/lit/ - Literature

>>23076373
what's up with all the fiction-hating chuds lately? just don't read it, who cares.

>>23076373
>retard tries to say something smart, ends up sounding retarded
many such cases

>>23076383
I don't hate fiction, I just asked a question
I read fiction often
>>23076386
what was retarded?

>>23076389
>what was retarded?
All of it, the whole thing.

>>23076393
Can you give a specific example? An answer like this comes off as avoidant

>>23076389
>Fiction at its best is brain washing.

>>23076401
All you did is quote me.
Can you explain how this is retarded? What is the point of participating in a disagreement if you aren't going to substantiate what you say

>>23076373
Everything is fiction. Also you've made this shit thread 12 hours ago.
>>23074743
It won't be any better this time.

>>23076418
its already better though
now what do you have to say

>>23076418
>Everything is fiction
Is this post fiction?
if yes then I will comfortably disregard it
If no then its disproven itself and I will comfortably disregard it

blowing tf out of pseuds 101

>several posts saying I"m retarded
>no explanations why
is this the power of fiction reading?

>>23076373
Self help is also trash, real chads are history buffs. You learn by reading about what worked and what didn’t.

>>23076664
>You learn by reading about what worked and what didn’t.
how is that different from a good self help book
what works and what doesn't.

>>23076373
if this is your chart you should include a book about autism because i think it might help you understand why you have this view

there's no such thing as non-fiction

>>23076408
Okay fine, I'll bite. You start by saying that fiction is brainwashing, with the conclusion that it is only for midwits, but then while doing so you manage to gargle out a list of nonfiction books with the implication that they're good...because they're less brainwashing?

Which, by the way, is complete bullshit. The great authors of fiction only got to where they were at because they were able to craft and tell stories that were not only engaging, but also contained profound reading that was accessible for non-retards. There's an extreme level of intelligence that the so-called greats possess in terms of storytelling as well as the insights they can provide. It is as much brainwashing as you trying to take council from your friends or family, only the council and lessons taught via fictional stories are often much harder to get to. You seem to think that is bad, which tells me you're either illiterate or generally retarded and lack the mental aptitude to comprehend fiction.
The idea that fiction is more brainwashing than non-fiction is utterly asinine, especially given the fact that your list of books is full of authors who feel the need to assert their credentials in bold font on the title. Why is this? Maybe one reason is that they have zero faith that their thoughts will withstand scrutiny unless they're propped up by an MD or PhD. But because they have managed to water down their messages enough for you where you can actually understand what they're saying, it is "le GOOD". It's not to say that these works aren't valuable, but they are only as good as the facts and arguments they can support. The care taken to write a good non-fiction book is fundamentally lower, and less interesting generally, than the considerations taken to write fiction. This is also coming from a guy who reads non-fiction way more than fiction. There's a reason why these books are among best sellers for midwit business bros who are just looking to find something to talk about with their friends at work after wearing down the term "synergy".
Sure there's a lot of shit fiction thanks mainly to YA authors but if we are comparing the potential quality and effort required to write either, fiction has a far higher ceiling.

>>23077456
Why do people keep saying things like this without explaining?
I'm actually believing I'm right but just making you guys feel bad for reading fiction :(

>>23077493
>because they're less brainwashing?
um I said
>Nonfiction on the other hand is still brainwashing, but it is straightforward.
not even gonna read the rest if you couldn't make your opening honest then the rest is probably tripe too

>>23077502
I forgot that I need to water down my points for you because you don't read anything that doesn't explicitly order it all out.
I took your original post to mean that nonfiction was somehow better because it brainwashed to some lesser extent than fiction. If this isnt the case, the entire implication of your argument based off of what you just said is that fiction has no place in the library for an "intellectual" because it's more complex brainwashing. Because intellectuals don't like complex thoughts?

you do not live in isolation, other people, believe it or not, have an influence over your life. and 99% of them dont read your stupid self improvement shit made just to sell you more stuff. if you learn to notice how other people might think, you will gain a much better control over your life. bonus points, fiction is interesting and valuable.
books on those list could probably be condensed to like, idk, 10-15 pages? but they also have other stuff in it to make you believe theres a good point in why this book tries to act you one way and not the other. whats the point of whole bible if you only need 10 commandments?
the fiction immitates real life and by getting into this fictional world, if its written well, you might also guess stuff before they happen, and you get instant feedback how well do you understand that world, while not being spoonfed like a tard
schizo rant off but dear god you think you sound much smarter than you actually are

>>23076373
I agree with everyone else calling you retarded but why youre retarded is because your definition of fiction and nonfiction is shallow and based on you seeing those exclusively as means to ends, the ends being an understanding or a deeper understanding of how to act or perform. Youre ignoring artistry (inability to idenity and appreciate; youre a retard) and abstractness/ambiguity (inability to process the nonmaterial world; youre retarded). Also, its incredibly embarrassing to call yourself an intellectual and also say that you have to try hard to extract meaning, something that most do innately while reading fiction. I doubt an intellectual would refuse to broaden their horizons by disregarding one of the largest categories of art, something intellectually minded people are concerned with, to instead exclusively be spoonfed instructions on how to live. Forget intellectuals, most capable people Ive met learned all that shit authentically by going outside and dealing with other people and institutions, they wouldn't need to read how someone else did it. All I get from your post is that youve read but were too retarded to do it correctly, you should either look into attending a high school english class or finding the book that helps you commit suicide the fastest.

This anon again
>>23077493
Apologies for calling you a retard. This may possibly be the case but it is more likely that you are lazy. I am sorry if I got it wrong.
I am extremely successful at my work, in my personal life, and in school. I have never felt the need to get into the self-help genre because like >>23077549 said, successful people just do things that make them successful rather than obsessing about the success of others. It is genuinely much more worthwhile for me at this point to read about the types of struggles that can only really be found in fiction, or at least be presented in an sort of an appealing way. That is where I feel the most challenged and where I benefit the most.V2SHN

>>23077563
The best self help book there is is literally the Bible. Anything more than this is inevitably redundant.

>>23077522
>I forgot that I need to water down my points for you because you don't read anything that doesn't explicitly order it all out.
No you need to represent my points fairly
>I took your original post to mean that nonfiction was somehow better because it brainwashed to some lesser extent than fiction.
so you took it to mean something that I didn't say
>because it's more complex brainwashing
you're deliberately misinterpreting what I said in order to make it seem retarded and it discourages me from interacting with you
It isn't that fiction is "complex" I'm asking why is it necessary or preferable as a "truth/meaning teaching" mechanism as opposed to nonfiction because nonfiction is straightforward

>>23077549
>Youre ignoring artistry (inability to idenity and appreciate; youre a retard) and abstractness/ambiguity (inability to process the nonmaterial world; youre retarded)
Those fall under culture
>Also, its incredibly embarrassing to call yourself an intellectual
I did not. I'm not an intellectual.

>>23077577
i could explain but that would require shitton of my time, or i can just say "read cats cradle"
thats self improvement for me on how to deal with people like you

>>23077590
I think you and everyone else are just taking my criticism of fiction personally because you enjoy it

so much of your points are skin deep name calling or blatant misrepresentations

I only feel more secure in my criticism of fiction than I did before

>>23077577
There's beauty and complexity in fiction. It's not just about extracting meaning, it's also a form of artistic expression and enjoyment thar you just don't get from "RULES FOR LIFE". If you really need that shit, be my guest, but if you take it to your grave that this is the peak value of literature, you will suffer a terribly short-lived existence.

>>23077602
I agree with everything you said
I think you should read the OP more carefully because I can't even tell what exactly you're arguing against

>>23077598
im not what i consume, i am who i am, saying that my whole existence is so deeply connected with what others have written looks more like your own projections onto others
considering you so strongly advocate on side of these nonfiction books on how to be a person only strenghtens my point

>>23077615
>saying that my whole existence is so deeply connected with what others have written looks more like your own projections onto others
Huh?
>considering you so strongly advocate on side of these nonfiction books on how to be a person
because their advice is more clear and straightforward
not that that (hate English sometimes) makes them better than fiction in itself, obviously there are some fiction books that demonstrate the truth better than some nonfiction books, but if you took both at their best, I'd think nonfiction does it more efficiently.

>>23077604
Fine, let me spell it out:
>At its worse, its just mindless stories that exist solely to entertain.
Insane point of view and directly addressed by the above point. If you sincerely believe that fiction is just fluff solely to entertain, you don't understand it. That's that.
>You could extract meaning from them if you try hard enough, but its unlikely to reveal anything profound that isn't extrapolated on more deeply elsewhere.
Fundamentally untrue, and makes clear that you don't understand fiction. Read Dostoyevsky please.
>Nonfiction on the other hand is still brainwashing, but it is straightforward
Implying that straightforward is good otherwise you wouldn't be contrasting this. Even if this were good, you can repeat life lessons all day but simply saying words, even if they're true, is not the measure of good literature. Fiction is great in that many of its lessons CAN be simple in nature, but it's the way in which which stories are woven together that make those beautiful.
>Is there any place for fiction in the reading list of an intellectual, other than leisure or culture
Yes. This is what we have been addressing. Of course you're using deliberately vague language to backpeddle with each response. If you're solely going for practical value, fiction still has significant worth in providing additional evidence and precedent for key lessons and truths about life. Fiction is better equipped to address problems of faith and existence than non-fiction alternatives anyways, which lack the evidence or education to speak about those as much as, say, Dostoyevsky or Tolstoy.

>>23077639
>If you sincerely believe that fiction is just fluff solely to entertain, you don't understand it
I said at its worse
If YOU sincerely believe there isn't some fiction that is campy drivel then you do you
>Read Dostoyevsky please.
dude..... those points were specifically describing fiction at its worse.... which does not describe Dostoyevsky... My gosh I fucking cant with you dishonest, illiterate fucks

>>23077602
>>23077598
>>23077587
>>23077577
Respond to these 2
>>23077563
>>23077571

If your argument is "This genre of literature is better than the other because it is more explicit in its instruction (simply handout the information that they are trying to give the reader) than a complex idea which has to be analyzed deliberately (You could extract meaning from them if you try hard enough)", it's honestly a personal problem. Understand that representing truths in fiction is efficient because the author can implicate with writing techniques what has to be spelled out literally and explicitly in non-fiction, therefore doing more with less. Its because of this that fiction is considered to present truths better than reality. If explicitness and clarity of understanding of truths and ideas are you're concerned about, address the points here and here
>>23077563
>>23077549
that validates the idea that the most efficient, explicit, and literal way to learn these truths is to go and do shit instead of reading books about it.

>>23077659
>I said at its worse [sic]

>>23077659
Then why the fuck did you not specify the worst fiction instead of drawing into question its placement in an "intellectual's" library? You made no effort to claim quality when you described fictuon "at its best", admitting that although both fiction and nonfiction are brainwashing, only listing the strengths of nonfiction. Fiction either has a place or it doesn't. At this rate I could also dismiss all of nonfiction because of the sheer quantity of nonfiction shit that also floods the market. If you are saying the Dostoyevsky DOES have a place in an intellectuals library then you have just admitted that everyone arguing against you in favor of it is right.

>>23077623
well then, tell me how to efficiently be a human. if youre going to die anyways, kill yourself and save us some of valuable resources in the name of optimization of life, if thats all you care about

oh wait, you dont want to kill yourself? why? but that doesnt make any sense, why should your life be a lenghty chore of suffering and work if you can OPTIMIZE? youre saying theres more to life? hapiness? the stuff people might feel when they read, idk, fiction?

>Fiction at its best is brain washing.
>Fiction at its best is brain washing.
Fiction at its best is brain washing.
>Fiction at its best is brain washing.
Fiction at its best is brain washing.
>Fiction at its best is brain washing.
Fiction at its best is brain washing.
>Fiction at its best is brain washing.
Fiction at its best is brain washing.
>Fiction at its best is brain washing.
Fiction at its best is brain washing.

>>23077667
I'm responding to the part anon quoted, you moron
yes at its worse, follow the conversation
>>23077673
calm down
>>23077674
what the fuck are you talking about dude?
>>23077665
na, pick one and I'll reply to it

>>23077691
I'm glad that we inevitably have agreed that fiction has significantly more artistic merit than non-fiction, is able to speak about spiritual and metaphysical matters more effectively, and deserves a place in the library of an intellectual
/thread

>>23077704
>more effectively
this is the only thing I'd dispute
why would it be more effective than the straightforward nature of nonfiction attempting to describe the same phenomena?

>>23077421
Because self help is opinions, history is fact.

>>23077691
>At its worse, entertainment.
>At its best, brainwashing.
Is that your claim?

>>23077709
because retards like you exist and you wouldnt last a second with kant, meanwhile many ideas that he came up with can be explained easily by stories of real life

>>23077709
retard I spelled it out quite explicitly here
>>23077665

>>23077710
>history is fact.
>>23077715
why would a retard like me be better served by a Dostoevsky novel as opposed to a well reviewed primer on Kant

>>23077709
Engagement and storytelling are more effective tools. Think for a moment about a child. What could be more effective: to simply tell him that stealing is wrong or to tell me a story about what happens if you steal?

>>23076373
There is no place for either. Stop reading. You are already brainwashed beyond repair.

>>23077722
Yes thats the problem
its for children
its something that adults should at some point grow out of. We don't need to be tricked into believing things anymore, authors can just tell us.

>>23077731
It's for everyone. Storytelling is in general better than plain facts. This has been proven.

I got quints so I won :P

>>23077731
no? you can read it and think "that was dumb" or "that was smart"
by arguing with us in this post you prove that you have some form of critical thinking, albeit very primitive, so you should at least understand that point

>>23076373
midwit cope, fiction is for patricians, nonfiction can be interesting if it's a subject you like but all philosophy is things you should have figured out yourself if you're like 25 or older. a story with relatable characters and overarching themes on the way of the world and meaning of life is peak literature and you are a retarded niggerfaggot if you disagree

>>23076373
is this sounds like something Young Sheldon would say

>>23077741
>Storytelling is in general better than plain facts
if thats true, then thats an indictment of our ability to comprehend information. It isn't a good thing
>>23077742
> you can read it and think "that was dumb" or "that was smart"
how is that better than nonfiction? how is it better to analyze the intelligence of fake people playing out a fake scenario that 1 dude invented in his head, as opposed to analyzing the intelligence of real life people and real historical events?

>>23077764
>if thats true, then thats an indictment of our ability to comprehend information. It isn't a good thing
Humans are story-brained and always will be. We have told stories in the caves and we are telling them now. Even lots of so-called non-fiction has a narrative structure. This isn't a flaw, it's how our nature works.

>>23077731
do you think the humand mind is more accommodated in grasping abstract thoughts of others or getting stimuli from the enviroment and then learning from that? gee if there was only a way to simulate these kinds of stimuli...

The reason hollywood inserts so much progressive/lgbt bullshit is because fiction is a useful vessel to get npc's to believe anything
nonfiction is more boring sure, but thats a flaw on our part not on nonficton.
that bullshit weasels into nonfiction too, but its a lot easier to see through than "oh boy, all these colored trannies sure are upstanding human beings in this netflix special :)"

>>23077784
Its funny how the other anon called me primitive, but you're here saying "caveman tell story, me tell story"
I happen to believe we could do better if we wanted to. I'm not saying fiction will be the death of the world or anything, I'm just saying it isn't ideal, or at least it shouldn't be and doesn't need to be. Its like saying "well suffering is in our nature, its just something thats always gonna be there" like ok fine but lets do better if we can
>gee if there was only a way to simulate these kinds of stimuli...
thats the best point anyone has made IMO, but you'd need to place trust in the author that he or she is simulating it well. and most authors I think don't. You also need trust that authors of nonfiction aren't lying or incorrect but that is much simpler to test or argue over.

>>23077709
Because telling someone the meaning of life or of morality or of faith does relatively nothing compared with bringing them with you on journeys that explore that. There are some stories from real people that, well told, are successful at doing this, but when we are looking at the extent of historic literature that has had the most impact, these tend to boil down to novels rather than biographies.

>>23077764
im not relating it to your fiction vs nonfiction argument, im saying that its not fucking tricking people in not believing things, because thats all you have written in this particular post.

>>23077787
>>23077807
forgot to (you)

>>23077807
>and most authors I think don't

What fiction have you read? Please, tell us.

>>23077807
>I happen to believe we could do better if we wanted to.
Better how and at what?
>I'm not saying fiction will be the death of the world or anything, I'm just saying it isn't ideal, or at least it shouldn't be and doesn't need to be
I seriously still don't get what you have against fiction. It seems like a resentment so deep-rooted that it must come from a personal experience. Did a writer fuck your gf? This whole conversation seems like an exaggeration on your part.

>>23077807
>reading the fictional works of Hemingway, Twain, Dostoyevsky, Austen, etc. sure is less than ideal!
>you know what would be better?
>atomic habits and how rich people think

>>23077808
>Because telling someone the meaning of life or of morality or of faith does relatively nothing compared with bringing them with you on journeys that explore that.
I think the opposite is true
I think I'd rather someone explain their faith or morals with me through something more concrete than experiences. I say this as a religious person myself. I think personal experience is a weak way to argue for faith or morals
>>23077809
>im saying that its not fucking tricking people in not believing things
I was exaggerating
but it is a "roundabout" way of getting people to believe something. In a way its manipulation. That doesn't mean it doesnt have its uses or that its by nature immoral. I'm saying you could "just tell us" you don't need to write a 400 page book about it. If you do then fine, maybe it will be a good book, but nonfiction would be more ideal.
>>23077813
I'm not going to sit here and give you a list. My favorite author of fiction is Clark Ashton Smith though.
>>23077823
I've said multiple times in this thread that I enjoy fiction. Its you people who interpret my criticism of it as a personal attack and started calling me retarded from the beginning.

>>23077807
there are more than one way to react to a particular event, as long as you read something and wont go "wait wtf", id say its written well. if i were to punch you in the face for wasting my time on this shit thread, youd either cry, run away, shit your pants, or, least probable, hit me back. you wouldnt start practicing juggling balls right after that

>>23077831
>I've said multiple times in this thread that I enjoy fiction.
You said that fiction at its best is brainwashing. You idea of enjoyment seems bizarre and questionable.
>Its you people who interpret my criticism of it as a personal attack and started calling me retarded from the beginning.
Your criticism is autistic and unwarranted.

>>23077834
>there are more than one way to react to a particular event, as long as you read something and wont go "wait wtf", id say its written well
um ok. if you have a low bar for fiction then thats your personal choice idk what that has to do with me or why you're getting violent.
>>23077837
>You said that fiction at its best is brainwashing.
at its best, its trying to get a point across without actually saying what it is. It just wants you to sort of subconsciously work it into your worldview or read between the lines.
I understand the use of the word brainwash gave an unintentionally negative connotation.

>>23077831
>I'd rather someone explain their faith or morals with me through something more concrete than experiences. I say this as a religious person myself. I think personal experience is a weak way to argue for faith or morals
Evidence you haven't actually read good fiction IMO
What concrete dialogue are you referring to? You want a dissertation on someone's beliefs?

Yeah, OP is retarded

>>23077843
>idk what that has to do with me with me or why youre getting violent
oh, youre a troll. good to hear that youre not actually that stupid

>>23077844
>What concrete dialogue are you referring to? You want a dissertation on someone's beliefs?
Well sure. Why not?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tYm41hb48o
dialogs like this are 5x more valuable to me than a essay about how someone was depressed and God saved them. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for the person, but stories like this shouldn't be a reason that someone believes IMO. Maybe its different if you know the person personally, but this is in the context of literature.

>>23077843
>at its best, its trying to get a point across without actually saying what it is. It just wants you to sort of subconsciously work it into your worldview or read between the lines.
So basically propaganda? Your idea of what's top literature seems pretty backwards. You're very weird.

>>23077849
People like fiction because it appeals to the heart as well as the brain, autismbro. Debate club does little to move hearts

>>23077853
But it basically is though
some of it is better than others
but there is situation where you'd prefer "here is a Captain America comic showing him punching Hitler" as opposed to a candid "guys we're thinking of entering the war". its all manipulation. I'm NOT saying its bad, I'm saying its less ideal than the author simply saying what they mean
>>23077854
Once again, I understand this. I understand it is a precedent, but it is something that should be universally acknowledged as a relatively poor way of making decisions or forming a worldview. Classic Russian lit is NOT the standard for fiction at large.

>>23077859
>but there is situation where you'd prefer
isn't*

>>23077859
I agree that logic should take precedence always in decision making but ignoring feelings altogether leads to misery. Emotions are a part of the human experience just as much as objective fact and reasoning.

>>23077859
>But it basically is though
Some of it, yes. Not all of it, though.
>but there is situation where you'd prefer "here is a Captain America comic showing him punching Hitler" as opposed to a candid "guys we're thinking of entering the war". its all manipulation. I
That's blatant war propaganda used for political means. It doesn't even hide what it means. Not all fiction is like that. I think this only goes to show your lack of literary reading. You're either trolling or completely uncultured.

>>23076383
Platonism is coming back with vengeance

>>23077859
if a fiction is written well, you will just dont get the message if you dont agree with it, you wont automatically become the same person the author was, but you might have fun enjoying prose.

>>23077879
I don't think prioritizing nonfiction precludes ignoring emotions
>>23077884
>Some of it, yes. Not all of it, though.
at its best, it is. Not propagandistic, but fiction at its best is trying to convey a point that *should* be better conveyed through a nonfiction context
The Russians told good stories that were both intelligent and entertaining, but that doesn't mean their points couldn't have been made more clear through nonfiction. They are prized because the stories are good, but reaping valuable information from them is bonus material. If all you wanted was the information (the most important bit) then nonfiction is better
Now it is perfectly fine to read them for the information and the story, I'm not saying not to.

>>23077901
Just admit you can't understand fiction and need it dumbed down. We can finally end this.

>>23077937
Even if I couldn't understand it, I don't mind looking things up so that I do
same with nonfiction. Its just easier for you to say I'm retarded and move on.

>>23077942
Correct

>>23077942
You're terminally retarded

>>23077901
>at its best, it is.
Fiction at its best is an aesthetic and artistic achievement. Ideas, politics and morals take a backseat. This is what distinguishes art from mere propaganda. It's about the how rather than the what.
>but that doesn't mean their points couldn't have been made more clear through nonfiction.
What you label as their points aren't the point of literature. If they wanted to write essays or other stuff, they would've written them (and in fact some of them did). Also, I'm not sure who you have in mind exactly. Everything they have to tell seems to work better in fiction. Non-fiction is too plain a format.
>If all you wanted was the information (the most important bit) then nonfiction is better
Most important for you. People read fiction for different reasons.

>>23077897
example
imagine you found a fiction book with an underlying message that says killing people is a good thing
if presented events could happen in real life, then theres a string of events that could happen where killing people might actually be good
if the events are not feasible to happen, then you know that everything in it was lying to you
its easier to verify (at least for most people) how would real life events go if you were to do a particular thing, than to verify data arguments and such, many people would rather see nonfiction stuff and think "smart people came up with it so it must be true"

>>23077958
>Fiction at its best is an aesthetic and artistic achievement
This is why I made a concession for "culture" in the OP, and I think that applies for the rest of your post

I'm going out for a smoke and then I'm going to shower, I'll reply more in 45-60 mins if you guys are still around.
>>23077960
I'll respond to this when I come back, I'm interested in what you said

>>23077958
Not this anon but also a lot of the messages of these books are simplistic in nature when you boil them down. It's not information you need to learn that is like "Oh wow! Worldview is changed!" I don't need to read Crime and Punishment to understand or develop morality over killing, but it is in how those are limits are tested and evaluated by a good plot that makes the book great.

>>23077963
Smoking is bad, Anon. I'm saying this in plain English so you don't have to read a full novel to get the message :D

>>23077967
True. Also how many times these themes have been used? "Boy meets girl", for example. There's a billion ways you can write that story yet all of them are different and we cherish only the best variations because they are well-written and resonate with us. In non-fiction that would just be a dry description with names and dates.

>>23077720
Okay Marxoid

>>23077960
I think this is a good use of fiction, but notice how you made your point in an example that was only a few lines of text? It reminds me of how Jesus used fiction (parables) to teach. He does it in a paragraph, or maybe a couple paragraphs, and then he explains what the meaning was. It all takes maybe 2 pages altogether.

>>23078338
This is OP btw
I'm saying this is a more optimal use of fiction: brief, and within a greater nonfiction narrative that then breaks down the meaning the allegory.
and its not because "hurr op is a retard who needs it explained", there'd probably be 10000000 different interpretations for those parables if Jesus didn't explain them.

>>23078343
Why do you need fiction broken down for you? Why can't you find your own interpretation?

>>23078350
Lets assume the best of fiction
Lets assume that fiction has something to teach us
Something important
It should 1: be upfront about it 2: be brief and respectful of our time (its an important matter after all) 3: extrapolate on it
Why cant we find our own? How would we know whos interpretation is true?

>>23078367
You're asking for a manual not a fictional story

>>23078369
A fictional story at its best is a manual
Its just not a straightforward one
Its one that requires careful investigation and reading between the lines. At least for the important bits
Is it fun? It can be. but it isn't an efficient way to learn how the world works, and can likely lead you astray into a false view of the world more easily than nonfiction

>>23078377
>A fictional story at its best is a manual
source?

>>23078377
If you want to learn how the world works put the books down and go outside

>>23078378
What is a better reason to read fiction than to learn important information about how the world works?
>>23078381
That is good too but this is a literature board

>>23078384
>What is a better reason to read fiction than to learn important information about how the world works?
Because it's beautiful. It's like a two-way mirror that reflects the soul of the writer on one side and your own on the other. It's an intimate experience that you are making mechanical through sheer autism

>>23078389
>Because it's beautiful.
I conceded this in the OP when I said "culture"
regardless, I don't think thats a better reason but we can agree to disagree. In fact I think one could argue that observing the real world and studying its natural beauty is more satisfying than a the false version on fiction. but like I said, you're entitled to your taste

>>23078384
>What is a better reason to read fiction than to learn important information about how the world works?
If you wanted to read how the world works you'd be reading science, politics and economics, not fiction. I don't know who ever told you fiction's most important part was information about the world. You're completely off right from the start.

>>23078406
You didn't actually answer my question
the other anon said beauty, how about you?

I happen to think most classic fictitious stories display some sort of "good vs evil" or "man vs [thing]" storyline, which in most cases need have some reflection of the real world in order to make sense.
Once again this is in most cases, and we're assuming the best

>>23078420
Your issue is you want to judge fiction books as non-fiction books because all you want from both is information about he world for some reason and no one can't make you think otherwise because you're stubborn and autistic. This conversation is honestly pointless.

>>23078389
>It's like a two-way mirror that reflects the soul of the writer on one side and your own on the other. It's an intimate experience that you are making mechanical through sheer autism
Btw I want to address this part
This is how I'd view well written autobiographies. I don't think looking into a perspective of a world that the person invented/idealized is necessarily "looking into their soul" at least not particularly deeply
>>23078449
>Your issue is you want to judge fiction books as non-fiction books because all you want from both is information about he world for some reason
Because its the best reason, anon
you havent given a better alternative

>>23078458
>Because its the best reason, anon
No, it's not. Do you listen to music to learn about the world? Do you stare at paintings to learn about the world? Literature is an art form, not a database.
>you havent given a better alternative
They already gave you better alternatives and you still replied that muh information was the best reason. It's a pointless discussion because ultimately you think like a robot.

>>23076373
Alright, I'll bite.

Firstly, fiction lets you see other people's worlds: the world of the politician, businesss man, psychologist, police officer, martial artist, street racer etc.

Imagine each of the above looking down a main street. Each of these people would note different aspects of the world; the decreased radius turn of the road, the gait and build of passers by, the infrastructure, how the street constitutes a schema, and so forth. By reading fiction, you can step into the world of such a person and see the world from their perspective. Maestro gives you the perspective of a master pianist and his student, one flew over the cuckoos nest the experience of someone in aninsane asylum.

Second, it lets you see other times and places. In order to understand what it was like post WW1, you would do well to read mrs Dalloway. Dickens gives you the experience of the victorian era, so forth and so forth. Many of these texts are also connected with movements of the period (Woolf with modernism, Coleridge with the romantics), so reading them gives you a proxy history/culture lesson which helps you understand other works of that period.

Third, reading gives you an experience of the other. To see what I mean, look up roger Scruton's lecture 'accounting for your self'.

Fourth, and connected with he third, high literature offers a consolation for life because of its structured and ordered nature. Coleridge distinguished between fantasy and imagination, the former being a reflection of one's desires and the latter being able to reflect a depth of reality. Thus by reading fiction one comes roundabout again to reality, but in a way that redeems one for the hardship in life he faces. The structured nature showcases reality in a way such that we can observe it in a circumspect way, like a specimen in glass. This is how greek tragedies work in a sense. (See Scruton's paper on fantasy and imagination for a better explanation)

Fifth, virtually all of the books you mentioned are means to an end, you read them not for their own sake, but for the sake of getting a tool which will help you. You learn to write down goals, tick them off and write down more, to the end of a better life. High literature is an end in itself, but it is not "solely entertainment" it is an artform that sublimates our baser desires and thus lifts us up as human beings, sex and lust are sublimated into love, our fear od death is sublimated into the sublime.

Sixth, the benefit that a text has is that it makes you grasp the thing; a story about a smoker dying from cancer is more impactful than reading the statement: smoking causes cancer.

1/2

>>23077890
All fiction is fundamentally platonic.

>>23078467
Music and painting have lesser capacity to contain information than literature. They are also less of an investment in time in order to enjoy them. It isn't fair to expect as much from them as from fiction lit. it also doesn't disprove the main point that nonfiction is a better alternative than those even if you begged me to be consistent and say "fine music at its best should teach me about the world"
>They already gave you better alternatives and you still replied that muh information was the best reason.
I said I conceded beauty as a "culture" answer. I happen to think fictitious lit is better used as a means of conducting information. But everyone has different values, if you want to prioritize beauty rather than truth then go ahead
>>23078480
I'll reply to your first part ok
>Firstly, fiction lets you see other people's worlds: the world of the politician, businesss man, psychologist, police officer, martial artist, street racer etc.
Yeah, fictitious accounts. Or I could read a non fictitious autobiography of someone who really was one of those things.
>Second, it lets you see other times and places. In order to understand what it was like post WW1
I'd read a non fictitious account of it

>>23078480
This is different to a mere appeal to emotion, instead thinking of having read the statement "smoking causes cancer" versus someone you love being diagnosed with cancer and watching them die. Suppose you are a smoker and know you should quit because smoking causes cancer. In the first case, you know the facts, but it hasn't really registered or hot home to you, you don't quit despite knowing you should because it is only in the abstract. In the second case, the full gravity of what means to have cancer is experienced, and subsequently quit. This is what mau be termed a husserlian grasping, which admittedly, is not necessarily truth conducive, but is important in not just knowing facts, but fulling comprehending them.

Finally, you are right to be critical of a narrative that suggests a moral or philosophical point, but that's why you should read critically, first discerning the underlying meaning according to the evidence in the text, its symbolism, etc. then evaluating it. People often disagree with interpretations of text, but there are examples (like Shakespeare) where it is generally agreed that they say something profound. In other words, if you read critically you can attain the depth of understanding pursuant to literature, whilst actually strengthening your ability not to be pulled in by appeals to emotion.

Fundamentally, self help books appeal to a utilitarian culture where you must always produce more, to such a culture aesthetics is a waste of time, but the utilitarian never answers the question "what is all this production for?" The aestheticist, in defence of beauty replies that art beauty, hence art, hence literature is an end in itself.

>>23078492
>I'd read a non fictitious account of it
And you would miss out on all the social nuances of what it was like back then, these tend not to put down as facts, m.r gradgrind.

>>23078492
> Music and painting have lesser capacity to contain information than literature. They are also less of an investment in time in order to enjoy them. It isn't fair to expect as much from them as from fiction lit
Skill issue. Not my problem.

>this thread is till going
>OP is still a retard
Amazing.

>>23078492
>Music and painting have lesser capacity to contain information than literature.
You're fucking dumb, bro. Really, really dumb.

>>23078512
Not if you read a well written one
a fictitious account happening to be the most accurate depiction of the era doesn't make it optimal.
>>23078514
>>23078519
if you can squeeze out 300 pages of meaning from a single painting then more power to you

>>23078492
If you think the whole world is reducible to information, and hence their is nothing experiential like music that could be considered knowledge, why don't you explain to a blind person what the colour red is like or explain to us in this thread what it's like to be a bat.

>>23078520
>if you can squeeze out 300 pages of meaning from a single painting then more power to you
The worst part of how stupid you are is that you don't realize just how stupid you are.

>>23078520
Look, if you can’t appreciate literature as an art form that’s nobody’s problem. We can’t think for you, little robot. Try being human in the next life.

>>23078525
You're all over the place
>If you think the whole world is reducible to information, and hence their is nothing experiential like music that could be considered knowledge
I did not say that and I do not believe that
>why don't you explain to a blind person what the colour red is like or explain to us in this thread what it's like to be a bat.
"art" can achieve neither of these things so I don't understand what your point is.
>>23078532
I said fictitious literature can be beautiful, and that is a fine reason to indulge in it. But I believe fictitious lit that teaches a truth to the world is more valuable than beautiful fiction.

>>23078520
>Not if you read a well written one
a fictitious account happening to be the most accurate depiction of the era doesn't make it optimal.

>But if a non-fiction account was better than it would be better, fictional accounts are only coincidentally better.

But even here you concede that there circumstances where the fictional account is preferable, also you're seeking a victory by definition by stating that the hypothetical non-fiction is so good that it captures nuances better. Finally it's bot coincidence that such nuances are better captured by fiction it's in the nature of fiction that through worldbuilding, a somewhat unclear and experiential character of the spirit of the times is able to be expressed through figurative language.

>>23078540
So basically you prefer didacticism over aestheticism. A matter of taste. Is this thread anything more than a whine or we done yet?

>>23078543
>But if a non-fiction account was better than it would be better, fictional accounts are only coincidentally better.
Well yes. A nonfiction account is real by nature, which is not true for a fictional account. Fictional accounts get to decide to what degree they want to be true.
>>23078545
>A matter of taste.
That is literally what I said, and I'm not whining, I don't think I called anyone here a retard once.

>>23078516
His first post seemed like he actually wanted to hear disconfirming evidence for his opinion, but it looks like arguing with anons for so long has just made entrench into his own opinions.

>>23078554
well I said this from the beginning
>>23077494
and you're only reinforcing it with your circle jerking ngl

>>23078560
I meant the second (you) to be this one
>>23077598

>>23078550
>Well yes
Circular logic is what I was pointing out. You define the thing as better then remark, "its better!"

Jordan Peterson of all people made the very good point that, in a sense, literature is more real than a single real a account, because literature that is imaginative is a collation of realities superimposed, showing recurring aspects of reality in a single example.

>>23078550
> That is literally what I said, and I'm not whining
What’s the purpose of your thread, then? Because it’s clearly not listening to other people as your mind has been made up already and you already reached the “agree to disagree” phase. As far as I can see it’s pointless to continue the discussion, we have reached a dead end.

>>23078565
>You define the thing as better then remark, "its better!"
Because on principle real things are better than make believe things, insofar as acquiring information about the world, which is a better end than enjoying the "beauty" of the text IMO
>literature that is imaginative is a collation of realities superimposed, showing recurring aspects of reality in a single example.
that is an interesting point that I could potentially concede, but that is assuming a very especially skilled author. Not fiction by and large. But I did say earlier that we'd assume the best of fiction, so on this merit I'd concede your point, but as I said this would be a special case I think. If we argue simply "fiction in general vs nonfiction in general" then I don't think it holds true
>>23078567
>Because it’s clearly not listening to other people as your mind has been made up already
I think it is other people who are not listening to me 2bh

Oh the purpose of this thread? I've had this topic on my mind for a while now, so I just let my thoughts spill out as the OP.

>>23078586
Very generous of you to call it a "mind".

>>23078581
> I think it is other people who are not listening to me 2bh
They listen, they just disagree. Same as you. Like I said, we have reached a dead end and it was a fruitless discussion.

>>23078594
your post made me think of pic related for some reason
>>23078588
that was really mean

>>23078581
>that is an interesting point that I could potentially concede, but that is assuming a very especially skilled author. Not fiction by and large. But I did say earlier that we'd assume the best of fiction, so on this merit I'd concede your point, but as I said this would be a special case I think. If we argue simply "fiction in general vs nonfiction in general" then I don't think it holds true

I think this is the crux of the disagreement. Most anons on this board only read the kind of literature that would be considered part of the western canon, general fiction does not meet this standard, and would fall under the category of fantasy rather than imagination.

In other words, reading shakespeare Faust is good to understand the romantics critique of the enlightenment, fifty shades of Grey is good if you're a middle aged house wife looking to escape reality.

>>23078604
>fantasy rather than imagination.
they're the same thing, dumbass

>>23078609
>>23078480
See 4. Dumbass.

>>23078609
No.

OP is either a master troll or genuinely too autistic to understand something that isn't spelt out in bullet points kek

>>23076373
>Not Emerson's Self-reliance

>>23076373
>a book I'm reading is on this gay ass chart
It's over.

>>23076373
>Fiction at its best is brain washing.
Filtered
>Fiction does not tell the reader what it is they want to get across. Sometimes the author does not even know.
Not everyone has an agenda, jackass. Just because your favorite financial gurus, pick up artists, youtubers, grifters, influencers and everyone else in the world today has an agenda they constantly shill for doesn't mean that it was always that way, or that an agenda is required for something to be considered valid.
A lot of philosophy is inspired directly from literature. In those cases, the 'philosopher' is just dumbing down ideas that a writer expressed in their art. It's dumb, unimaginative, lazy, and takes away the fun and beauty to literature. It's like spoiling the solution to a puzzle before you've tried to solve it yourself.
Just admit you're too dumb to appreciate anything deeper than the self-help drivel at your local bookstore and move on.

>>23078594
you got some points in your own little autistic narrow lines of thought, and we see those, but we fight so brutally with you because its /lit/, not /sci/, there is much, MUCH more to it, we look at literature, because we're humanists, as a synthesis of art and thought. sometimes its more preferable to use more words, because we found such a beautiful way of saying stuff that not sharing it with the whole world would be a crime. you cant tell everything in one piece of literature, there are so many aspects of it that your talking looks more like ignorance than actual thinking. if you want to come here and say "guys art doesnt matter as much", its an 4chan equivalent of finding a big ass hornet nest and poking it with a stick, if you try to force people into getting more precise we will sting you very painfully by trying to take art away from us, as theres already an abundance of art in peoples lives just because of people like you. go somewhere else if you want a better discussion

>>23076373
>12 Ways To Wash Your Dick! by Johnson Peterson is superior to all the works of Goethe, Shakespeare, Dostoevsky and Homer combined as it spells out what you should have learned at the end of reading it.

>>23078504
>Fundamentally, self help books appeal to a utilitarian culture where you must always produce more, to such a culture aesthetics is a waste of time, but the utilitarian never answers the question "what is all this production for?" The aestheticist, in defence of beauty replies that art beauty, hence art, hence literature is an end in itself.

OP has been absolutely thoroughly obliterated ITT to such a degree that it'd be wise to not show his face on this board ever again.

>>23079074
Actually I still feel very much this

>>23077598

Good morning btw

Like 99% of you are ignoring that I said culture in the OP, then you start getting on the hill that beauty is a better reason to consume fiction than pursuing meaning or truth which IMO makes you look retarded

>>23079782
It’s over.

>>23079782
everyone here is trying to tell you theyre both important and you can have both at the same time idiot, were focusing on culture because you are being a ignorant prick

>>23078612
that's an extremely arbitrary delineation
>>23078616
eat my ass, nigger

>>23079782
you act like someone who has seen a thousand trees but never seen a forest

>>23079782
What makes you think beauty and knowledge can't be present in the same work and enhance each other?

>>23080036
No, actually nobody here said they are both important, because it wouldn't be relevant. The conversation was about which is a better reason, "both" would have been a copout that thankfully nobody said

Why say shit like this if you haven't paid attention?
>>23080068
What makes you think I think that

>>23080080
See >>23078545 and >>23078532

>>23080080
whos more important to society then, a physician or a lawyer

>>23080098
Physician

>>23080084
Once again
For 10000th time
I included that under "culture" but it is not the point of this thread
The only reason you people call me the retarded one is either because you are misunderstanding the point or you're upset that I'm criticizing fiction

>>23080110
then we shall kill al lawyers, have fun defending yourself alone in court

>>23080117
Um ok psycho
If you're trying to make a point, I never said fiction should be erased or never read. My first reply ITT says "I read fiction often"

>>23080113
yes, one form suits better for one reason, another form for anither reason, and another for another. that doesnt mean one is better than other

>>23080126
The point is not
Nonfiction > fiction
It is better explained as
Reading for information > reading for beauty
And to that end, nonfiction is more efficient than fiction

>>23080133
No.

>>23076373
>picrel no Atomic Habits
Opinion discarded

>Why do people eat the flesh of the apple when most of the fiber is in the peel, the peel objectively has more value than the flesh
This is how retarded you sound. You are missing the whole picture for the individual parts

>>23080133
If you really cared about efficiency at conveying information you wouldn't be reading nonfiction either, you would just go find a bulleted list summarizing points

>>23080133
youre admitting to having no soul just in order to win this argument, and yet you still fall short for one simple reason, many people have no idea they need more information. in their little world they think they got it all sorted out, because they dont have the capacity to move their minds in more abstract territories. by watching films, reading fiction or going to theatre they are confronted with the usual enviroments of their lives, yet the events are strange, unusual, which makes them think about it in a way they're used to, but the end idea is something they wouldnt be able to synthetise without help of others. do you really think a 30yo factory worker is going to pick up a philosophy book to gain more information about world he lives in? he is going to see all those confusing terms and lay it away. other people than you also exist. yes, in your own little world, where you dont care about beauty at all, and you have all means to understand all non-fiction in the world, nonfiction suits you better. and thats all, it just suits you better in your own little narrow slice of world. do you expect us to discuss whats better for you if you already know the answer? begone, hand of demiurge, and never come back.

>>23080218
If OP still has the audacity to speak after this post, then there's really no hope for him.

>>23080246
Ewww stop circle jerking
You're an npc

>>23080133
Literature is art. Art is about beauty, not about facts. Again, you don’t listen to music or stare at paintings for muh facts. With all due respect, please kill yourself as soon as possible. Thanks.

>>23080218
>in your own little world, where you dont care about beauty at all,
Never said this
You people are really writing whole essays to things I never said

>>23080257
You don’t care, though. You said fiction at its best is propaganda/brainwashing. That’s the most soulless brainless shit I’ve ever read on this shithole.

>>23080257
in your own little world, where you care more about information than beauty
there, you happy now?

>>23080265
It is
Fiction influences you without you knowing
And at best, giving fiction the most credit, hopefully its meaningful and truthful, rather than simply looks pretty

>>23080272
the whole world, everything you ever encounter influences you, retard. your beloved non-fiction facts and logic influences you as well. it's impossible to not be influenced so stop treating it as some sort of boogeyman

>>23080278
Sure
But it's straightforward and testable and you can directly compare it with contrary information
Fiction isn't a "Boogeyman" because it's propagandized often. It's just the truth of the matter.

>>23080272
Wrong. That’s not fiction at its best. At its best it’s an aesthetic achievement. Same goes for music and painting. The “message” is secondary.

>>23080286
do you know why fiction is sometimes used as a tool of propaganda? because it conveys the information much more efficiently than non-fiction. which, ironically, should make you think that fiction is a more effective way for conveying information

>>23080286
So you want to ban books because the informations in them can't be easily controlled?

>>23080294
It's not though
What even makes for a good fictitious tale? Is it not plot and characters? Even if you say something like "the prose" the prose needs to be coherently written sentences with meaning. Fiction at it's best is displaying some sort of man overcoming difficulty or good vs evil. It isn't "just beautiful" and that's it
>>23080298
I said before, if fiction is more efficient than nonfiction for conveying information then that is an indictment on ourselves, not nonfiction.
The idea nonfiction is more efficient is why Netflix is filled with LGBT and race baiting schlock, because such bullshit would be seen through more easily if it were presented in a nonfiction context.

>>23080313
I NEVER mentioned banning books
You people are atrociously dishonest, you argue like women

>>23080325
answer the question, we cant discuss with you if you sound like a broken record, why the fuck would i ask if i knew the answer?

>>23080317
>What even makes for a good fictitious tale?
Soul. Which if you can't understand, you lack one.

>>23080343
Extrapolate what exactly that means
"Soul" is such an abstract concept, I could (but I won't) just say 99% of fiction lacks soul and it'd be as invalid. What you just typed means nothing, really. At least on it's own.

>>23080317
It is, THOUGH. The message is ultimately arbitrary. Every message has already been said (especially the basic bitch shit you said about good vs evil).You can read the same message in different ways. The important thing is how it’s said. The style, the writing, the craft. That’s what elevates the mundane to Art. That’s literature at its best.

>>23080362
I actually think that's a poor view of fiction and creativity
>It's about the appearance of thing, not the substance
This is like a woman who judges relationships by how big and shiny the diamond ring is instead of how the couple treats each other
This is where we can agree to disagree

>>23080351
Yes, soul is an abstract concept which you fail to grasp. It doesn't need to be explained, if you have one, it will be spoken to in your lifetime. And you asked what makes good fiction, not what does all fiction have. 99% of everything is shit, we don't judge an entire artform from the worst ones ever created. We look at the best and strive towards it. And the best art speaks to the soul. You really are a soulless robot if you've never experienced it. Why are you even on a literature board at this point, fuck off to /his/ or /sci/ since you only see value in information.

>>23080117
a roundabout way for TKD

>>23080380
>99% of everything is shit, we don't judge an entire artform from the worst ones ever created. We look at the best
I am in the middle of a conversation debating what makes for the "best" fiction
Maybe quit yapping and pay attention

>>23080377
>appearance not the substance
youre just retarded, he literally said that a message can be delivered in a beautiful way. so, appearance complementing the substance. and yes, when a woman would give me a nice gift out of love, i would be happy of both things, of love and of gift. you want people to just say they love you but never do anything for you?

>>23080377
I think viewing art, the most soulful of mankind’s achievements, as mere brainwashing propaganda at its best is a shitty opinion. Probably the shittiest opinion I’ve ever read here. Style IS substance in Art. Achieving something aesthetically is no easy task. If you hate beauty, you don’t have a soul.

OP, what’s your ethnicity? Are you Asian by any chance?

>>23080409
>he literally said that a message can be delivered in a beautiful way.
But what is beautiful about it? When the prose is stylish, what's stylish? Is it because it has big or rare words? No. It's because it's conveying something coherent, with meaning. It's the order, organization, everything.
It's like, if a man buys a shiny ring for his wife, is it a sign he loves her? Sure. But it isn't even remotely the big picture.
>>23080414
I don't think it's "mere" brainwashing and propaganda
But it is also those things.

>>23080423
OP have you ever experienced a single emotion in your life?

>>23076373
List favorite 5 fictional works
List favorites 5 non-fictional works

Otherwise we can’t discuss what you have in mind.

>>23080427
Of course
I'm just aware that fiction can (and likely will, if I read it often) Manipulate my emotions in ways that aren't intended or aren't healthy or are even destructive
This isn't a rare thing, as I said, look at the current state of Netflix or the latest Asimov award winners
It's you people who seem to be unaware of how fiction can influence you because linking it to propaganda and brainwashing is giving people itt lobotomies
If we look at fiction at it's best, like let's say the Russians, go ahead read it and enjoy it idc, but any significant meaning they convey could have been taught more efficiently through nonfiction without tacking on long stories or projecting emotions. They just made it into a fun, intellectual exercise, which is cool and all, but it isn't efficient (and dangerous to imitate, as I said)

>>23080427
I think he’s just trolling. He can’t be this autistic and backwards.

>>23080423
thats all what you think when we say about beauty in prose? big or elevated words? the beauty is saying the usual in unusual way, then your own usual world can become an unusual place, and then all of your life might elevate from mundande to a epic adventure, and isnt that something worth going for? instead of thinking youre watering the plants, you might become a mage creating little rain clouds for your archeaplastic primitive friends. you dont want your life to become that?

>>23080458
You’re only seem to be focused on you as a reader of propaganda, but what about the author? Can’t he express himself via literature? Can’t he express his emotions? Why would that be manipulation by default when no one’s forcing you to read his work or buy it?

>>23080458
If you're so easily manipulated you should just lock yourself in a room atp

>>23080423
> I don't think it's "mere" brainwashing and propaganda
You said at its best it’s propaganda/brainwashing. “At its best” means that’s the most you can aspire to as an author. It means that a masterpiece is for you a work that excels at brainwashing.

>>23080474
>the beauty is saying the usual in unusual way, then your own usual world can become an unusual place, and then all of your life might elevate from mundande to a epic adventure, and isnt that something worth going for?
But see this still plays into my point
What is this epic adventure that you said is so beautiful? Why is controlling fiends cool? These are things with meaning, they arent "just beautiful" for the sake of it.
>>23080475
It's manipulation by default because the author is presumably making statements like "this is what i consider to be good" or "this is what I consider to be a meaningful conversation between characters". It doesn't need to be malicious but it's the nature of fiction, especially good fiction that isn't mindless pulp or schlock (but even then, on a smaller scale)
>>23080484
It's human nature. The first step to not being easily manipulated is to realize you're easily manipulated. You are not immune to propaganda. But maybe I am since you all keep saying I'm autistic

Reply to:
>>23080450

>>23080492
What you call "manipulation" in this context, normal people call "empathizing with the characters and the author" which is why people are calling you an autist.

>>23080508
So I can give you bait to insult me without addressing my points? No
>>23080514
I don't think empathizing with cutout characters in specific situations with planned endings in a made up world all created by one person is a healthy practice on a regular basis
It can be done well but even then there are better ways to get these points across. And if you can't learn to empathize with people except through fiction then that is an indictment on the self, not literature of any sort.

Going out for a bit

>>23080492
I do agree all accounts whether written or told are biased by subjectivity but I don’t think being brainwashing propaganda is literature at its best. I think you are making the rather juvenile mistake of mistaking literature with rhetoric. Rhetoric’s more about manipulation. Literature is an art form and as such, the objective priority is aesthetic beauty. You may disagree with this concept but you’d be wrong.

>>23080526
> So I can give you bait to insult me without addressing my points? No
So we can know what you have in mind when you talk about literature, fiction, non-fiction. We have no idea what are your ideal works in these genres. So far you seem too obsessed with “manipulation”, so it’d be interesting to know what you have in mind.

>>23080390
You have provided zero insights into what makes good fiction. You have only repeated an idiotic notion that fiction boils down to the same few trite messages of good vs evil, etc.

>>23080450
This.
Until we legitimately get a list of OP'S actual history with fiction and nonfiction, we may as well /thread this.
2DG4X

>>23080548
HAHAHAHAHAHA THIS DUMBASS TYPED OUT THE CAPTCHA IN HIS POST

>>23080559
VXRS0
/thread

>>23076408
You didn’t “just ask a question” but are stating that fiction is brain washing. I used to hate fiction but discovered that was only because of school’s jewish brainwashing. Every tribe in mankind told stories through fiction. It’s a way to relate the principles and consequences through various scenarios that are memorable enough to pass down through the ages, before reading and writing was as widespread. Is most modern fiction garbage? Yes but so is most modern non-fiction.

>>23080625
It's hopelesss bro, just evacuate

>>23079074
>>23079074
>>23079074

>>23076449
That makes no sense. If everything is fiction, then you can't disregard it, unless you want to disregard everything, in which case don't create any more threads. The point is that I refuse to accept your idea that there's a significant difference between fiction and non-fiction. As per your definition, it's all "brain washing", or in better terms, a certain human experience, worldview, or narrative, just expressed in different forms and with different methods. Fiction doesn't always spell things out for you, sometimes the focus is on other parameters, such as form, aesthetic experience, catharsis, even entertainment if there's nothing else, but in the last case it most likely makes it lowbrow literature. If this concept is incomprehensible to you, you might be autistic or a robot. If this is such a disadvantage in your eyes, then continue reading non-fiction and by all means enjoy it, just don't expect to gather any sympathy by saying things like "fiction at its best is brain washing". Don't act surprised when you spout nonsense and get a reaction by passionate readers. And I hope your autism gets better, try medication.

>>23080819
>If everything is fiction, then you can't disregard it,
I meant I could disregard the point he made in his post
not disregard fiction
>>23080528
>Literature is an art form and as such, the objective priority is aesthetic beauty
WHat is beauty? Symmetry, coherence, organization (among other things)? then what are those things, and how do we identify them in fiction? No matter what, when you break it down, pursuing "beauty" is still pursuing meaning, its just not direct. Even if you pursue art to feel some sort of sensation, I can't think of one that couldn't be better realized through real life.

>>23077577
>capital N

OP is insecure of his reading taste.

>>23081100
My favorite fiction is: Ovid's metamorphoses. Xenophon's cyropedia. The phantom tollbooth (children's book). The zothique cycle. Can't think of a fifth right now that I like as much
I'll say I read the Bible as nonfiction but my taste would obviously reveal personal things about my worldview that would derail the conversation

>>23076373
Vote for you favorite children's books in /lit/'s poll: https://forms.gle/kDKSZssgZbaCgKnx7

>>23080133
You are so right!!!! Just threw out all my Shakespeare and Goethe and replaced them with printed out pages of a tiktok "fun fact" compilation! I totally need to know how many spaghetti strings it will take to wrap around the earth seven times, surely that will enhance my life!

>>23081678
Either you know I didn't mean that and you're being dishonest
Or you don't know I didn't mean that, and lack critical thinking skills
Either way, I didn't tell you to do those things.

>>23081678
lmao
>>23081758
kys

>>23081759
Hahahahah
Guy I agree with good
Guy I disagree with die
You make fun of TikTok NPCs but you really are no better

>>23076383
I mean it sounds like OP is too stupid for fiction, cause he thinks it's a trick that's too difficult to see through. Sadly for a lot of people I suppose that is the case.

Do you guys rely on commentary when reading the classics like Dostoyevsky? I fins that I struggle to pick up on the actual events taking place, let alone the complex emotional subtext in many of his scenes. Commentary has been helpful in helping me slow down and understand and get the meaning behind his works, but I also feel this takes some of the satisfaction out.

OP. Out of 28 unique posters that aren't you, 27 of them called you retarded. If you read self-help books on rhetoric and forming coherent thoughts, and omitted a lot of the retarded shit you said (you were saying retarded shit regardless of whether you actually still stand by what you said or not) then maybe less people would be calling you retarded. But you LARP about reading books as a personality trait so it's okay.

>>23082330
Do you only have this problem with dostoevsky or with every book you read? If it's every book you read then good luck. If it's just dostoevsky then try a different translation maybe. Some translations are bound to just be bad.

>>23081788
You don't deserve anything better, rat.

>>23082347
I have this problem with most of the classics, but I have read very little of these. I read Crime and Punishment in HS (8 years ago) and recently finished Inferno, and I relied heavily on commentary for both to understand. To be fair, though, Inferno gets so oddly specific about Dante's backstory and Italian heritage that I don't know how someone would read without commentary.

I also am doing this via audio book on my drives to work and back. I am not sure if audiboooks are the best format for classics.

Still, I may be retarded

>>23082376
It's normal to have a commentary on hand when reading Dante, my edition is split in half betwen commentary and text and sometimes the commentary takes 80% of the page.

>>23082407
I guess we will see as time goes on then. I hope that I get better reading as I go. Shit I wish I had developed a love for these earlier in life, but I love this board for introducing me to it.

>>23082341
Mob mentality proves nothing

>>23082636
It's true. It's obvious that the merit of OPs arguments truly remain unblemished in the face of the scrutiny in this thread.

>this thread is still up
>OP is just as gay and retarded as when it started
Unbelievable.

>>23076383

>>23082675
>>23082709
bro I'm gonna be honest, I didn't come to 4chan to hear what a woman has to say

>soul

>>23082713
Just pretend she got it from a man, nitwit

>>23082636
I can ask 28 people if a fentanyl addiction is beneficial for long term happiness and well-being, or ask 28 people if circular or square wheels are better for transporting heavy loads and I can guess what the majority of people will say. Some things are just retarded or presented in a retarded way. It's not mob mentality.
If you want to prove your point then read self-help books on rhetoric and how to form coherent thoughts. Come back in a week and maybe you'll form a better opinion and communicate more effectively. As it stands, your head is a mess and I want my mind to be nothing like yours. Be an example for what you're trying to argue for.

>>23082993
OP just gets continually obliterated and is still incapable of stopping or at least better developing and communicating his ideas. It's impressive, really.

>>23082993
>>23083021
There aren't any actual points to respond to in either of these posts

It's just long-winded "you're wrong" followed by a worthless ego inflating circle jerk reply

You are NPCs who think shaming me is going to change my mind

>>23083023
You’re just a troll.

>>23083025
I've spent a long time developing and extrapolating my opinions here
The fact you're sitting here saying I'm wrong and I got btfo and I'm a troll but quit trying to actually discuss anything meaningful just proves me right

>>23083023
>There aren't any actual points to respond to in either of these posts
Then why respond to them at all? Did they hit a nerve? Are you bored?
I don't need to add anything to this thread because I'm not here to argue with a loser who has way too much time on his hand. Time he could've spent reading great works of fiction. There's plenty of anons ITT that have absolutely obliterated your pathetic worldview, so just refer to those points. And no, I don't think shaming you will get you to change your mind. Because your mind can't be changed. Because you will continue doubling down until this thread disappears. And then you'll make the same thread again. And the (nonfictional) story will repeat.

>>23083041
Because it's my thread duh
Why did they respond to me just to make shallow insults
And why are you still responding to me just to type a paragraph about how pathetic I am and how you aren't going to argue with me? Does that seem rational to you

>>23083048
>Why did they respond to me just to make shallow insults
Because it's funny and we should welcome back bullying for those who are begging for it.
Anyway, don't you have some kind of self-help book for the workplace to read so you can go back to your mouse wheel and be a nice productive zombie under the cold boot of capital, and to satisfy your conception of the world and to make you feel better about making what you think are the right choices in life?

>>23083029
No, you’re just trolling. Probably not even OP because he already agreed to disagree. You’re another guy fishing for (You)s.

>>23083056
You people are obsessed with painting me as someone who hates fiction or thinks it should never be read
I'm tired of arguing. I'm going to sleep.

>>23076373
>>23083067
Hey bro I didn't read the thread but I liked the OP. You speak truth.

It's proven that people who read fiction are more easily hypnotised, in a literal sense. The author weaves a spell on the imagination of the reader, leading their consciousness through their own prepared patterns. they use pathos as a lure to lull you into a false sense of security but it is trickery on the occult level.

The person gives up their "conscious mind" (which is really their state of alertness) to follow along and if you do not do this then you cannot effectively read fiction at all. And you cannot know what hidden agenda the authors (or perhaps the entities possessing the author) have because of this. At least not until after the fact once their garbage has passed by your mental barriers and their ultimate meaning or machinations are made conscious.

Its like all authors are just trolls. Fiction is basically demonic. There are real egregores at play and they seek to use the minds of whoever they can to manifest themselves in the world, passing through the author to the rest of the world. Its no different from academic brainwashing in which the students genuinely believe they are now smarter for having become propagandized; people who consume the arts are pretty much always already narcissistic personalities deliberately choosing to be lost souls.

You're best off sticking with your own good sense or noetic intuition. Allowing demons to pass through your mind to enter our reality is not only a betrayal and surrender of that function but a betrayal of the cosmos and humanity.

>>23083067
>>23083101
Alright, good night, samefag.

>>23083023
>There aren't any actual points to respond to
It's hard to address anything you've said in this thread as you've been constantly resorting to "I did say that but I didn't mean it!!!" or just straight up backpedaling on things you've said.
If you want to be taken seriously, learn to form coherent thoughts and back up your opinions in an effective way.
Nobody here is psychic and can magically decipher what you mean by all your incoherent word vomit.

>>23083114
>learn to form coherent thoughts and back up your opinions in an effective way
Guess all those useful non-fiction books he's been reading haven't cover that yet.

>>23083114
>learn to form coherent thoughts and back up your opinions in an effective way
Guess all those useful non-fiction books he's been reading haven't covered that yet.

>>23083105
lol but cope. the current crop of users is clearly younger now. as a somewhat older guy I can tell you that fiction, or even in fact reading books at all, didnt actually help me in life. I thought I was making sense of my life experiences through it and and wiser in general but it was hardly different from watching tv. its best to remain a caveman without any mass media and just accumulate actual life experiences to learn about the world. meet people and learn from them. I learned far more from that than anything else. that and church.

anyway best of luck to you all because I know that you are all here because you're trying. you dont want to be another social media feed zombie like some of your peers and you have the drive to improve yourselves, you're obviously thoughtful. your inner reasons arent bad at all but your energies are misdirected. there are plenty of overly sheltered types who make books their identity. dont be like them.

a man's greatest asset is his experience. dont confuse aesthetic gratification (which, granted, often intimates it [or perhaps imitates it]) for it.

>>23083136
>as a somewhat older guy I can tell you that fiction, or even in fact reading books at all, didnt actually help me in life
Sucks for you, I guess. However, they definitely influenced my life.

>>23083136
>as a somewhat older guy I can tell you that fiction, or even in fact reading books at all, didnt actually help me in life
Sucks for you, I guess. However, they definitely positively influenced my life. I'm most likely older than you, by the way.

reading nonfiction gives you the opportunity to learn about other minds, to assess and contrast your thoughts and feelings to those of others

It allows you to consider and contemplate feelings, memories and problems, and weigh up options and alternatives within the comfort of your own minds

>>23083114
>constantly resorting to "I did say that but I didn't mean it!!!" or just straight up backpedaling on things you've said.
such as

>>23077549
B00kmark

>>23077674
Good post

>>23078480
>>23078504
B00kmark

>>23078565
B00kmark

>>23076373
Hey man, i have been thinking about the same thing for a time now just form reading a few books and was deep in the rabbit hole of being just retarded.

as stupid as this might sound, I'm glad i saw someone thinks exactly the same. there is no reason to derive any lessons from fiction since the writer can change the outcome no matter the action leading to it.

>>23077493
>Im gonna be unbiased
>Greats write great great to great greats, you retarded cuz no like greats great with credit great greats of greats.

>>23076373

This a pretty adolescent thesis. Ultimately you're projecting some sort of ideal character you admire and working towards it. Alignment is commendable, but your attitude towards artistic expression is troubling. The human experience is nearly entirely emotional and horrifically deep. Even if you claim to be an objective or logical person brief introspection would (hopefully) disprove that.

Also, its a little silly to make a thread claiming fiction is worthless and including a book on archetypes in your chart.

The reality is you don't have the capability to appreciate fiction, your short term memory is not developed enough to hold characters and scenes in your head. The idea that you can boil down the stigmergy of human experience to a few bullet-points lifted from academic papers (that were likely never replicated) is moronic, and demonstrates to everyone how shallowly you interact with the world around you. Its also a sign of some sort of sub-conscious insecurity.

>>23080133
Efficient for what exactly?

>>23085543
>Efficient for what exactly?
Efficient for filling his head with dumb ideas in the fastest amount of time