I'm going to reply to this comment in good faith, because I think a lot of people actually think like this but are afraid to ask about it.
The question before the court is: how can you read fiction during times of crisis and upheaval? Why not study history instead?
The question before the court is: how can you read fiction during times of crisis and upheaval? Why not study history instead?
And the answer is complicated, but it must start with the acknowledgement that history is fiction, too.
Stories don't really happen, stories are created by synthesizing things that may or may not have happened and presenting them in a narrative frame.
Stories don't really happen, stories are created by synthesizing things that may or may not have happened and presenting them in a narrative frame.
The idea that we should all be reading history books is, generously interpreted, actually an argument that we ought to be focusing our recreational activities in ways that make us better equipped to understand global events.
And that's fine, that's a fine opinion to have --
And that's fine, that's a fine opinion to have --
-- for yourself.
If history books are what allow you to make sense of what's happening around you then by all means read history books.
But what you're not getting is that all stories -- not just the "true" ones -- help us make sense of what's happening around us.
If history books are what allow you to make sense of what's happening around you then by all means read history books.
But what you're not getting is that all stories -- not just the "true" ones -- help us make sense of what's happening around us.
I'd argue that reading Les Miserables will teach you more about the current historical moment than reading any number of history books.
That Dostoevsky has more to teach us about our shared humanity than any historical scholar.
That Shakespeare helps make sense of motivations.
That Dostoevsky has more to teach us about our shared humanity than any historical scholar.
That Shakespeare helps make sense of motivations.
"Ok but those are the classics, what I'm really trying to do is express judgment towards people who are reading popcorn fiction during a time of crisis."
Ok, so what if someone is reading the DaVinci Code? Or watching Jersey Shore? My point holds:
Ok, so what if someone is reading the DaVinci Code? Or watching Jersey Shore? My point holds:
Those stories contain emotional, narrative, social and yes historical "truths". They're just synthesized and presented in a frame that doesn't claim to be factual.
You're still consuming meaning. That's why it feels good.
You're still consuming meaning. That's why it feels good.
"Ok, but surely not all meaning is created equal? Can't we say that some meaning is more useful / appropriate / relevant than other meaning?"
Useful / Appropriate / Relevant to what, though? Why are you seeking to judge?
Sometimes people just do what makes them happy. So?
Useful / Appropriate / Relevant to what, though? Why are you seeking to judge?
Sometimes people just do what makes them happy. So?
(If you want more thoughts about Narrative, including why Narrative is how Magic works, check out this thread and the one I link to from the end of it:
https://twitter.com/mykola/status/1102009585328631808)
β’ β’ β’
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
γ
