Post: #51

Let's separate fiction from the drivel that is sold as fiction every Christmas.

Tom Clancy, Fifty Shades of Grey, detective novels etc, is nothing but entertainment albeit a more stimulating kind of entertainment than TV since reading requires your imagination. Allthough fiction such as Lord of The Rings (full length) is also just stories and entertainment, Star Wars (same genre, same plot) only takes 2.5 hours to get through, while LOTR takes many, many hours and many, many words and a lot of brainpower. It stimulates the brain much more, the experiences stay with you longer and more vividly since the only place the setting exists is in your mind.

Then there's real fiction, won't name names because of differing tastes, but the kind that makes you think and grow. Since with reading your mind is creating the universe, it is a much stronger and deeper experience than video or sound. Hardly will you find someone saying the movie is better than the book.

Post: #52

Just reading an interesting article at the moment...

It seems that Shakespeare's reputation as a genius - may be due to the re-evaluation his work underwent in the 18th century.

At the time it was fashionable to praise people as being sublime geniuses. And with Shakespeare - the label stuck.

People are hesitant to throw around such labels for more modern writers. And the academic climate of more recent times no longer encourages the labelling of people as being geniuses.

So - Shakespeare's reputation may rest on the fashions of the 18th century (in terms of obsessing over geniuses). And his reputation is a hangover from those times.

At least that is what I am taking away from this article:

http://chronicle.com/article/Where-Have-...es/142353/

Post: #53

Here are some important quotes from the article:

Quote:Geniuses, in the modern sense of the word, have been spoken about since only the Age of Enlightenment. Newton was an early exemplar, along with Benjamin Franklin, Goethe, and Napoleon. Also in this period, Shakespeare and Homer were "discovered" as geniuses and celebrated as such, hailed as paragons of creativity, originality, imagination, and brilliance.

Just why the genius emerged in the 18th century as a model of the highest human type is an interesting question. Scholars have suggested a number of explanations, ranging from the advent of capitalism to new notions of aesthetics to new understandings of the author and the self. I would add religious change—the "withdrawal of God," to quote the philosopher Marcel Gauchet—and a decline in the belief in supernatural beings like angels and saints, which had long served to mediate between the human and the divine.

A related, and somewhat surprising, context was a growing belief in human equality, which provided a foil to the allegedly natural differences that distinguished human beings. In societies increasingly reluctant to treat noble birth and privilege as a legitimate basis for establishing social hierarchies, intelligence and creativity served as new criteria to justify human distinction, with the genius singled out as a member of what contemporaries (including Thomas Jefferson) called a "natural aristocracy."

Post: #54

Perhaps, but given how widely read Plato and Aristotle were, it seems to me that they were implicitly held to be geniuses regardless of whether the term was in currency.

The same can be said for people like Ptolemy in astronomy and Galen in medicine. The fact that scholars in subsequent centuries mostly restricted themselves to commenting upon the works of these antique authorities suggests that they held them to be men of "sublime genius".

Post: #55

cardguy, here are some books I know you'll love reading

Quote:Donna Tartt’s novel “The Goldfinch” has 771 pages. “The Luminaries” by Eleanor Catton, winner of the 2013 Man Booker Prize, is 834 pages long. And then there is “City on Fire,” the 900-page debut novel that took the publishing industry by storm last week.

It was even more evidence that the long novel is experiencing a resurgence, as a dozen publishers competed for the rights to release the book, set in New York City in the 1970s. “City on Fire” was written by Garth Risk Hallberg, a 34-year-old who has contributed to The New York Times Book Review and The Millions. Publishers who had a copy of the manuscript — and said they could concentrate on little else until they had finished reading it — rapturously compared it to work by Michael Chabon and Thomas Pynchon.

Oh LOL!!

Can you fucking imagine having to read this garbage? All 900 pages of it?

"Garth Risk Hallsberg" where do they come up with names like that? For real.

Fuck, you better be a "genius" to be spending years, day after day after day, writing a 900 page novel. So I guess we're having a resurgence of "genius" after all.

Really, who are the demons who affect to spend their time writing and reading these texts?

What a world.

Post: #56

I can race through a 900 page non-fiction book. But a novel? I struggle to make it pass the first page. My mind just switches off.

I actually admire those who can read fiction. I kinda' wish I was one of them. But really I don't - since there is so much great non-fiction waiting to be explored.

Post: #57

I personally don't read much fiction. I picked up a fiction book at an airport once to read on the plane but ended up reading a non-fiction/business book instead cover to cover.

With that said, I can't say "I hate reading fiction", because I've actually never read a fiction/novel book cover to cover. But I can see where reading those would make you a better conversationalist/story teller. Playing with words and keeping other people interested in what you're saying. Not that not reading fiction would affect your story telling abilities but I'm sure it enhances that ability.

Post: #58

I think one has to take in account that in some sense "reality" ist fiction too. We all know that we are brainwashed by our culture or at least our world culture. Think of the guys in North Korea what should reality mean for them? In their every day life they have to accept that reality which is told to them otherwise they get killed. So in that sense some fiction would be more real for them as that would at least reflect a world which is connected to themselfs.

The biggest red pill is that reality is not real. Like in religios times people believed in god whereas we now believe in something else. But shurely we don´t know shit in the grand scheme of life or whatever the hell that is here. So one works for his goals without knowing shit. Shure it feels real but is it really real? I would say there is no reality only some ideas about reality and ideas are fiction.

Post: #59

I can do creative non-fiction, and non-fiction. I can't do straight fiction, especially new fiction.

Post: #60

Man I hate fiction so much.

In fact - I was just on amazon looking for some books to do with the Lockerbie bombing.

And I came across a novel about it:

Quote:Twenty-one years after his wife and daughter were murdered in the bombing of a plane over Scotland, Alan Tealing, a university lecturer, still does not know the truth of what really happened on that terrible night. Obsessed by the details of what he has come to call The Case, he is sure that the man convicted of the atrocity was not responsible, and that he himself has thus been deprived not only of justice but also of any chance of escape from his enduring grief.

When an American intelligence officer, apparently terminally ill and determined to settle his own accounts before death, arrives on his doorstep with information about a key witness in the trial, a fateful sequence of events is set in motion. Alan decides that he must travel to Australia to confront this witness, whose evidence he has always disbelieved, in the hope that this might at last be the breakthrough for which he has waited so long.

I just cannot see the point of this. A fictionalised account of a real event? WTF?? I just cannot understand how boring and pointless reading that would be.

Historical fiction is everything I hate about fiction - and a corruption of everything I love about non-fiction. It is the worst of the worst.

Post: #61

I like fiction AND non-fiction.

Some people do not like fiction because they are not able to imagine via reading - it's just the way their brain is wired.

Or... it could be that you are just choosing the wrong books or were exposed to boring books in school, that wrecked fiction reading for you.

Fiction can accomplish things that non-fiction cannot. You can come to understand Truths via great fiction that you cannot through non-fiction. Some examples are Lord of the Flies; 1984; All Quiet on the Western Front; The Death of Ivan Ilych, etc.

The key is to find the kind of fiction you like - A good resource are Roosh's book reviews.

Post: #62

Hey guys,

The point of fiction is that it can be MORE REAL than non-fiction. The reason for this is that an intelligent writer can really get into the mind-sets and ideas that you can't in non-fiction.

You just need to choose good fiction.

I'm trying to think of fiction that fits the bill and most of the stuff that springs to mind is old. Some of the Russian stuff is great, including War and Peace, which really helps you to understand the Russian mind-set. Some good game stuff in there too. Stendahl is also good on game. If you want a short book about game and ambition try Maupassant's Bel-Ami. If you want a book about hypergamous sluttery try 'Madame Bovary'. If you want a book how modern women fuck up their lives, "We need to talk about Kevin", one of the most disturbing books ever, probably fits the bill. If you want a satire on morality take a look at Marquis de Sade's 'Justine'. I'm trying to think of other modern books that have stayed with me, but am having trouble. Donna Tartt's Secret History is pretty good. I might think up some more, I know Matt Forney rates Celine highly, but I haven't read any of the stuff.

Anyway, the point of fiction is that you need to know what to choose, don't just pick up some trash from the supermarket check-out, which at best is fluff and at worst a waste of time money, effort and will rot your brain

Post: #63

(03-04-2014 05:33 AM)finton_the_toole Wrote:  Hey guys,

The point of fiction is that it can be MORE REAL than non-fiction. The reason for this is that an intelligent writer can really get into the mind-sets and ideas that you can't in non-fiction.

I dispute this, and I have a rejected ROK article that addresses this. I think I will post the rejected article in this thread when I get back on my home computer.

Post: #64

To me, reading fiction is like watching a film without the actual visuals. The words are used to create the scenes, to develop the dialogue and so forth.

I am quite a fan of some Tarantino films because of the delicious dialogues in his films. To me, his films more follow the theme of a play with a significant amount of dialogue and not so much explosions and actions scenes (at least his earlier ones).

My question to those who don't like fiction is this, do you enjoy watching films? Because any film that isn't a documentary, is fiction except the moving images replace the words in the work of fiction.

I don't necessarily use Shakespeare as a reference for great fiction but I try to browse different bodies of fiction and there are some great writers out there that write fiction that has strong allusions to actual events going out there.

They just change names and locations to prevent things from being obvious.

There is a great writer from Edinburgh, Scotland which some Canadian lizard put me on to. I've loved his works ever since..and there is a great one from Miami also..he describes Miami to the absolute DNA strand..a wizard with adjectives (in my opinion)

Post: #65

Here's the essay I wrote about fiction. It's mainly targeted against the most beta genre - fantasy - but I think the underlying premise that someone who writes fiction must on some level be mentally ill is true across all genres.

Anyway, it was rejected for ROK, but since it's relevant to the topic of this thread, here it is. Feel free to critique it if you disagree, I am always open to different opinions.

The Truth About Fiction

While busy with the psychiatry rotation back in medical school, I read with interest the various coping mechanisms that have been described by psychologists.

One of these mechanism is labeled 'Fantasy.' That is, withdrawing into your dreams, thoughts, and imaginings as a way of escaping reality.

Think about. What kind of person is going to spend all that time in a fantasy world that exists only in his head, dreaming elvish languages and dwarf folk songs? It's the kind of person who is so uncomfortable with reality that he'd rather fantasize than act.

In other words, Tolkein must have been quiet sick in the head. As are all other fantasy writers.

And indeed, the lure of other peoples fantasies can pull people in, to escape reality. Why be bothered about life when you can level up in World of Warcraft? Why worry about being successful if you can be a Jedi knight?

But fantasy is considered to be a psychologically immature coping mechanism. Yes, one can escape from what is troubling, but on the other hand, the troubles don't change. You can't swing your magical sword in make-believe land, but in the real world there is no magic sword to solve your problems.

Truth is harder than fiction, which is why there are so many avenues to indulge in fiction, whether it through hours of computer games, or hours of tv shows, or reading a ten book fantasy series. But once the fiction is over, one is no nearer solving one's life problem than at the beginning. The mark of a mature mind is that it seeks coping mechanisms which resolves problems, and not leave them to fester in the background.

In essence, indulging in fantasy and fiction is indulging in another's man fictioneurosis and inability to deal with his own problems. Howard had love life problems, so he created Conan as a barbarian persona that coud at least get laid in fantasy land. Tolstoy's home life was awful, so he wrote War and Peace. Hans Christian Anderson wrote tales as an escape from his involuntary celibacy. Writers of comic books... well, they look and act the opposite of superheroic.

If you look at fiction writers in general, they tend to be weak, highly strung, neurotic individuals; In essence, by reading their fiction you basically indulge in someone else's neuroses. Subconsciously, I think it encourages neurotic behaviour in the reader as well.

By far the most level headed people I know have had one thing in common – an indifference to fiction. I believe that this is because, unable to indulge in escapism, the mind is forced to find new and more productive ways to cope, leading to a more successful lifestyle overall.

Conversely, some of the most neurotic people I've met are fiction addicts, and the worst of the bunch are those that are into fantasy and science fiction. It's hard to learn real world coping mechanisms when you spend so little time in the real world in the first place.

So this is the truth about fiction – it is the neurotic indulging in the neurotic. And I can see no particular advantage to fiction, and I recommend abandoning fiction genres as a whole. This is likely to cause some keen psychological distress in the beginning – the brain will actually have to think and take action in response to life, not run away – but I think this is one of the keys to a happy, successful life.

Post: #66

(03-05-2014 12:54 PM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  One of these mechanism is labeled 'Fantasy.' That is, withdrawing into your dreams, thoughts, and imaginings as a way of escaping reality.

In other words, Tolkein must have been quiet sick in the head. As are all other fantasy writers.

If you look at fiction writers in general, they tend to be weak, highly strung, neurotic individuals; In essence, by reading their fiction you basically indulge in someone else's neuroses. Subconsciously, I think it encourages neurotic behaviour in the reader as well.

By far the most level headed people I know have had one thing in common – an indifference to fiction. I believe that this is because, unable to indulge in escapism, the mind is forced to find new and more productive ways to cope, leading to a more successful lifestyle overall.

So, basically what you're saying is everyone is crazy and mentally defective except for you and those that think like you, considering that the majority of humanity enjoys fiction. I'd say that moderation is generally the key in everything you do. Too much fiction can definitely be harmful to your ability to cope with reality, but none at all will definitely lead to becoming a humorless dullard with no imagination.

Post: #67

(03-05-2014 12:54 PM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  Here's the essay I wrote about fiction. It's mainly targeted against the most beta genre - fantasy - but I think the underlying premise that someone who writes fiction must on some level be mentally ill is true across all genres.

Anyway, it was rejected for ROK, but since it's relevant to the topic of this thread, here it is. Feel free to critique it if you disagree, I am always open to different opinions.

The Truth About Fiction

While busy with the psychiatry rotation back in medical school, I read with interest the various coping mechanisms that have been described by psychologists.

One of these mechanism is labeled 'Fantasy.' That is, withdrawing into your dreams, thoughts, and imaginings as a way of escaping reality.

Think about. What kind of person is going to spend all that time in a fantasy world that exists only in his head, dreaming elvish languages and dwarf folk songs? It's the kind of person who is so uncomfortable with reality that he'd rather fantasize than act.

In other words, Tolkein must have been quiet sick in the head. As are all other fantasy writers.

And indeed, the lure of other peoples fantasies can pull people in, to escape reality. Why be bothered about life when you can level up in World of Warcraft? Why worry about being successful if you can be a Jedi knight?

But fantasy is considered to be a psychologically immature coping mechanism. Yes, one can escape from what is troubling, but on the other hand, the troubles don't change. You can't swing your magical sword in make-believe land, but in the real world there is no magic sword to solve your problems.

Truth is harder than fiction, which is why there are so many avenues to indulge in fiction, whether it through hours of computer games, or hours of tv shows, or reading a ten book fantasy series. But once the fiction is over, one is no nearer solving one's life problem than at the beginning. The mark of a mature mind is that it seeks coping mechanisms which resolves problems, and not leave them to fester in the background.

In essence, indulging in fantasy and fiction is indulging in another's man fictioneurosis and inability to deal with his own problems. Howard had love life problems, so he created Conan as a barbarian persona that coud at least get laid in fantasy land. Tolstoy's home life was awful, so he wrote War and Peace. Hans Christian Anderson wrote tales as an escape from his involuntary celibacy. Writers of comic books... well, they look and act the opposite of superheroic.

If you look at fiction writers in general, they tend to be weak, highly strung, neurotic individuals; In essence, by reading their fiction you basically indulge in someone else's neuroses. Subconsciously, I think it encourages neurotic behaviour in the reader as well.

By far the most level headed people I know have had one thing in common – an indifference to fiction. I believe that this is because, unable to indulge in escapism, the mind is forced to find new and more productive ways to cope, leading to a more successful lifestyle overall.

Conversely, some of the most neurotic people I've met are fiction addicts, and the worst of the bunch are those that are into fantasy and science fiction. It's hard to learn real world coping mechanisms when you spend so little time in the real world in the first place.

So this is the truth about fiction – it is the neurotic indulging in the neurotic. And I can see no particular advantage to fiction, and I recommend abandoning fiction genres as a whole. This is likely to cause some keen psychological distress in the beginning – the brain will actually have to think and take action in response to life, not run away – but I think this is one of the keys to a happy, successful life.

I would say it will not lead to a successful life but to fascism. Think of it this way: would it be better when Hitler would have staid an artist and never gone to politics or was it better that he dealt with "reality" and killed millions of people because of his ideology which is fiction and reality at the same time. Pascal wrote that our problem is that we can not stay at home but we like to go outside and make a lot of trouble. Think about the criminals in jail wouldn´t it be better if they could have managed to create a fantasy world which would bring them to other thoughts?

Take away fiction then you will have Stalinism and North Korea. Culture is based on fiction. The so called rationality is fiction. Science already says we have no free will. All we do is rationalisation that´s why different cultures are not compatible because everybody lives in fiction.

We as society and individuals need fiction as culture is fiction. Sparta is thought to be very down to earth and "realistic". And what happened to them? They do not exist anymore.

Star Trek helped us to deal with the modern world. Look at Afrika they have no high level fiction and the killing goes on....

Post: #68

(03-05-2014 12:54 PM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  Here's the essay I wrote about fiction. It's mainly targeted against the most beta genre - fantasy - but I think the underlying premise that someone who writes fiction must on some level be mentally ill is true across all genres.

Anyway, it was rejected for ROK, but since it's relevant to the topic of this thread, here it is. Feel free to critique it if you disagree, I am always open to different opinions.

The Truth About Fiction

While busy with the psychiatry rotation back in medical school, I read with interest the various coping mechanisms that have been described by psychologists.

One of these mechanism is labeled 'Fantasy.' That is, withdrawing into your dreams, thoughts, and imaginings as a way of escaping reality.

Think about. What kind of person is going to spend all that time in a fantasy world that exists only in his head, dreaming elvish languages and dwarf folk songs? It's the kind of person who is so uncomfortable with reality that he'd rather fantasize than act.

In other words, Tolkein must have been quiet sick in the head. As are all other fantasy writers.

And indeed, the lure of other peoples fantasies can pull people in, to escape reality. Why be bothered about life when you can level up in World of Warcraft? Why worry about being successful if you can be a Jedi knight?

But fantasy is considered to be a psychologically immature coping mechanism. Yes, one can escape from what is troubling, but on the other hand, the troubles don't change. You can't swing your magical sword in make-believe land, but in the real world there is no magic sword to solve your problems.

Truth is harder than fiction, which is why there are so many avenues to indulge in fiction, whether it through hours of computer games, or hours of tv shows, or reading a ten book fantasy series. But once the fiction is over, one is no nearer solving one's life problem than at the beginning. The mark of a mature mind is that it seeks coping mechanisms which resolves problems, and not leave them to fester in the background.

In essence, indulging in fantasy and fiction is indulging in another's man fictioneurosis and inability to deal with his own problems. Howard had love life problems, so he created Conan as a barbarian persona that coud at least get laid in fantasy land. Tolstoy's home life was awful, so he wrote War and Peace. Hans Christian Anderson wrote tales as an escape from his involuntary celibacy. Writers of comic books... well, they look and act the opposite of superheroic.

If you look at fiction writers in general, they tend to be weak, highly strung, neurotic individuals; In essence, by reading their fiction you basically indulge in someone else's neuroses. Subconsciously, I think it encourages neurotic behaviour in the reader as well.

By far the most level headed people I know have had one thing in common – an indifference to fiction. I believe that this is because, unable to indulge in escapism, the mind is forced to find new and more productive ways to cope, leading to a more successful lifestyle overall.

Conversely, some of the most neurotic people I've met are fiction addicts, and the worst of the bunch are those that are into fantasy and science fiction. It's hard to learn real world coping mechanisms when you spend so little time in the real world in the first place.

So this is the truth about fiction – it is the neurotic indulging in the neurotic. And I can see no particular advantage to fiction, and I recommend abandoning fiction genres as a whole. This is likely to cause some keen psychological distress in the beginning – the brain will actually have to think and take action in response to life, not run away – but I think this is one of the keys to a happy, successful life.

Thanks for posting this.

The premise is fine (the danger of indulging in fantasy). To the extent that people become oblivious to reality as a result (e.g. watching television constantly). But what it says is that indulging in fantasy as an ESCAPE from reality is dangerous, etc. Yeah sure potentially, depending on the level. But that could apply to getting to absorbed into anything too much: pro sports (NFL fandom, soccer, etc.), WWF, or whatever.

Then the piece goes off the rails saying that because a writer's home life is bad (in his example, Tolstoy), you can't get any value from his work?!

The last paragraph can be refuted pretty simply. Much of great fiction (or film too) actually functions like a mirror held up to society and in fact forces one to face reality (vs. escapist entertainment/fiction/movies). One example of the former: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (the book or the film, take your pick). Another one, by Tolstoy (and I think on Roosh's reading list): The Death of Ivan Ilych.

If you think fiction writers are beta, trying reading some old school stuff by Mailer; Raymond Chandler; Hemingway. There's a reason these guys were published in men's magazines back in the day, like Esquire (when it really was a men's magazine back then).

Anyway if someone don't like reading fiction, don't read it. That is their choice. But this explanation is not convincing. A strong case could be made about over-indulgence in fantasy generally though.

Post: #69

I disagree with this academic breakdown of those who read fiction etc. A lot of our inventions and so forth stem from the creativity of the mind and so forth. Planes, space shuttles, vehicles..if you explain it to someone maybe 100 years ago, they would look at you like you are crazy and submit you to an insane asylum.

Fiction removes the shackles from the mind and allows one to think 'outside the box' etc. Doesn't Google allow their employees a day for creative thinking and to do whatever they want?

Smartphones, internet, wifi, that all spans and was created and developed by heavy indulgers in 'fantasy' and is now an integral part of our daily living in the West so what does that say?

Post: #70

(03-05-2014 12:54 PM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  Here's the essay I wrote about fiction. It's mainly targeted against the most beta genre - fantasy - but I think the underlying premise that someone who writes fiction must on some level be mentally ill is true across all genres.

Anyway, it was rejected for ROK, but since it's relevant to the topic of this thread, here it is. Feel free to critique it if you disagree, I am always open to different opinions.

The Truth About Fiction

While busy with the psychiatry rotation back in medical school, I read with interest the various coping mechanisms that have been described by psychologists.

One of these mechanism is labeled 'Fantasy.' That is, withdrawing into your dreams, thoughts, and imaginings as a way of escaping reality.

Think about. What kind of person is going to spend all that time in a fantasy world that exists only in his head, dreaming elvish languages and dwarf folk songs? It's the kind of person who is so uncomfortable with reality that he'd rather fantasize than act.

In other words, Tolkein must have been quiet sick in the head. As are all other fantasy writers.

And indeed, the lure of other peoples fantasies can pull people in, to escape reality. Why be bothered about life when you can level up in World of Warcraft? Why worry about being successful if you can be a Jedi knight?

But fantasy is considered to be a psychologically immature coping mechanism. Yes, one can escape from what is troubling, but on the other hand, the troubles don't change. You can't swing your magical sword in make-believe land, but in the real world there is no magic sword to solve your problems.

Truth is harder than fiction, which is why there are so many avenues to indulge in fiction, whether it through hours of computer games, or hours of tv shows, or reading a ten book fantasy series. But once the fiction is over, one is no nearer solving one's life problem than at the beginning. The mark of a mature mind is that it seeks coping mechanisms which resolves problems, and not leave them to fester in the background.

In essence, indulging in fantasy and fiction is indulging in another's man fictioneurosis and inability to deal with his own problems. Howard had love life problems, so he created Conan as a barbarian persona that coud at least get laid in fantasy land. Tolstoy's home life was awful, so he wrote War and Peace. Hans Christian Anderson wrote tales as an escape from his involuntary celibacy. Writers of comic books... well, they look and act the opposite of superheroic.

If you look at fiction writers in general, they tend to be weak, highly strung, neurotic individuals; In essence, by reading their fiction you basically indulge in someone else's neuroses. Subconsciously, I think it encourages neurotic behaviour in the reader as well.

By far the most level headed people I know have had one thing in common – an indifference to fiction. I believe that this is because, unable to indulge in escapism, the mind is forced to find new and more productive ways to cope, leading to a more successful lifestyle overall.

Conversely, some of the most neurotic people I've met are fiction addicts, and the worst of the bunch are those that are into fantasy and science fiction. It's hard to learn real world coping mechanisms when you spend so little time in the real world in the first place.

So this is the truth about fiction – it is the neurotic indulging in the neurotic. And I can see no particular advantage to fiction, and I recommend abandoning fiction genres as a whole. This is likely to cause some keen psychological distress in the beginning – the brain will actually have to think and take action in response to life, not run away – but I think this is one of the keys to a happy, successful life.

I think Heartiste once referred to this as the convenient narcotics of video games and wide screen TVs.

Thomas is correct, but most guys < 30 won't get it. It isn't to say NEVER indulge in fiction, but to say that most people use it as a shield from reality.

Post: #71

(03-06-2014 03:59 PM)Sugar Wrote:  Thomas is correct, but most guys < 30 won't get it. It isn't to say NEVER indulge in fiction, but to say that most people use it as a shield from reality.

If Thomas had just said fiction can be dangerous to your mental health should you overindulge, I don't think anyone would disagree. However, he decided to push it into the realm of ridiculousness by stating that people who write fiction are sick in the head.

It's interesting that he chose Tolkein as his example, considering he had survived the hell of WWI trench warfare where many of his friends had died, no doubt some before his eyes. His fantasy creation most likely acted as a much needed escape from reliving the unspeakably terrible events that he lived through in his younger years. Considering he was a successful, function adult for the rest of his life unlike many who suffer PTSD or shell shock as it was known back then, I'd say his fiction probably helped more than hindered.

Post: #72

If fictional stories didn't matter than they wouldn't still exist. Reading a memoir is as much of an escape as reading a novel. The pursuit of truth and the pursuit of the ultimate fictional experience (whether through writing or reading) are both entire subjects of their own right and contain many subcategories. The fact that you think you have the authority to lay out all the ground rules in a few hundred words is laughable. Should we wish that Tolstoy had a good life so he never would have written War and Peace? Your argument is focused on cause and completely ignores the potential effects of fiction.

Post: #73

Today - at work - a boring chick was telling me what she dreamt of last night.

As I sat there bored - it reminded me of why I hate fiction.

As with a dream - anything can happen. And it has zero consequences out here in the 'real' world.

I react to a novel the way most people react to hearing people talk about their dreams.

Post: #74

I never was a big fiction reader though I read some big ones recently. But this is only because I am semi retired so I have time for hobbies. I think fiction is like learning something on autopilot like when you play tennis with a friend. Non fiction is like learning from a professional where you learn a lot of technical stuff but it might not be as much fun.

Post: #75

Agreed, I absolutely hate fiction

What could be explained in one sentence is seemingly dragged out for fucking hours in fiction books:

"I opened the door", becomes:

"I reached for door's unrelenting golden surface. I felt a sense of melancholy mixed with discontent, and yet somehow I was liberated. The ceiling was pastel blue, yet my thoughts were an unknowing crystal white. Unwillingly, I wrenched my wrist and gave entrance to the world behind the front of my home, as if the protection was somehow denounced in that fluttering moment"

I thought I used to hate books until I was 16. Fiction sends me to sleep, but after I read a non-fiction book, I feel like a book's worth of knowledge has entered my brain

Back in my days as an avid Noam Chomsky fan I'd read a page, then would walk around my apartment bouncing ideas of the walls, digesting each bit, borderline talking to myself.

And if I'm hungover, I'll just read English Teacher X or a dirtbag travel story from Beyond Borders or something