Would I waste time reading only fiction?

[gustave dore]

I've been told that I should stick to non-fiction if I'm going to read, because then I would learn something. I want to learn so much, but I love fiction above all else and would prefer to read that since time is so short. What do you guys suggest?

[prendrelemick]

I would say don't restrict yourself in any way, knowledge is embedded in fiction. More than that, people who read widely know stuff, they have ideas and can think for themselves.

[bounty]

I agree with prendrelemick and at the same time id add---in so much as I consider fiction an art form, its not only about "knowledge" but about an enriched and fuller life.

am curious if the person (people?) who told you that only watch documentaries and don't listen to music?

[JCamilo]

Just call "non fiction" any book you read and liked. It is quite a lesson.

[Vota]

I would posit that anyone that claims you should only read non-fiction is incredibly short sighted. There are many great books from all genres. Hell, you can read the science fiction novel "Dune" and come across ecology, economics, war, philosophy etc. Many great works of fiction can be very deep, and provide a lot of food for thought.

Read what you want, but if you find yourself only sticking to one genre then in wouldn't hurt to branch out.

[lichtrausch]

Nobody would think of telling you that if you're going to watch movies, you should only watch documentary films so that you learn something. Their advice is based on a distorted view of what reading is all about. By all means read widely, but don't feel the need to restrict yourself to only non-fiction.

[North Star]

I've been told that I should stick to non-fiction if I'm going to read, because then I would learn something. I want to learn so much, but I love fiction above all else and would prefer to read that since time is so short. What do you guys suggest?
I suggest that the person who told you that is full of all sorts of four letter words. Obviously if you want to get a a PhD in biology, reading just fiction will not do. But there is plenty to be learned from reading Homer, Shakespeare, Camus, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RCFLobfqcw

[wreade1872]

I've been told that I should stick to non-fiction if I'm going to read, because then I would learn something. I want to learn so much, but I love fiction above all else and would prefer to read that since time is so short. What do you guys suggest?

You probably misheard, reading non-fiction can't possibly do you any good, you want non-fiction watch television documentaries. Reading is only of use if its fiction.
Non-fiction is just facts, or at least some persons version of facts. Fiction presents realities of strange shapes forcing the mind to see things from different perspectives and therefore giving us a lot to think about. Non-fiction gives nothing, it requires no effort of thinking only of memory. The only non-fiction i read are a handful of biographies and those are usually just to get further incites into the minds of fiction writers.

[ennison]

You should read widely and what you like. Ignore all advice

[tonywalt]

I read only non-fiction for years()and ALOT) - then began reading fiction. It awakened alot of creative thinking, and writing as well. It was quite a good choice for a history/political buff!

[Eiseabhal]

I think it is quite common to go on binges of one or the other or of individual authors Tony. And I think you're correct to say it stimulates different parts of the brain. I read a lot, especially in the Winter. Some years it's been mainly non-fiction. Some years two or three authors. I borrow from the local library a lot. It has a good selection of non-fiction.

[MANICHAEAN]

I've come across a few individuals who only read text books, and limited company they are.

[Bicycle1711]

I say read whatever you like. Who cares what genre as long as you enjoy it.

[Trevor Gower]

For years I read no fiction or poetry at all, just history, economics, and philosophy, which were my tastes. Eventually, once I pushed far enough through my studies in philosophy, I came out the other side absolutely craving poetry, and shortly afterwards literature in general. It was as if I had to work through enough of my own mind and view before I could really appreciate what many authors are doing with their work. Ludwig Wittgenstein, widely considered the most important philosopher of the 20th century, believed that, at the end of the day, literature and poetry were forms absolutely essential for getting at deep philosophical investigations and expanding the mind.

Oscar Wilde and Nietzsche both proposed that much of history has really just been a form of literature; read Plutarch or Thucydides, and see if you can sort fiction from non-fiction. Then apply the same considerations to any text of history, whether it's overtly literary (Vidal's Burr or Lincoln) or nominally empirical.

[Eiseabhal]

A healthy diet of reading needs variety just like a healthy diet of food.

[togre]

I agree with Eiseahbal. Variety. I'm suspicious of people who use 'always,' 'only' or 'never' too much.

I try to mix what I read: Some fiction, some nonfiction. Some styles/authors/subjects I am familiar with, some that are new to me. Some things I like/find enjoyable/easy, some things that challenge me.

Of course you're going to read more of what you know and like. That's fine. But to step outside that now and then expands your foundations. It can make you appreciate what you already like more thoroughly or in different ways. It can even help you discover something you never knew you liked.

[WyattGwyon]

Anyone who thinks one cannot learn from reading fiction has a limited concept of learning.