Guilt about reading fiction

[Lykren]

A while back I was talking with my neighbor, who was excitedly telling me about the book he was reading - Bill Bryson's The Mother Tongue. He happily told me all about how he was learning about the interesting etymologies of various words, how Shakespeare had changed the language, and so on. Then he said, "and the great thing is, it's all true, so you don't feel guilty about reading it."

I didn't respond to that comment then, but I have to ask you guys: have you ever encountered such a bizarre sentiment? What could its origins possibly be? Why on earth would reading something fictive be a source of guilt? It's not as though reading about the history of the English language is helping him earn his livelihood and provide for his family - he's an electrician. So why feel better reading something 'true' than something 'not true'?

Your thoughts?

[Calidore]

I firmly believe that all reading is good and all forms of writing take skill to do well. If someone tells you that you should feel guilty for enjoying one kind of writing (or any art), that's snobbery. If someone tells you that they feel guilty for liking something, that's Stockholm Syndrome. Expand your horizons by all means, but also encourage the snobs to do the same.

[Lykren]

But what is all reading good for? In the sense that we're talking about here, reading is an end in itself, a pleasurable pastime. I've never understood the term 'guilty pleasure', because it seems like a contradiction. Doesn't the guilt cancel out the pleasure? Not that you can't feel two emotions at the same time, but doesn't one usually override the other, in such cases? I know when I'm tired of reading a book I stop, and when I'm interested and enjoying myself I continue. Is there a moral aspect to reading a book? It is a complex pleasure at times, but not, I think, a moral one.

Incidentally, from the number of people who I've heard say have 'guilty pleasures' as regards books, quite a few people must have Stockholm Syndrome. If their pleasure was to murder people, then I could understand the sense of guilt - but it's just books! What is there to feel bad about?

[kev67]

I suppose some people think they are wasting time when they read fiction. When they are reading non-fiction they feel like they are learning something.

[tonywalt]

I probably read fiction and non-fiction in equal proportion, originally I read only non-fiction. I've come to discover that literary fiction is almost invariably based on someone's experience - whether it's the writer's experience or their observation. So I've learned that there is lots to be learned from fiction.

[qimissung]

Interestingly, the new Common Core standards that have been rolling out recently in the States now require about 50% of what's read in English classes at all levels to be non-fiction.

Another thing: a question I would hear periodically from students in my English classes, usually when they really liked something, was "Is this real?" I thought it had to do with the kids I was teaching, who were from homes where reading was not generally encouraged, but I have heard it from students whose parents are well-educated, too. I found it an odd question, as though it couldn't be interesting or worthwhile unless it was real.

I don't quite know what to make of it. I like reading. I prefer to be swept away into the world created by the author, the murder mystery, the proverbial 'guilty pleasure.' I also like books that require me to think, that have a greater level of complex syntax; these I tend to read these at a slower pace. The feeling I get from the first is a release of endorphin's for my brain and a release from my daily life and any drudgery therein; from the second, it's more like I'm in a stately museum looking at various works of art, and I need to go slow to both appreciate and take it in. Guilt should not be present in either event, but I noticed as I was writing this how cliche-ridden and judgmental all the language and all the words were that we commonly use to describe the spectrum of reading available to us.

[Lykren]

Interestingly, the new Common Core standards that have been rolling out recently in the States now require about 50% of what's read in English classes at all levels to be non-fiction.

Another thing: a question I would hear periodically from students in my English classes, usually when they really liked something, was "Is this real?" I thought it had to do with the kids I was teaching, who were from homes where reading was not generally encouraged, but I have heard it from students whose parents are well-educated, too. I found it an odd question, as though it couldn't be interesting or worthwhile unless it was real.

I don't quite know what to make of it. I like reading. I prefer to be swept away into the world created by the author, the murder mystery, the proverbial 'guilty pleasure.' I also like books that require me to think, that have a greater level of complex syntax; these I tend to read these at a slower pace. The feeling I get from the first is a release of endorphin's for my brain and a release from my daily life and any drudgery therein; from the second, it's more like I'm in a stately museum looking at various works of art, and I need to go slow to both appreciate and take it in. Guilt should not be present in either event, but I noticed as I was writing this how cliche-ridden and judgmental all the language and all the words were that we commonly use to describe the spectrum of reading available to us.

I've heard about those new standards, Qimi. I'm not sure what to think of them. It seems to me that it's equally possible to write great writing that's either fiction or nonfiction, but that it is more probable that it would manifest as fiction, because those who choose to write fiction have no motive beyond having an entertaining pastime. That's really what great art is, I think: a fantastic game, one that involves the emotional centers of the self in intricate movements intended to engage and arouse those emotions in a fundamentally safe way. To do that in writing and still have it all be true is possible, I suppose, but it seems like the best writing qua writing is fictive because such objective truth as we can agree upon (enough to call objective) is merely a burden to the artist. Reality and art are non-overlapping magisteria, to steal from Gould. You can combine the two, but why that should be necessary is beyond me.

So we have to ask ourselves what the purpose of an education in literature is for. Perhaps it is intended to promote an understanding of complicated syntactical structures so that we can have future lawyers and bureaucrats who are able to navigate 'the system' effectively and so aid the progression of civilization to a higher standard of well-being.

But to expose students to writing which is great not for its ability to communicate 'objective' truth but for its ability to provoke our thoughts and feelings I would think that it is essential to prioritize fiction. I don't think that the skills necessary to create and read such writing are dying out or ever will die out; but it seems only fair to give young people the opportunity to experience for themselves beautiful writing.

I wonder whether all people are intrinsically able and inclined to sustain an interest in beauty for beauty's sake. Some may be genuinely interested in other things, and in such cases, why attempt to force them to enjoy what they can't? The study of literature needs to be an option (as it is art which makes life worthwhile for some people), but not the only one. Would it be impractical to set up a system where students have a greater ability to choose their own educational paths from an earlier age?

I've opened up a whole new can of worms, I think. But anyways, I find I'm still shocked (perhaps unfairly) by people's insistence on being attached to some notion of an overwhelming objective truth. Enough of me, though. Here's Cormac McCarthy's take on it:

"Regarding his own literary constraints when writing novels, McCarthy said he's 'not a fan of some of the Latin American writers, magical realism. You know, it's hard enough to get people to believe what you're telling them without making it impossible. It has to be vaguely plausible.'"

So it's not just those outside the arts who lean towards this worldview. As though it was ever the aim of fiction to make the reader "to believe what you're telling them"! Strange.

[nat.deezle]

to be as brief and to the point as possible..... i think people who say they feel guilty about reading fiction, or allude to it being a waste of time, are referring mostly to fictions like a James Patterson/Dean Koontz/Stephanie Meyer etc etc etc types of fiction.... Hunger Games, Divergent, Sci-Fi (though i actually do think the sci-fi genre contains a lot of insightful writing).... you know, entertainment fiction. cheap writing, in my opinion. but i think fewer and fewer publishers are pushing the contemplative, insightful, artful novel.

[Paulclem]

But to expose students to writing which is great not for its ability to communicate 'objective' truth but for its ability to provoke our thoughts and feelings I would think that it is essential to prioritize fiction. I don't think that the skills necessary to create and read such writing are dying out or ever will die out; but it seems only fair to give young people the opportunity to experience for themselves beautiful writing.

I disagree with prioritising fiction. One of the things that has grown over the past few years in education in literacy is non fiction writing. Different types of non-fiction - science, textbook, biography, blogging, history, journalistic writing etc etc require different styles and emphases to be effective. Fiction is only one aspect of reading and writing, and whilst it is important, there has been a growth in the recognition that the various non-fiction styles are not only useful but essential.

As for guilt in reading - I've come across people who don't consider fiction to be proper for learning but are merely children's stories. I think this kind of attitude definitely develops at home and is probably the result of misguided attitudes.

[Lykren]

But to expose students to writing which is great not for its ability to communicate 'objective' truth but for its ability to provoke our thoughts and feelings I would think that it is essential to prioritize fiction. I don't think that the skills necessary to create and read such writing are dying out or ever will die out; but it seems only fair to give young people the opportunity to experience for themselves beautiful writing.

I disagree with prioritising fiction. One of the things that has grown over the past few years in education in literacy is non fiction writing. Different types of non-fiction - science, textbook, biography, blogging, history, journalistic writing etc etc require different styles and emphases to be effective. Fiction is only one aspect of reading and writing, and whilst it is important, there has been a growth in the recognition that the various non-fiction styles are not only useful but essential.

Non-fiction of course is essential in a practical sense. To maintain a well-organized society, one that has the potential to develop its technology and maintain and adapt its laws, a high degree of literacy is necessary. But my point was that non-fiction, because it is constructed with such practical purposes in mind, is not as likely to be as beautiful, as enjoyable. I understand that Gibbon and Montaigne et al. are great writers but do they compare (in terms of creativity and ability to emotionally engage their readers) with Shakespeare and Joyce?

So I was saying that for the purpose of pleasure fiction should be prioritized. Whether reading for pleasure itself should be prioritized is another matter, one that might be more difficult to puzzle out.

As I said, reading is not a pleasure for all. So why foist it upon those who are unwilling? It seems to me that compulsory education tends to have a one-size-fits-all approach, despite the fact that we know this cannot work.

But back to guilt and fiction: I have a friend who grew up in a small rural village in Mexico whose parents are working-class, which is not the type of environment you would expect to foster an interest in literature. Yet he does indeed have such an interest. So I would say that that attitude is less a product of nurture than one of nature. Not that the opportunity to be introduced to literature can't change one's mind, but people's minds have to be ready to be changed, and that isn't true for all people.

[Paulclem]

Non-fiction of course is essential in a practical sense. To maintain a well-organized society, one that has the potential to develop its technology and maintain and adapt its laws, a high degree of literacy is necessary. But my point was that non-fiction, because it is constructed with such practical purposes in mind, is not as likely to be as beautiful, as enjoyable. I understand that Gibbon and Montaigne et al. are great writers but do they compare (in terms of creativity and ability to emotionally engage their readers) with Shakespeare and Joyce?

It's not just about practical books - there are very well written histories and biographies which provide a lot of pleasure. I think it is a very subjective thing. Some people read maths books and no doubt derive a lot of pleasure from them. My brother taught himself to read because of his love of boxing. In terms of emotional engagement - I would say that Beevor's account of the battle for Stalingrad was very engaging.

It's not that I'm for or against any particular kind of writing, but if you prioritise fiction on the grounds of emotional engagement, then the likelihood is that you will alienate the very people you want to engage. People engage with different things. The reasons for this are complex and difficult to ascribe. I am all for reading - any kind - particularly with children. Today's reader of comics could be tomorrow's reader of speculative fiction and then science. The reading routes we take are likely to be as individual as we are. I used to argue about the reading value in computer games. My son learnt all the names of various kinds of armour from a computer game. The same goes for the equipment lists in Call of Duty etc. It's all valuable in developing the nuts and bolts.

As I said, reading is not a pleasure for all. So why foist it upon those who are unwilling? It seems to me that compulsory education tends to have a one-size-fits-all approach, despite the fact that we know this cannot work.

Reading generally is a necessity, though I think you're still referring to reading fiction for pleasure. The thing is a person is not static, and a teenager who has never read a book, may still end up reading like the rest of us. Ideally you would want a person's education to encompass a good range of reading material, but not all of it will engage. That's not to say that in time they won't. My brother and I eagerly await the next Game of Thrones book. He's moved very much into fiction.

But back to guilt and fiction: I have a friend who grew up in a small rural village in Mexico whose parents are working-class, which is not the type of environment you would expect to foster an interest in literature. Yet he does indeed have such an interest. So I would say that that attitude is less a product of nurture than one of nature. Not that the opportunity to be introduced to literature can't change one's mind, but people's minds have to be ready to be changed, and that isn't true for all people.

Why would being working class not be the type of environment that fosters an interest in literature? Is it being in Mexico, being remote or being working class that is the barrier there? There are also many influences on people wider than their family - even if they are disinterested.

"Regarding his own literary constraints when writing novels, McCarthy said he's 'not a fan of some of the Latin American writers, magical realism. You know, it's hard enough to get people to believe what you're telling them without making it impossible. It has to be vaguely plausible.'"

So it's not just those outside the arts who lean towards this worldview. As though it was ever the aim of fiction to make the reader "to believe what you're telling them"! Strange.

I think what McCarthy is referring to here is the suspension of disbelief we have when we read a work of fiction. That suspension seems as though it would be harder than for a book of another genre, and perhaps he's targeting all those borderline readers for whom non-fiction seems more attractive. With our altered, more scientific, worldview these days, perhaps he sees it as more difficult to engage if you make that suspension more extreme.

[qimissung]

Well, my problem with the addition of non-fiction to the educational standards is that students already get non-fiction in their science, history and math classes. Actually, I often-and I know this is true of other English teachers, too-would include a non-fiction article that was similar thematically to a fiction piece that we were reading. So we were/are already doing that.

And a lot of writing in English classes is nonfiction, in that it's often a response or an analysis of something they've read, or a persuasive argument. There is very little opportunity for creative writing in the schools that I have worked in, which I think is a shame. I argued for it this year, and my friend and co-teacher did come to agree with me, although she wasn't for it originally. I understand why. Kids don't generally write well, and she didn't want to have to wade through a lot of crap.

As it turns out, the kids did a really excellent job in the fictional exercises that we gave them. I like it because it gives them an opportunity to use the literary conventions they are studying; to be on the writing end of it is kind of eye-opening, I think. My friend is really big on literary analysis. I'm for it, too, don't get me wrong, but to only do that year in and year out could lead to some serious burn-out, I think.

[Ecurb]

It seems to me that the English curriculum is designed to improve students' reading and writing skills, and to introduce them to "literature". When I went to High School, we studied fiction, but wrote essays. This seemed ridiculous. How can you learn to write essays if you don't read them? I'll grant that if students are expected to write stories, it makes sense to read stories. However, in order to write essays (I remember we wrote essays about fiction), one must read them.

As for the introduction to literature portion of the class, it makes sense to introduce the basic genres: novels, short stories, poems, essays (criticism), history and biography. I'll agree that if history and biography is taught in history class, English class could skip those forms. Unfortunately, the text books most history classes use are not good introductions to these literary genres.

[Paulclem]

Well, my problem with the addition of non-fiction to the educational standards is that students already get non-fiction in their science, history and math classes. Actually, I often-and I know this is true of other English teachers, too-would include a non-fiction article that was similar thematically to a fiction piece that we were reading. So we were/are already doing that.

And a lot of writing in English classes is nonfiction, in that it's often a response or an analysis of something they've read, or a persuasive argument. There is very little opportunity for creative writing in the schools that I have worked in, which I think is a shame. I argued for it this year, and my friend and co-teacher did come to agree with me, although she wasn't for it originally. I understand why. Kids don't generally write well, and she didn't want to have to wade through a lot of crap.

As it turns out, the kids did a really excellent job in the fictional exercises that we gave them. I like it because it gives them an opportunity to use the literary conventions they are studying; to be on the writing end of it is kind of eye-opening, I think. My friend is really big on literary analysis. I'm for it, too, don't get me wrong, but to only do that year in and year out could lead to some serious burn-out, I think.

I think all the forms of writing are important for different reasons, and I certainly wouldn't stop teaching creative writing. I also think that the other non fiction forms also need teaching and I doubt that a science or maths teacher would be able to teach the appropriate structure of non fiction writing in the way that an english teacher like yourself would.

My main point about Lykren was that they seemed to think that only creative fiction could elicit an emotional response. This is untrue, but if you take the line that fiction should be prioritised over non-fiction - however good and sterling work you do, there will be individuals who will not engage, and who would be better engaged in a piece of political writing or a newspaper article about an issue they felt passionately about. ( I use that as an example but there are others such as history, instructional pamphlets, graphic novels etc etc).

In class at school - we were streamed and all were conscientious pupils -very few of the boys in the class I was in read any of the books we studied. There were no real checks - it was just expected that we would. The book I remember reading was Lord of the Rings, but in declaring that he hadn't read any of it, my mate told me he had never read any book. Had the teacher known that, how would he have engaged him? (Not at all I suspect as our teachers weren't very good). He might have with a different type of book - some non fiction perhaps.

[Lykren]

I don't think that nonfiction can't elicit an emotional response. I do think that fiction is better at doing so because its creators can focus solely on evoking emotions, whereas writers of nonfiction are distracted by the necessity of telling the truth.

[qimissung]

to be as brief and to the point as possible..... i think people who say they feel guilty about reading fiction, or allude to it being a waste of time, are referring mostly to fictions like a James Patterson/Dean Koontz/Stephanie Meyer etc etc etc types of fiction.... Hunger Games, Divergent, Sci-Fi (though i actually do think the sci-fi genre contains a lot of insightful writing).... you know, entertainment fiction. cheap writing, in my opinion. but i think fewer and fewer publishers are pushing the contemplative, insightful, artful novel.


Agreed, Nat. Another good example of that was that Fifty Shades novel that came out a few years ago, the very epitome of a guilty pleasure. I like mysteries, but I don't think I could ever bring myself to read another book by James Patterson (I regretfully admit to reading at least one)-he apparently doesn't even write them. How is that even allowed? :p

[qimissung]

I think all the forms of writing are important for different reasons, and I certainly wouldn't stop teaching creative writing. I also think that the other non fiction forms also need teaching and I doubt that a science or maths teacher would be able to teach the appropriate structure of non fiction writing in the way that an english teacher like yourself would.

My main point about Lykren was that they seemed to think that only creative fiction could elicit an emotional response. This is untrue, but if you take the line that fiction should be prioritised over non-fiction - however good and sterling work you do, there will be individuals who will not engage, and who would be better engaged in a piece of political writing or a newspaper article about an issue they felt passionately about. ( I use that as an example but there are others such as history, instructional pamphlets, graphic novels etc etc).

In class at school - we were streamed and all were conscientious pupils -very few of the boys in the class I was in read any of the books we studied. There were no real checks - it was just expected that we would. The book I remember reading was Lord of the Rings, but in declaring that he hadn't read any of it, my mate told me he had never read any book. Had the teacher known that, how would he have engaged him? (Not at all I suspect as our teachers weren't very good). He might have with a different type of book - some non fiction perhaps.

I regret that it's taken these several posts of yours, Paul, to finally figure out what you're getting at! :p And I think you have a point.

I have never really understood why English gets such a bad rap for "ruining" reading. Something I took to telling my students was that what we did in an English class was different from the reading that you did on your own. Of course there's always been the idea that there are different kinds of reading, but I have never thought that kids really get the purpose of an English class. No one talks about biology or history ruining it for kids.

So I always tried to make sure they understood that we were reading a particular work because it contained themes that were considered universal and that in the class they would be given tools that would help them analyze whatever it was the author was trying to say.

In the sense your talking about, if I had a class full of kids who were unengaged, I would definitely try to find something that captured their imagination. Usually after a few years, we could usually find something that they generally liked. Romeo and Juliet was usually a good one (with an up to date translation), and Of Mice and Men.

When I was showing students how to write a persuasive argument we had two essays, a pro and a con, that we had the kids read on the death penalty. Those were usually pretty riveting. Then we had them do research and write their own argument. Another time I found an article about a family whose baby was going to die. They lived in Canada and they wanted to bring him home to die. The Canadian authorities would not allow this, so they appealed to the United States, who let them come here. Then we wrote a persuasive essay, either pro or con, their choice, on that.

I've found that having kids produce some kind of written work in tandem with whatever we are reading is also helpful in engaging their interest.

I also insisted that my students read at least one book outside of class each semester. It may seem rather outdated to do that, but when I taught at the inner city school I discovered that they did not actually know how to even choose a book for themselves. It usually took them by the second book to figure out that they couldn't simply rely on the cover and the title, aphorisms to the contrary notwithstanding. :D I'm teaching part time at a private school right now, and the kids there also do not read outside of class. Their vocabularies are somewhat limited. And their excuse is that they don't have time. Which sadly, is probably true. They are very busy kids. I'm making the younger ones do book reports. We've done a different kind each time. The first was based on Bloom's Taxonomy; the second was a traditional book review; this last time they are going to write a script for a reader's theater and then present it to the class. Their very excited about it. And they've seemed to enjoy their books. A win-win.

[mona amon]

I don't think that nonfiction can't elicit an emotional response. I do think that fiction is better at doing so because its creators can focus solely on evoking emotions, whereas writers of nonfiction are distracted by the necessity of telling the truth.

Not all fiction engages the reader emotionally, so when you come across someone who feels guilty about reading fiction, they are probably just guilty about frittering away their time on something not really worthwhile. I had a lecturer in college who said she used to 'read a lot' but had stopped all that escapist stuff and was now only reading non fiction related to the social issues she was interested in. She was a social activist, and found it more useful and interesting than the fiction she was reading at the time (stuff like Airport and Hotel by Arthur Hailey). But a little later she was back to reading fiction - important Tamil works - and no more complaints about reading being a waste of time.

[qimissung]

Ha! I remember Airport! That book was fun. Interestingly, I felt less guilty about reading stuff like that then than I do now.

[mona amon]

Me too, Qim! I used to read Arthur Hailey, Leon Uris, James Michener - and I felt they were really good. My favourite was Erich Segal's Love Story, over which I shed many tears. :)

[qimissung]

I remember what a huge hit that was. I read that book, too. For some reason, it's the movie version that inspires my emotional memories. I wept when I saw it. I think young girls today would still like either the book or the movie. Or both.

[Pierre Menard]

But my point was that non-fiction, because it is constructed with such practical purposes in mind, is not as likely to be as beautiful, as enjoyable. I understand that Gibbon and Montaigne et al. are great writers but do they compare (in terms of creativity and ability to emotionally engage their readers) with Shakespeare and Joyce?



Absolutely they compare. Without doubt in my mind. I simply have to disagree in general with the notion that they aren't as beautiful or as enjoyable as fictional works. Some of the most beautiful and interesting works I've ever read have been non-fiction.

[qimissung]

I don't know that I disagree, necessarily, but can you give us some examples?

I can think of a few essays, notably the two Death of a Moth essays by Virginia Woolf and Annie Dillard. What else?