, seeing as you have such a low view of fiction and writers, I think you've chosen the wrong field to get an MA in.

It does seem a little strange...

[the facade]

Despite some of the responses here being insightful and lovely, I unfortunately lack time to read all of them so I apologize if I repeat something that has already been said.

All literature reflects a philosophy/world-view/ideology. I personally prefer the type of literature that is aware of this fact and attempts to cohesively and coherently convey a philosophy.

As opposed to a philosophy manifesto, the writer of fiction has at his disposal a rich toolbox from which he can withdraw immense amounts of tools (albeit limited) that allow him to do several things:
1) saturate the world in the colors of his philosophy
2) have characters embodying the values of philosophies
3) through these characters, create dramatic situations that test the boundaries, extremities and limits of these philosophies and make an estimation for where they clash

This is perhaps why the Socratic dialogues are so profound - they make use of what has become fictional tools and their characters, through dialogue (communication), arrive at conclusions to which we are privy to and invested in.

At the heart of these 3 points (although there are certainly several more), is undeniably, but not regretfully - manipulation.

Manipulation, the word, has nasty associations but we should not strictly consider it as such. It is what allows us to virtually inhabit the fictional world (if it is successful in its endeavors) and better grasp it. However, we are freely thinking and critical beings that still reserve liberty to kindly reject all it has to offer - we do not have to be victims of propaganda.

Even "bad" literature does this because at its essence lies communication - truly a sacred thing and a human need.

Essentially, fiction is not so much different from our daily experiences - interweaving both truth and lies.

Fiction is just so much better.

[cafolini]

The point of fiction is to textually experience things that we have not experienced in real life. You can feel the lust, pain, and guilt of an older man falling for an underage girl in Nabokov's Lolita, or you can be a Lolita in your mind feeling or textually experiencing how it is to be desired and lusted for by an older man. For teen readers, that's enough an experience. They don't have to go on dates with grandpas and retirees.

I agree that it must be one of the genuine purposes: acquiring an ability for indirect thinking. Very fruitful!

[rubsley]

Perhaps you might find pleasure in trolling the internet and posting inane questions guaranteed to inflame others. You could then sit back and laugh at all the time wasted by those earnestly attempting to answer your question.

In other words... "what is the point of this thread?"

Trolling? Inane? Nu-uh: these are what's known as "genuine thoughts" - ie, inquiring into something rather than swallowing the party line. You might not agree with me, but that doesn't mean I'm only doing it to wind you up. I'm not.


The point of fiction is to textually experience things that we have not experienced in real life. You can feel the lust, pain, and guilt of an older man falling for an underage girl in Nabokov's Lolita, or you can be a Lolita in your mind feeling or textually experiencing how it is to be desired and lusted for by an older man. For teen readers, that's enough an experience. They don't have to go on dates with grandpas and retirees.

That's an interesting point. I wonder if it's true? Whether it's "experience" or "imagination" that you're talking about. I'll have to have a think. Though I guess anything that saves 14-year-olds needing to go on dates with grandpas is probably a good thing.


Is it better to just tell someone that eating lots of bacon cheeseburgers will cause a heart attack or to actually tell people the story of my uncle Joe who after a hard day's work sitting eight hours at his office desk would head to his local burger joint to pound five bacon cheeseburgers everyday -- and [...] dropped dead one day right in [the] middle of taking a bite of one of those lovely cholesterol bombs?

And yet, that's exactly what I've been saying - that real-life examples and non-fiction and all that kind of thing are useful in teaching and learning and inspiring and demonstrating the actual possibilities, and that fiction perhaps isn't. 'Cos in fiction Uncle Joe might not necessarily die, or could be superfit, or any other thing.


It's not simply a case of rich people not being happy - it's a case of people who have this god-like existence. They can't be happy in this world but they can't survive without it.

You seem to be reading fiction expecting to find the answers to life.

I think the issue here is that you feel that you don't find the deep emotional layers/symbolism in fiction that other readers find. I'm not saying that it makes you unintelligent or that every piece of fiction is profound, but the more you read, the more you will pick up on things that aren't explicitly said but are implied.

1. Yes, but again that's not real "rich people", it's make-believe rich people from one guy's head, so what's the use in that? Surely you have to agree that it would be far more beneficial to gain an opinion on this topic from, say, a psychological study or a non-fiction analysis of a large number of "rich people"?

2. That's true. Or rather, I was, but that has changed somewhere in the unfolding of this thread. See: BREAD MAKER.

3. That's nice that you're not saying I'm unintelligent. Thank you. I think I've read plenty and been through that stage of seeing deeply into fiction - and now I'm suggesting that there's a stage beyond that. Or are you suggesting that the stage you're talking about is the ultimate height?


Well, that's your problem then, isn't it?

Seeing as you're pursuing an MA in creative writing, I'm assuming you've lived an impeccable life, free of any downsides, therefore making your writings worthy to be read.

Honestly, seeing as you have such a low view of fiction and writers, I think you've chosen the wrong field to get an MA in.

1. I wouldn't necessarily say it was a problem: but I suppose it is the less conventional way of looking at things. I guess part of it stems from certain writers being trumpeted and heralded as geniuses when I just think, hm, you stick your head in an oven while your kids are in the room next door I don't much care how nicely you can string a sentence together, you flopped as a human being. It's a bit like some playwright I was exposed to recently - quick google reminds me it was Sarah Kane - wherein even after half a scene I was like, I bet this person killed themselves or at least was severely troubled. Et voila, I was right. To me, you show your professor or some friend some material the like of which she was producing and there should be no sense of people applauding you and encouraging you to publish or whatever, it should be like, hell's bells, you need some help, we're gonna do what we can for you, but you're a mess. And that's what I find weird about the society we live in: that people don't think, Christ, you're seriously whacked, someone needs to sit you down and try and sort you out, we put them on the stage and say, you're great, you're a genius, and then talk about tragedies when those people throw themselves out of windows.

2. Regarding the MA, I'm mainly doing it because: a) I used to want to be a writer - for like a really long time - but now I'm mostly over it; and b) because I got all my fees paid for by the university and so it was kind of a no-brainer. Who wouldn't toss out half a dozen pieces of work and go back to glorious lazy student days for a couple of letters after their name?


I personally prefer the type of literature that is aware of this fact and attempts to cohesively and coherently convey a philosophy. This is perhaps why the Socratic dialogues are so profound - they make use of what has become fictional tools and their characters, through dialogue (communication), arrive at conclusions to which we are privy to and invested in.

I can dig that. I think it's a far cry from general dramatic fiction or whatever I suppose I mean when I say "fictional literature." Ya know, just stories. Variations on a theme. Something to fill the brain-time. Philosophy can bring newness. Until, I suppose, you've exhausted that too. I almost wouldn't even include philosophical writings in the area of fictional literature. It's like one guy's ideas dressed up in fictional characters - but it's not as though it would be such a stretch, or even produce such a different effect on the reader, if it were presented as pure philosophy. I'm thinking of the book "Ishmael" which has some very interesting ideas stuck into the mouth of a make-believe gorilla. But I'd still find the ideas just as interesting if the author lost the gorilla and said, "this is some stuff I've been thinking about." Same with Plato, I guess.


Essentially, fiction is not so much different from our daily experiences - fiction is just so much better.

Are you saying your actual life is not as good as reading fiction? That's sad. :-(

[hawthorns]

Rubsley--

Is this for a thesis? A dissertation which questions the value of fictional literature before a lit panel would be a tough sell, but I'd have to admire the courage in it anyway.:lol:

[PrinceMyshkin]

I'm tempted to ask What is the point of your original question? Some stories, indeed, will have been motivated by the author's wish to make a point, often of a moral nature. The 'point' of many or most others is simply to tell an interesting story or to acquaint us with interesting characters and to bind us into a community.

If you experienced an incident which you later narrate to a friend of yours, what is the point of doing that?

[Drkshadow03]

And yet, that's exactly what I've been saying - that real-life examples and non-fiction and all that kind of thing are useful in teaching and learning and inspiring and demonstrating the actual possibilities, and that fiction perhaps isn't. 'Cos in fiction Uncle Joe might not necessarily die, or could be superfit, or any other thing.

Except you're agreeing that option # 2 is more convincing and I don't have an uncle Joe. It was just a fictionalized account. So bringing up the possibility that a fiction story could present Uncle Joe as not necessarily dying in the end or being super fit is just a different story, ultimately with a different message it is trying to convey. It's not just that fiction says things we already know, but precisely by the fact that it's fiction it helps us see those important issues in a new light by making the familiar unfamiliar. Plus there is also the advantage of it being a fun way of doing so.

Sure, I can read a nonfiction article about a particular topic to learn about it, but reading about a fictionalized character that I develop an emotional connection with struggling through a problem (related to the topic) is more convincing (because now I'm seeing the issues involved in said topic tested in a hypothetical fictional situation), I have an emotional connection (because I'm connected to the characters struggling through said problem), and it's an entertaining way to go about exploring the topic.

I think the bigger problem, though, is that there isn't one single thing that all literature necessarily does. Some literature provides wisdom, while other literature is an aesthetic experience, and yet other works are valued for both.

[kelby_lake]

1. Yes, but again that's not real "rich people", it's make-believe rich people from one guy's head, so what's the use in that? Surely you have to agree that it would be far more beneficial to gain an opinion on this topic from, say, a psychological study or a non-fiction analysis of a large number of "rich people"?

Well, they were based on actual people, so not entirely make-believe.

Who wants to read a non-fiction analysis of a large number of "rich people"? You'd be trying to pass off as "truth" only the experience of a percentage of "rich people". Fiction admits that it is limited by the personal perspective; non-fiction doesn't admit it. Besides, the whole thing would be terribly dry.


3. That's nice that you're not saying I'm unintelligent. Thank you. I think I've read plenty and been through that stage of seeing deeply into fiction - and now I'm suggesting that there's a stage beyond that. Or are you suggesting that the stage you're talking about is the ultimate height?

No, you're not suggesting there's a stage beyond that. You're negating the validity of seeing deeply into fiction because you have impossible demands from it. By all means, you can focus on the philosophical elements the writer is conveying but these are not the "answers to life".

I understand your not being able to enjoy a piece of fiction if the writer is not somebody you would admire as a person, but their personal problems do not disqualify them from writing. If anything, it's interesting to hear from people. Nobody is going to read Sylvia Plath's poetry and think "Hmm, a role model for me! I'll just go stick my head in a gas oven", but they might appreciate the emotions in it and find a personal relevance there.

[kelby_lake]

I wouldn't necessarily say it was a problem: but I suppose it is the less conventional way of looking at things. I guess part of it stems from certain writers being trumpeted and heralded as geniuses when I just think, hm, you stick your head in an oven while your kids are in the room next door I don't much care how nicely you can string a sentence together, you flopped as a human being.

Nobody's saying that the writers were wonderful people. I doubt there are many writers that are a paragon of goodness. We don't praise them- we praise their work. And to be honest, who are you to be a moral judge? She and Sarah Kane both had serious depression, I believe, and despite all the factual information we can read about their lives, we don't really have any idea what it was like to live that life. If you have had serious depression, I apologise in advance, but the same thing applies to pretty much anything.


And that's what I find weird about the society we live in: that people don't think, Christ, you're seriously whacked, someone needs to sit you down and try and sort you out, we put them on the stage and say, you're great, you're a genius, and then talk about tragedies when those people throw themselves out of windows.

How do we know people didn't? You are right in asking whether there is a desire to push already fragile people to create more art and thereby prolonging their pain so we can benefit from their work. That is a reasonable question to ask, rather than throwing out moral judgements.



Are you saying your actual life is not as good as reading fiction? That's sad. :-(

Very few people's lives are as interesting as fiction, and if they were, they would probably end up being unsatisfying anyway. It's only sad if somebody sees their life as unliveable because it is not as exciting as fiction.

This is perhaps the "point" of fiction.

[Sancho Panza]

For the most part the point of reading fiction is to experience life from a different perspective or even a different world entirely, wheras the point of writing it could be an innate desire for control of an invented world or a wish to explore and explain a worldview in a fictional, or semi-fictional setting. Geore Orwell and Philip K. Dick are obvious examples of the latter of these, even though Dick's references are occasionally rather too obscure and eccentric to be understood by mere mortals.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I like vegetables.

[Heteronym]

Well, if anything, literature has trained my brain not to consider joyless, death-obsessed fanatics like Jesus and Buddha enlightened, so I guess it was useful for something.

[Atomic]

Well, if anything, literature has trained my brain not to consider joyless, death-obsessed fanatics like Jesus and Buddha enlightened, so I guess it was useful for something.

But certainly not as death-obsessed as Plath, Dickinson or Poe?

[First thoughts]

To start with, I can't really agree with the idea that we have to look for a "point" to everything.
What's the point of fiction? In the same you can ask what's the point of life? It could be merely to propagate our species, It could have no meaning at all or it could be countless other things we haven't worked out yet. But really what's the point in asking, all we can do is try to get along as healthily and as happily as we can.
Aside from the question of whether it's even worth asking, i think there are countless "points" to fiction.
It can have whatever meaning you ascribe to it; it could be a comfort and an escape, a means of learning about lives other than your own, a warning of what might happen, an interpretation of what already has, an experiment to see how things would play out in a world drastically different from our own, or just one of the tools we use to pass our time as happily as possible.

There seems to be one major thing you judge very differently from myself that could be a cause of our differing opinions. You see a great distinction between fiction and non-fiction. That you can only learn from something that is definitely true, and lessons learnt from something made up are meaningless. What are thoughts and ideas if they are not something we have made up and created? Are you saying you can't learn from anything anyone says unless it is first written down in a so called "non-fiction" book?

Now, there is a certain class of fiction which is just the same old story churned out to match certain criteria and to sell copies - I can see no point in this type of fiction other than as an escape and distraction from the world, or a means to temporary entertainment.
But, the majority of fiction can hold a lot more than that. Fiction can be just the same as a conversation you would have with a real life person, except in fiction their thoughts and ideas are often entwined with metaphor and imagery and have been written down so as to reach a wider audience. They also might present opinions contrary to their own in such a way as to highlight the fallacy in them.
There are endless lessons to learn from these works of fiction, it is a medium unconstrained by the speed of response needed in a conversation, and by the limited amount of stories and characters available to "non-fiction".

You seem to admit the possibility of learning from "non-fiction" but why should any of this be more true? People have always exaggerated to make themselves look better, plugged the gaps in their memories with stories overheard from others. And Science books - no true scientist would claim his work was "true", it is only ever the current best guess, instantly overturnable when a better theory turns up or more evidence comes to light.
I don't see such a clear boundary between fiction and non-fiction as you seem to base your argument on.




there should be no sense of people applauding you and encouraging you to publish or whatever, it should be like, hell's bells, you need some help, we're gonna do what we can for you, but you're a mess. And that's what I find weird about the society we live in: that people don't think, Christ, you're seriously whacked, someone needs to sit you down and try and sort you out, we put them on the stage and say, you're great, you're a genius, and then talk about tragedies when those people throw themselves out of windows.
:-(

Now, i strongly disagree when you try to claim any work from these troubled people is worthless. Just because someone takes drugs or eventually kills themselves, it doesn't make their opinions or their art any less valuable. I do agree however, that we should try to help them before we start hailing them. The trouble is, that often the people with the best imaginations, the people most open to the world, with the most to give to it, are also those who have let down their defences and are most vulnerable to it. Their art makes them vulnerable to the world, and often curing them means removing their art.

I've seen this idea reflected in many of the greatest authors, artists and poets, but a recent interview with the musician Pete Doherty sums it up pretty well. I don't know if you know about him, but he is an English musician and poet who has struggled against drug addiction and been thoroughly villanised by the press as a consequence. He makes it clear the only way he thinks he can give up his troubles and addictions is by giving up his talent and ceasing to write:
"All the songs I write deal with sadness, emptiness and disillusionment. Now, I seek happiness, but I do not want to sing. I want to live. If I stay in music, I just want to play guitar in a band. I hate the pressure, the stress of being at the forefront, in the spotlight. I give a small drop of my blood in this life night after night and I kill myself with it, I cannot go on like this forever, I'm trying to kill myself, I feel it. It killed my friend Amy Winehouse, she turned a tremendous weapon against herself. I certainly have a smaller calibre weapon, but I still have to stop. People want everything from me, they want me to be the essence of my songs. But it is a self-destructive essence. "

There may be countless troubled people such as you have described who have been helped in time to save them, potential Hemingways who have slunk away into office jobs. And anyway, if you assign so much of an arts worth to the artists lifestyle, how do you know you are not mistaken? From your comments about Jesus, I assume you hold the New Testament highly, but would this opinion change if it came to light Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were raging alcoholics?

[PrinceMyshkin]

To start with, I can't really agree with the idea that we have to look for a "point" to everything.
What's the point of fiction? In the same you can ask what's the point of life? It could be merely to propagate our species, It could have no meaning at all or it could be countless other things we haven't worked out yet. But really what's the point in asking, all we can do is try to get along as healthily and as happily as we can.
Aside from the question of whether it's even worth asking, i think there are countless "points" to fiction.
It can have whatever meaning you ascribe to it; it could be a comfort and an escape, a means of learning about lives other than your own, a warning of what might happen, an interpretation of what already has, an experiment to see how things would play out in a world drastically different from our own, or just one of the tools we use to pass our time as happily as possible.

There seems to be one major thing you judge very differently from myself that could be a cause of our differing opinions. You see a great distinction between fiction and non-fiction. That you can only learn from something that is definitely true, and lessons learnt from something made up are meaningless. What are thoughts and ideas if they are not something we have made up and created? Are you saying you can't learn from anything anyone says unless it is first written down in a so called "non-fiction" book?

Now, there is a certain class of fiction which is just the same old story churned out to match certain criteria and to sell copies - I can see no point in this type of fiction other than as an escape and distraction from the world, or a means to temporary entertainment.
But, the majority of fiction can hold a lot more than that. Fiction can be just the same as a conversation you would have with a real life person, except in fiction their thoughts and ideas are often entwined with metaphor and imagery and have been written down so as to reach a wider audience. They also might present opinions contrary to their own in such a way as to highlight the fallacy in them.
There are endless lessons to learn from these works of fiction, it is a medium unconstrained by the speed of response needed in a conversation, and by the limited amount of stories and characters available to "non-fiction".

You seem to admit the possibility of learning from "non-fiction" but why should any of this be more true? People have always exaggerated to make themselves look better, plugged the gaps in their memories with stories overheard from others. And Science books - no true scientist would claim his work was "true", it is only ever the current best guess, instantly overturnable when a better theory turns up or more evidence comes to light.
I don't see such a clear boundary between fiction and non-fiction as you seem to base your argument on.




Now, i strongly disagree when you try to claim any work from these troubled people is worthless. Just because someone takes drugs or eventually kills themselves, it doesn't make their opinions or their art any less valuable. I do agree however, that we should try to help them before we start hailing them. The trouble is, that often the people with the best imaginations, the people most open to the world, with the most to give to it, are also those who have let down their defences and are most vulnerable to it. Their art makes them vulnerable to the world, and often curing them means removing their art.

I've seen this idea reflected in many of the greatest authors, artists and poets, but a recent interview with the musician Pete Doherty sums it up pretty well. I don't know if you know about him, but he is an English musician and poet who has struggled against drug addiction and been thoroughly villanised by the press as a consequence. He makes it clear the only way he thinks he can give up his troubles and addictions is by giving up his talent and ceasing to write:
"All the songs I write deal with sadness, emptiness and disillusionment. Now, I seek happiness, but I do not want to sing. I want to live. If I stay in music, I just want to play guitar in a band. I hate the pressure, the stress of being at the forefront, in the spotlight. I give a small drop of my blood in this life night after night and I kill myself with it, I cannot go on like this forever, I'm trying to kill myself, I feel it. It killed my friend Amy Winehouse, she turned a tremendous weapon against herself. I certainly have a smaller calibre weapon, but I still have to stop. People want everything from me, they want me to be the essence of my songs. But it is a self-destructive essence. "

There may be countless troubled people such as you have described who have been helped in time to save them, potential Hemingways who have slunk away into office jobs. And anyway, if you assign so much of an arts worth to the artists lifestyle, how do you know you are not mistaken? From your comments about Jesus, I assume you hold the New Testament highly, but would this opinion change if it came to light Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were raging alcoholics?

It's not that I agree with every word you wrote here (which I do!) And it's not that it's so lucidly expressed (which it is!). It is, I believe, the general tone of civility in your response. Unlike some, you don't appear to need to win the argument at any cost. Bravo!

[Heteronym]

But certainly not as death-obsessed as Plath, Dickinson or Poe?

Oh no, these three don't come close to the grand morbity of Jesus and Buddha's philosophies. Being humans who accepted their humanity, their exploration of death is a mere product of their own mortality. Jesus and Buddha were men who put death on the center of their way of life, an impossible, superhuman level of perfection and purity imposed on ordinary men to render their lives stunted and incomplete by depriving them of the simple pleasures of life, and punishing them with fantasies of horrors if they failed to attain said perfection.

I'll take a melancholy drunk in Poe's work to a saint eating roots in the desert. I know which one is more human.

[dark desire]

Hi!

Congratulations for having reached to this point in life that you feel like this. I agree that written word is a total nonsense. Everywhere. It is a stage and it is a performance which intends to make you think that there is no stage and it is reality - a reality different from your own reality.

The other day I was reading this introductory book on literature. The author, a professor of English literature somewhere in England, mentions reasons why to read literature and all of them were at best outdated and at worst pure nonsense.

Having said all this, I now ask you to bring your attention to all the fictions that you have been told and you still believe in. Jesus is one. Democracy is another. Education is third. Of course they have not not been told to you as systematically as a work of fiction tells the story. You believe that it is real because it works out well for so many people, however, in fact it works because people hopelessly follow these things; if you will look deeper you will see that all these things have as many flaws as they have triumphs, they make people suffer as much as they help people in their lives. You might want to argue that economic survival is served by these things. But what is the meaning of this survival if everyone has to die in the end? Then you might say family and procreation and continuation of the species and I will say nothing good has come to this world without the creation of an equal bad.

You will find it difficult to see my point here and honestly this is not even MY point. Read Roland Barthes and you will understand what I am talking about here. For the time being, till the completion of my argument, you can assume what I am saying is true.

Some people are gifted to see through all the imposed meanings till the very source of human suffering. The imposed meanings of what and how things are, are often the source of great suffering. The entire feminist argument is based on this.

If you can see beyond everything you are taught, you will see that a human being always tries to find meaning, it is something deeply rooted within us. Your attempt to find a point of literature also looks like an effort in the same direction. But the world is absurd and it provides no meaning. None is possible whatsoever unless you strive to create it yourself or you deceive yourself to believe something because it is convenient.

meaning is one of the greatest enigmas of human existence that ordinary people so easily take granted for. They find meaning in every ridiculous thing - the discoveries of science and technologies, public struggles thousands of miles away from where one lives and so on and so forth. An artist tries to find it in all life around. Existentialists believe that no meaning exists (I am an existentialist myself). Yet they explore the dimensions of existence in their entirety.

You will agree that there is a lot of preaching in the world today. Even Christ, Buddha and Mother Teresa had their doubts but today everyone seems to know everything. In such times, literature provides the questions, the doubts, the doubts that matter. Barthes once said - Literature is question minus the answer. Do not theorize this because it is also on the reader to see the doubts rising within as one reads. Why writers write is a personal question to the writer and will have answers different for every writer. Literature can provide questions within a person if the person is open to questioning the world.

Till now you have always looked for a moral of the story, what is the message of the story. You have always reduced a writer, an artist to a moralizer. Oscar Wilde has aptly said - "No artist has ethical sympathies. Ethical sympathies in an artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style."

Stop looking for morality lessons of how you should be from either life or literature; only then you are living, only then you are a person of your own making.
Do you feel like questioning your own existence? Read the Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus. It might be a difficult thing to read. But try it.

A man who decides that his life is over is a far more substantial person than one who waits for death and disease to decide his fate. An even more substantial one would be one who would not care about his death. That is how most good authors live (I am not making this a rule). One fine day if they take their life, what is the big deal about it?

[dark desire]

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

futility of attempts to find meaning is one of the central themes of existential writings. Have you not read any of those?

[dark desire]

When I first read your initial post, I was appalled too like many others here. But then I realized that you are articulating things so well. A person who actually believes what you have written would never write this.

So there was enigma in your writing. I am happy and proud that I could see it. But there is a lot that is right in front of your eye and you are not seeing it.

Your happy life has become meaningless while you tried and even enjoyed extracting meaning from everything you could read. I envy you for all that you probably have read. I am way behind you in reading. I am a person of technical education. Back in my concluding years of my education I blamed my education too. The flaws in technical education were easier to see, I suppose, than those in literary education.

Your crisis is having too much meaning in your life. Under so much meaning, your existence is highly burdened. I am sure a lot of people look at you with utmost positive regard. While I am not telling you to destroy that, I ask you to challenge it. Whoever thinks positively of you, ask them for what they truthfully think of you and you will find an answer that does not match what your own experience of yourself is.

This should bother you. More than anything else. It is all these perceptions about you to which you cater to all the time that have taken you away from having any pleasures of your own - one of the reasons why you do not enjoy literature.

That voice, that self within you that has come out so eloquently in this post is otherwise suppressed in your happy life. Now I am not preaching you anything. I am just asking you to embrace the crisis that your life is. Throw it out on people. Ask people in your life about things that do not make any sense to you, things that baffle you. You need to pay more attention to your life than to literature and books and even writing and your theories. The way you had the courage (or stupidity) to ask this question on a literature forum, you need the same in your life.

Life has no meaning although this is not your present experience. You live for a lot of things even if they do not make much sense to you. If you will move your life a little bit closer to the edge, a place from where the edge is visible, you will see how everything, including literature will come to life. Even your creative writing will spring to life. People might end up calling YOU a crackpot and to your surprise you may like it too. I did.

It has been fascinating reading this thread that exists because of your creative effort. One advice - Read Roland Barthes. His writings are beyond the realm of meaning. With your experience, you will be able to understand him.

Now I will read this thread beyond your second reply. :P

[Declan]

I'm not sure how one comes upon the idea that writers are flops as human beings. I wouldn't be confident enough to say that about any human being. Maybe a remorseless murderer. A flop as a human being? Those writers were loved by worthwhile people, so the writers weren't flops to them. That word flop! It's something I don't ascribe to, writers or otherwise.

Another part of your idea appears to me to relate to how factual writing is more truthful than fictional. Any writing that attempts to be more than a very, very basic report of simple occurences involves personally-charged judgements - that's a perspective, and there is no difference with how that is employed between a writer of history or a writer of fiction. If there's one thing the literature that's out there shows, it's that the more talented minds, when it comes to writing, veer towards fictional writing, since the majority of eloquent writing is fiction or poetry. It seems to let the imagination go at life more freely, which seems to let more truth in, compared to more tightly-reined, less imaginative writing that adheres less to insight and more to the basic reporting.

Fiction is well worth reading: it gives pleasure and gives lots of other extremely plausible, reliable viewpoints on life. It doesn't require analysis to see the rich, elegant perspectives offered have their golden grains of truth. The writing with something original to say rises to the top and is intelligently appreciated.

Beautifully written fiction and poetry that only the talented, insightful few can write, doesn't need any defending. The beauty of the things are their own defence. This whole argument, I don't know if there's any water at the bottom of this particular well.

[dark desire]

"Life has no meaning save the one you give it" is a quote I like.



I guess you are trying to find out what meaning You can give to Your life.





Anyways, let's try and move this on: I've gone beyond thinking reading fiction is pointless to realising that it's daft to expect too much from it and that that's the pointless bit. I guess I get frustrated 'cos it's such a trumpeted thing whereas I see it mostly as distraction and in many cases the work of people who haven't even begun to figure out the basics about living a happy human life, which is generally all that anybody wants. Sylvia Plath, Virginia Woolf, James Joyce, Ernest Hemingway - I don't give a monkeys that they had a way with words, they were all flops as human beings as far as I'm concerned.



Can you tell me one person who succeeded in figuring out the basics of living a happy human life? On the same point, why don't you give it a shot considering that you believe such a thing as "basics of living a happy human life" exists?




Though, having never met them, that may be a little harsh: perhaps they were lovely, kind people in person and the suicidal tendencies and substance abuse could have been...nah, there's no excuse for that:



There lies your very own personal fear of death.




not if you're making yourself out as a purveyor of wisdom. But then are they? And are people even looking at them in that way? I just can't separate the author from their work, and if the author's mind is one that dwelled in hell, I don't really feel much of a need to follow them there, through their words.


I have never read a book by Hemingway, Joyce, Woolf or Plath that said or even hinted that they were purveying wisdom. On the other hand, consider everything that has been preached to you through books (or otherwise) under this Oscar Wilde's quote:

A moralizing man is a hypocrite, a moralizing woman is plain.

Religion was not been established by its founders to moralize man into happy living. Those who ruled the houses of religion after the passing of the prophets used religion to establish power (that was the point of religion and it is largely the point of religion even today). Religion was meant to liberate. Everyone who thinks of a larger social order without actually contributing to it in a very visible way is a hypocrite deceiving himself.

You have to look for your own wisdom (I don't believe such a thing exists though and I think you will agree), your own way and that in a dashing style and not in dull mundane abstract rules.

By the way, I have utmost regards for all the four writers you mentioned above. They had beautiful experiences and I am grateful that they looked for words to express them. I place that hard work above any conquests by the Napoleons and Genghis Khans of this world.



And what are words anyway? Mere utterances and sophisticated grunts that stand in the place of thoughts and feelings, always at least one or two steps beyond the impulse behind them. I guess it's the impulse that interests me. The tree behind the apple - and the ground beneath the tree.


It's a pity indeed that your words always lag behind your impulses. Have you ever considered this to be an outcome of your over-analytic habits?



Sheet: maybe I should make up a story and put all this in the mouths of characters and see if I can't work it out that way. ;-)


I doubt if you can put this much hard work. But if you can manage to do that I assure you that you will not need this discussion thread at all.



But, c'mon, the distraction hypothesis has gotta be worth looking at - though maybe not here.


After a certain age everything every man does on earth is to distract himself from from the certainty of his death. Your frustration stems from the beautiful completeness of your distraction away from your own eventual demise.



Who among a literary community wants to stand up and say, yep, I just read to get away from my own inner-being 'cos I don't know what life's really for? Who wants to admit that their intellectualism is just mind games to keep their mind busy from seeing what their mind is really like?


Why should one do that? To prove something that solely exists in your mind?



I read - sorry, tried to read - a book on critical literary theory the other day - but, I swear, every page I turned to all I could find was gobbledygook dressed up in fancy sentences and the only thing I got from it - from every single of the varied authors and contributors - was, man, these people need to get a life.


How did you come to the conclusion that they do not have life? From your own lack of understanding of their work?



Imagine that that's what turns you on, tossing over and making up theories about something so abstract as another man's fleeting fictions and dreams. It boggles the braincogs.


It must have felt really nice getting to vent your frustration like this! But be a little aware of what you are talking man! You criticized the purpose of reading literature, you criticized Nobel Prize winners, then you go on to criticize cultural critics.

I am curious why do you care so much about literature and all this? Why did you read critical literary theory? What made you pick that up while you so clearly hate literature? And ultimately what made you write that long initial post on this thread? I am sure it is more than a Creative Writing MA submission.

[Declan]

Dark Desire, if you think it's more than a creative writing submission, you should say what you think it is, otherwise you leave the reader hanging for no reason. If you don't say it because you've no clear idea yourself or you think the idea you have is paranoid, then why mention your suspicion in the first place, as to why the thread-starter made the initial long post?

[dark desire]

Declan,
The idea is that Rubsley is confused and he has more on his mind than he is saying. I am provoking him to come up with something deeper inside him instead of his superficial judgments and arguments. I think there is more to him than these 60 something posts express. If I write what I think, that will undo the intent of my post. Wait till he responds.

[Declan]

We're all confused and have more on all our minds than we say. I liked your intial response to him, when you said he couldn't have written that thread in that way if he really believed what he was saying, as there is an aspect of thoughtfulness and logical clarity to his expression. That's a good point; you really pointed out the strength of his writing.

[Declan]

.....

[Declan]

.....

[kelby_lake]

Another part of your idea appears to me to relate to how factual writing is more truthful than fictional. Any writing that attempts to be more than a very, very basic report of simple occurences involves personally-charged judgements - that's a perspective, and there is no difference with how that is employed between a writer of history or a writer of fiction.

I agree. It is delusional to think that non-fiction is more truthful than fiction simply because it purports to be so. Writers of fiction are ironically more truthful because they believe that they are pretending. The comfort in being able to deny the truth of their work allows them to write more truthfully.

[rubsley]

I've been quiet: s'only because I haven't been online much. Will continue and correspond soon.

Cheers! :-)