I'm quite sure that I'm not the only person who makes peculiar and inconsistent judgement towards what other people are reading. A complete absence of nonfiction could potentially lean a person towards absurdity and triviality. For example: the not-so-bad Star Trek spec script detailed in Sunday's Breaking Bad (previously written on) features characters who are stunningly literate in Star Trek canon and lore, but are haplessly ignorant on matter of reality (see: Skinny Pete not "having time" to learn simple spelling in an early episode).
That being said, remaining stuck in this reality inhibits the imagination, from which new futures and possibilities can come. It's an obnoxious "bumper sticker" type quote, but I am reminded of ubiquitous Einstein posters stating that "Imagination is More Important than Knowledge." I have no doubt that the quote is correctly attributed to Einstein, but I also know that most of us have a very shallow understanding of Einstein both as a physicist and as a historical person. I've not yet completed Walter Issacson's in-depth biography, but it's important not to fall into traps of cults of personality when looking for wise words and guidance. Point in fact, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse was recently on The Colbert Report shelling a book of quotations he's gathered. While not entirely meritless, the idea (which I probably would have liked not long ago) now seems like a terrible idea: big ideas don't really fit on bumper stickers. That type of thing makes me invision the sheep from Animal Farm, learning how to chant "Four Feet Good, Two Feet Bad" at the behest of the smarter pigs. But then, Youtube and Wikipedia might be considered lazy gateways to information, but I have found them to often be both accurate and educational.
I'm slightly sidetracking, but let me state this-- reading a non-fiction book and presuming it is entirely true is clearly not wise. Yet I've found many friends throughout the years read a book and then act is if they have imbued the truth and knowledge from their reading-- as if it had unlocked all of the mysteries instead of producing more. I'm not saying that we should stay rigidly ignorant, but the skeptical approach is always best. Considering the source is also infinitely important.This is one of the awful parts about religious texts-- the books are claiming that the literal Creator of the Universe is responsible for every comma. Yet it's also conceded that "it's been produced through the vessel of human beings, who are imperfect." Yet the book itself is perfect. There's no arguing with this kind of logic, there is only backing away slowly.
I don't really mean to start trolling the Internet on whether the Bible should be placed in Fiction or Non-Fiction, although it might sell better in the prior (Harry Potter had talking snakes, after all). Alas, I really don't mean to focus on that argument. My point is, non-fiction can often still be considered an op-ed. Every book on Obama, for instance, is far to contemporary to claim taking the view of a "historical approach". My point is, when you approach Fiction, you assume that it's not true. When you approach Non-Fiction, you generally assume that it's also true, but that is more likely to be mistaken.
I believe Fiction helps hone tools, especially certain literary devices, that makes reading Non-Fiction more productive. For example: the unreliable narrator. It's a fictional device, but it could certainly apply in real life, say when reading a historical journal, or reading first-person accounts in a biography. Fiction provides a template which then can apply in the real world. To put it crassly, it help you smell out the bullshit. But there still needs to be some beacons of veracity. Consider the Washington Post-- a paper that is bound to get certain things "wrong", but makes its business by being reliably responsible with the facts. And then having a bunch of Op/Ed columnists arguing over the grave differences between agreed-upon premises-- the news that was just reported.
So, looping back to the original admission that I judge people on what they are reading: does that mean that there is bad Fiction or Non-Fiction? Well, the answer I think is a self-evident yes. Maybe this blog post is bad writing-- if anyone is to read it, they can leave their ironic comments below. But it's clear that there is an objectively bad version of Non-Fiction: something that is incorrect is bad Non-Fiction. However, reading Bob Woodward can introduce vastly complex government mechanisms and enormous political egos to the layman reader, and forms an entertaining narrative that's all based in research and (dare I say it) fact. To contrast, a number of scientific and academic journals are unsufferably boring (as are some blog posts, come to think of it). So naturally it depends on the goal and audience of the writing--but one thing remains the same, by definition. Non-Fiction is just plain, unavoidably wrong if it gets its facts wrong. Fiction, on the other hand, can use facts, or not. It really is a much more difficult thing to measure quality-- how much does it challenge the reader? How entertaining is it? How many layers are there to it? Does it transcend the genre, rely on tropes, etc, etc.
So as it ends up, it's the wrong question to ask whether Non-Fiction is better than Fiction, or even which provides more insight. It's also not entirely correct to say that there are no reasonable standards either. It's just worth remembering that ultimately, judgement on fiction is wholly subjective. Maybe Harry Potter really is better than 50 Shades of Grey, maybe George R.R. Martin is superior to Tolkien. It's an eternally difficult question, but that doesn't make it not worth asking. The measure of quality is one of the great things we human beings enjoy, and one of the things we're good at understanding, even if not on agreeing.
All that said, Harry Potter beats Twilight, George R.R. Martin is superior to Tolkien, Star Wars beats Star Trek, and nobody gives a shit about Percy Jackson.
Let the flame wars begin.
That being said, remaining stuck in this reality inhibits the imagination, from which new futures and possibilities can come. It's an obnoxious "bumper sticker" type quote, but I am reminded of ubiquitous Einstein posters stating that "Imagination is More Important than Knowledge." I have no doubt that the quote is correctly attributed to Einstein, but I also know that most of us have a very shallow understanding of Einstein both as a physicist and as a historical person. I've not yet completed Walter Issacson's in-depth biography, but it's important not to fall into traps of cults of personality when looking for wise words and guidance. Point in fact, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse was recently on The Colbert Report shelling a book of quotations he's gathered. While not entirely meritless, the idea (which I probably would have liked not long ago) now seems like a terrible idea: big ideas don't really fit on bumper stickers. That type of thing makes me invision the sheep from Animal Farm, learning how to chant "Four Feet Good, Two Feet Bad" at the behest of the smarter pigs. But then, Youtube and Wikipedia might be considered lazy gateways to information, but I have found them to often be both accurate and educational.
I'm slightly sidetracking, but let me state this-- reading a non-fiction book and presuming it is entirely true is clearly not wise. Yet I've found many friends throughout the years read a book and then act is if they have imbued the truth and knowledge from their reading-- as if it had unlocked all of the mysteries instead of producing more. I'm not saying that we should stay rigidly ignorant, but the skeptical approach is always best. Considering the source is also infinitely important.This is one of the awful parts about religious texts-- the books are claiming that the literal Creator of the Universe is responsible for every comma. Yet it's also conceded that "it's been produced through the vessel of human beings, who are imperfect." Yet the book itself is perfect. There's no arguing with this kind of logic, there is only backing away slowly.
I don't really mean to start trolling the Internet on whether the Bible should be placed in Fiction or Non-Fiction, although it might sell better in the prior (Harry Potter had talking snakes, after all). Alas, I really don't mean to focus on that argument. My point is, non-fiction can often still be considered an op-ed. Every book on Obama, for instance, is far to contemporary to claim taking the view of a "historical approach". My point is, when you approach Fiction, you assume that it's not true. When you approach Non-Fiction, you generally assume that it's also true, but that is more likely to be mistaken.
I believe Fiction helps hone tools, especially certain literary devices, that makes reading Non-Fiction more productive. For example: the unreliable narrator. It's a fictional device, but it could certainly apply in real life, say when reading a historical journal, or reading first-person accounts in a biography. Fiction provides a template which then can apply in the real world. To put it crassly, it help you smell out the bullshit. But there still needs to be some beacons of veracity. Consider the Washington Post-- a paper that is bound to get certain things "wrong", but makes its business by being reliably responsible with the facts. And then having a bunch of Op/Ed columnists arguing over the grave differences between agreed-upon premises-- the news that was just reported.
So, looping back to the original admission that I judge people on what they are reading: does that mean that there is bad Fiction or Non-Fiction? Well, the answer I think is a self-evident yes. Maybe this blog post is bad writing-- if anyone is to read it, they can leave their ironic comments below. But it's clear that there is an objectively bad version of Non-Fiction: something that is incorrect is bad Non-Fiction. However, reading Bob Woodward can introduce vastly complex government mechanisms and enormous political egos to the layman reader, and forms an entertaining narrative that's all based in research and (dare I say it) fact. To contrast, a number of scientific and academic journals are unsufferably boring (as are some blog posts, come to think of it). So naturally it depends on the goal and audience of the writing--but one thing remains the same, by definition. Non-Fiction is just plain, unavoidably wrong if it gets its facts wrong. Fiction, on the other hand, can use facts, or not. It really is a much more difficult thing to measure quality-- how much does it challenge the reader? How entertaining is it? How many layers are there to it? Does it transcend the genre, rely on tropes, etc, etc.
So as it ends up, it's the wrong question to ask whether Non-Fiction is better than Fiction, or even which provides more insight. It's also not entirely correct to say that there are no reasonable standards either. It's just worth remembering that ultimately, judgement on fiction is wholly subjective. Maybe Harry Potter really is better than 50 Shades of Grey, maybe George R.R. Martin is superior to Tolkien. It's an eternally difficult question, but that doesn't make it not worth asking. The measure of quality is one of the great things we human beings enjoy, and one of the things we're good at understanding, even if not on agreeing.
All that said, Harry Potter beats Twilight, George R.R. Martin is superior to Tolkien, Star Wars beats Star Trek, and nobody gives a shit about Percy Jackson.
Let the flame wars begin.
No comments:
Post a Comment