Is fiction important? [Archive] - World Literature Forum

Jan Mbali

29-Sep-2008, 20:38

Lucy Kellaway in today's Financial Times:

Managers can learn a great deal from fiction, or so thinks Sandra Sucher. She teaches a course at Harvard Business School in which she makes chief executives sit down and talk about novels. She thinks that business leaders should steal the idea of book clubs from their wives, and get together with their peers once a month to thrash out the moral dilemmas posed in fiction.

FT.com / Home UK / UK - A novel approach for chief executives (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9fffdbde-8bdb-11dd-8a4c-0000779fd18c.html)

My take: There are likely to be a lot more ex-managers from which to assemble such reading groups.

add: The hook: Books vs. Cigarettes - by George Orwell (http://www.george-orwell.org/Books_vs._Cigarettes/0.html%5B/quote)

And so can revolutionaries, of either wing. Certainly the pre-1917 Bolsheviks used fiction when they could not get hold of their cult classics (Marx, Engels). And not only for analysis - moral education and to stiffen those resolves.

Fiction works because it plumbs depths non-fiction cannot, by diving deep into, and synthesizing, elements of our culture and its manisfestations in our individual subconsiousnesses. Something like the alchemists desire to transmute base metals into gold. Also, I never write a sentence as horrible as the one beofre the last when I write fiction.

More seriously, I have never read Jung, although what I suggest above probably has resonance with his work. However, I attended a lecture by Linda S. Leonard who very brilliantly used a Jungian analysis to look into her own alcoholism using biography, literature and history. She wrote "Witnesss to the fire: creativityand the veil of addiction", which I cannot bring myself to buy - bloody expensive in South Africa. It features Dostoevsky's gambling addiction - perhaps not unlike some of the stockbrokers who went to Harvard.

Eric

29-Sep-2008, 21:57

I couldn't read the whole of the first URL that Nnyhav gave us, as I haven't registered as a read of the FT. From the bit I could read, I did notice that Orwell spent ?25 on books per year, which must have been quite a sum in those days. You have to remember that Eric Blair came from a pretty well-off family. Though when he wrote that paperbacks were relatively cheap, it is true. I don't think this is one of Orwell's most profound essays.

But it isn't money that stops some people reading fiction, but a lack of education and encouragement. Public (and university) libraries have been around for a very long time. Most of my first reads of any value were schoolbooks, lent to us by the school I went to, or books from the local public library. But someone (parents, schoolteachers) has got to get young people into the habit of reading fiction, and appreciating why you read it. Fiction can train your faculties and give pleasure, but will not magically be a handbook for all your problems.

I think it's a bit of a wind-up to suggest that fiction is a sort of magic source of information where profound minds can learn solutions to the ills of the world. It appears to be a slightly hysterical comment caused by the second Black Monday on the bourses. The FT does, after all, cater for people that invest and otherwise shove sums of money around. Do you really think that people recently sacked from the banking and building society sector are going to seek the holy grail of fiction to improve their lives, now they have endless hours on their hands?

I think Jan Mbali is right when he says:

Fiction works because it plumbs depths non-fiction cannot, by diving deep into, and synthesizing, elements of our culture and its manifestations in our individual subconsiousnesses. Something like the alchemists desire to transmute base metals into gold.

Personally, I think a healthy balance between prose fiction, poetry and non-fiction will make you a wiser person. Let the (ex-?) FT journos fantasise about "that novel that opened my eyes".

Beth

30-Sep-2008, 02:59

I think it's a bit of a wind-up to suggest that fiction is a sort of magic source of information where profound minds can learn solutions to the ills of the world.

Grant you that, unless fiction is a sort of magic source of information where profound minds can learn solutions to their ills, and then go about fixing the ills of the world. ;) It can't hurt! What will the afternoon Lehman Brothers book group name themselves?

nnyhav

30-Sep-2008, 03:56

Mostly agree with you, Eric (and Jan, particularly where Eric agrees). Except for your not registering free for FT, which caters to interests other than those of spivs (the article does go into lack of time rather than money as the common excuse).

Do you really think that people recently sacked from the banking and building society sector are going to seek the holy grail of fiction to improve their lives, now they have endless hours on their hands?
Well, I have. But well before being recently sacked (as a mere consultant in support services, mind you), and not having anything to do with career prospects. Or holy grails for that matter (except perhaps montipythonic). And oh if only the hours were endless, how much reading I'd get done!

an afterthought: the question "is fiction important?" is unrelated to sceptical press reports about mark-to-market practices that sector employs in booking mortgage assets. ;)

Jayaprakash

30-Sep-2008, 04:10

Of course fiction's important, as is anything people produce or consume in signficant quantities.

But is it useful? It can be, on a variety of levels. The publishing industry offers all sorts of professional niches which provide differing approaches to a living. Reading a book is one way to pass the time. Fiction gives reviewers something to write about and a trade to ply.

Is it any more useful than that? Depends more on the reader than the book, I think. You only get out of it what you're willing to search for.

titania7

30-Sep-2008, 05:00

Jayaprakash,
Well said. I think reading books is much like other experiences in
life--we get out of them what we choose to get out of them. To put it a bit more concisely, If we seek, we shall find.

To nnyhav, Eric, Beth, & Jan:

Of course there is a great big world out there outside of books. At the same time, books do open one's eyes to many truths about life and human nature--insights many (if not most) of us might not have otherwise. I do feel one should be discriminating. And yes, a mixture of fiction, non-fiction and poetry is ideal. Personally, I am drawn
to reading and writing fiction much as I was drawn to the world of theatre. When I write, I live vicariously through the characters I create. When I read, I oft-times relate on such a personal level to one or more of the characters--or perhaps even more frequently, to the writer--that I feel I'm with them on their "journey." Similarly, when one is an actor, one puts on the "mask" of another and creates an entirely new being. In a way, we are all actors, even in our own lives. Is the world so different than a monumental novel? Are our struggles and concerns so unlike those we read about in books? Of course books aren't guidebooks on "how to live your life." To even imagine such a thing would be ludicrous. But they can teach us quite a lot--if we but open our eyes to see.

titania

"One cannot dwell long upon the same thoughts;
they gradually shift like the bits of glass in
a kaleidoscope....one peeps in and already the
shapes before one's eyes are utterly different."
~Smoke, Ivan Turgenev

titania7

30-Sep-2008, 05:17

Having a predilection for interesting quotes (particularly those by writers), I couldn't resist sharing this one. Food for thought, eh?

"The proper study of mankind is books."
~Crome Yellow, Aldous Huxley

Those of you who haven't explored any Huxley outside of Brave New World should definitely take a look at his short fiction (brilliant!) as well as some of his magnificently clever novels--Antic Hay and Crome Yellow are two that come to mind. Huxley is, in my opinion, a highly underrated writer/thinker. And I can't possibly be the only person who thinks so ;).

titania

saliotthomas

30-Sep-2008, 13:37

Just a world about fiction been useful mention by Jayaprakash.
When registering for the taxe in france i had to join an organization called "the house of artistes" and the criteria's to belong to it was not creating useful things.Comming to the conclusion that art in general in not.A counter definition of sort.
This is the border betwin craftmanship and art.Art as not practicality,a beautiful painting,a great novel will touch you,but they have concrete use.
This got me wandering for years,trying to find a flow it the reasoning.
But it is not because something is unpractical that it is unimportant.Dropped on a desert island i'll choose a knife over the best novel in the world.But my brain would slowly die without the exercice and joy that a book offers.
Many people live without music and books,their life is closer to animal form of humain been,not less,just more primal,which sometime is'nt bad.

(I hope i made some sense)

Sybarite

30-Sep-2008, 15:11

"Is fiction important?"

Yes.

Imagination is important.

Learning is important – and fiction, even though it's fiction, does not preclude information.

Fiction is well placed to challenge views and ideas. Dickens, for instance, used his fiction to help waken people to social conditions in Victorian England. Gore Vidal has used novels such as Myra Breckinridge to challenge notions of sex, gender and sexuality.

Indeed, the very fact that works of fiction have been banned illustrates how powerful some fiction is thought to be.

Fiction can allow ideas to be taken way beyond that which could be done in a non-fiction work, thus helping to explore subjects in new and different ways.

It's well placed to stretch readers' minds – not just with ideas, but also in terms of vocabulary, for instance.

Fiction is a form of entertainment – and we all need entertainment.

But to say 'no' would prompt the question of whether any of the arts – any cultural endeavour – is "important".

Is it more important than food and drink? Well, not – of course not. But once you have those, then (as a certain famous work of literature put it) "man cannot live by bread alone".

Mirabell

30-Sep-2008, 15:32

which could be done in a non-fiction work

steep claim. can't say I agree.

kpjayan

30-Sep-2008, 15:37

While on the subject, I may suggest these interesting books..

"Art of Novel" and "The curtain" by Milan Kundera ;
"Why read classics" by Italo Calvino..

Sybarite

30-Sep-2008, 16:01

steep claim. can't say I agree.

I'll take one example straight off the top of my head.

The book that I've just read, Myra Breckinridge deals, in part, with the fluidity of human sexuality and sexual behaviour (and, indeed, gender). Which is a pretty heavy subject, made funny and fun by the writer, Gore Vidal.

Now Vidal has written, at some length, non-fiction about that same subject. But perhaps the telling point is that Sexually Speaking: Collected Sex Writings is currently not in print in the US or UK, whereas a novel that has had the wonderful boost of being banned, is.

Many more people will read the novel than will/have read the non-fiction. Some will even read the novel because they've seen the film.

As another, slightly different example: Olivia Judson's Dr Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation is a work of non-fiction. It's about evolutionary biology. But what it does is to use a very creative (and fictional) method of explaining its subject. Judson writes it as 'Dr Tatiana', an agony aunt answering letters from insects and birds and animals who are bemused by their particular sexual habits.

The book has sold quite well. Primarily (bit not exclusively) to people who are complete laymen in terms of the science of evolutionary biology. But would as many people have read it (or would the people who it was aimed at have read it) if it were not packaged in a way that is essentially fictional (and anthropomorphic, indeed)?

Fiction can stretch and create in a way that is not obviously easy in non-fiction, because it doesn't have to play by the same 'rules'. That is not to say that one is more important or 'better' than the other.

Mirabell

30-Sep-2008, 17:03

Now Vidal has written, at some length, non-fiction about that same subject. But perhaps the telling point is that Sexually Speaking: Collected Sex Writings is currently not in print in the US or UK, whereas a novel that has had the wonderful boost of being banned, is.

This only says that a) Vidal may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, especially since very very very very few novelists are good theoreticians and b) that a novel has a higher potential to offend.

Banning means it offends.

Your other point, w/ the Sex book, appears to be about popular appeal and yes, I would agree that fiction, generally, reaches more people than 'non-fiction'.

If these two aspects were what you meant by

Fiction can allow ideas to be taken way beyond that which could be done in a non-fiction work,

I recant. Because then you are right, even if yr point verges upon the trivial. I thought it was about the ideas themselves.

But your point is good. As an educational tool, fiction has a great potential, inspiring people to think about stuff they would not have thought about themselves. How many people would pick up Butler and get their minds blown by that stuff and how many more will pick up Vidal? They will get their minds possibly less thoroughly blown, but still. An enormous potential.

This point is also illustrated by novels such as Uncle Tom's Cabin or What Is To Be Done.

Both rely on theory written before and do not contain ideas beyond theory in and of its time yet their influence is larger by far than most of that theory. They reached people, let's say Feuerbach, could not have reached. Slipped the bitter pill in sweet romance, so to say.

nnyhav

01-Oct-2008, 05:26

Oh dear ...

Bibliotherapy, the new shelf-help | Books | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2008/sep/23/1)

no way am I crossindexing to the bookstore thread on this'un

Eric

09-Oct-2008, 13:34

Fiction can distil things from life and present them more concisely that treatises, papers and other non-fictional approaches to a problem.

The word "entertainment" is a bit misleading. For me it somehow gives the idea of distraction, good clean fun to get your mind off life's troubles. However, much fiction examines problems, the darker side of life. I agree with Sybarite, when she says:

Fiction can stretch and create in a way that is not obviously easy in non-fiction, because it doesn't have to play by the same 'rules'. That is not to say that one is more important or 'better' than the other.

Incidentally, I've been buying print copies of the FT (the one printed in Frankfurt) quite a lot recently, for obvious reasons. As recently as yesterday, in fact, when the idea of Russia lending Iceland money made NATO worried about influence. (Iceland is a NATO member.) The FT's coverage of the non-fictional aspects of politics and news from foreign countries is good. I just don't think that they've got the strongest coverage of fiction, poetry, etc., although I heard that they did have a ballet correspondent, and cover the arts quite well at weekends.

Aiculik

09-Oct-2008, 17:02

If the fiction is important? It depends.
It is as important as is all art. Books make people see the world from different perspective, to think, to ask themselves questions. But so does all art. It is frequent argument that fiction is more accessible for masses than e.g. paintings or music, because it uses language as its medium. And everyone can read.

I disagree. The fact that someone knows his abc doesn't mean that they can read artistic texts. I see many people all around me - and some are real bookworms, mind you - that simply can't go below the most obvious, top layer of the book. They don't know what to think of the book unless they read the review or critic. And they often choose books because someone, somewhere said that this book is good and worthy, it's classic, it's in some canon or whatever. They ask the questions someone else told them to ask, find meanings someone else found in the text. And I don't see how that can be important or useful. On the contrary, it would be more useful to read a phonebook.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mean that such people are unitelligent, uneducated, less worthy or anything. It's just that literature is art, after all, and many people simply don't know how to approach it, how to find any meaning in it. Just as I can't find any meaning in modern paintings or music.

Fiction is important - but only for those people who understand its language.

nnyhav

09-Oct-2008, 20:43

Incidentally, I've been buying print copies of the FT (the one printed in Frankfurt) quite a lot recently, for obvious reasons. As recently as yesterday, in fact, when the idea of Russia lending Iceland money made NATO worried about influence. (Iceland is a NATO member.) The FT's coverage of the non-fictional aspects of politics and news from foreign countries is good. I just don't think that they've got the strongest coverage of fiction, poetry, etc., although I heard that they did have a ballet correspodent, and cover the arts quite well at weekends.

Well, the coverage of the unwinding of various financial fictions has been pretty good. ;) But that they (or the WSJ this side of the pond) give it any serious attention at all is a plus. (The Economist seems to have scaled back its consideration of fiction of late.)

I find fiction indispensible to forming a coherent view of the world (novels in particular, since they're such catch-alls). Though my reading of the above-mentioned publications indicates the world is pretty incoherent these days, especially the financial side of it, which distracts me from here a bit since it's my industry, or was (and will be again, I hope).

Stewart

09-Oct-2008, 23:28

Mirabell

09-Oct-2008, 23:42

The most recent winner of the Nobel prize for Literature which was, you may or may not know this, announced today, said in his acceptance interview

Mon message est qu'il faut continuer de lire des romans car c'est un bon moyen de comprendre le monde actuel. Le romancier n'est pas un philosophe, ni un technicien du langage, mais celui qui ?crit et pose des questions." Le Cl?zio : "Il faut continuer de lire des romans" - Culture - Le Monde.fr (http://www.lemonde.fr/culture/article/2008/10/09/le-clezio-il-faut-continuer-de-lire-des-romans_1105232_3246.html)

titania7

10-Oct-2008, 01:01

Aiculik,
I heartily agree with your comments about literature. It does depend on how capable the reader is of appreciating a book as to whether or not it is worthwhile. The same does indeed go for every form of art. To give one example, I went to see "Madame Butterfly" earlier this week. Although to me the opera was spectacular and fully engaging, I noticed that many people in the audience seemed to be bored. In fact, many of the men, who, it would seem, had been dragged there by their wives, were actually falling asleep. Considering the mesmerizing plot of this particular opera, it struck me as incredible that anyone could watch it without relishing it thoroughly. Why go to the opera at all if you don't really love it? Similarly, why bother to read books if you don't absolutely love literature? Unless the book is a requirement for school, it seems nonsensical that a person who would never be able to appreciate a good book should take the trouble to read one. Better for them to watch television or peruse fashion/entertainment magazines than to read something magnificent without appreciating its merit.

Titania

"If Botticelli were alive today he'd be working for Vogue."
~Sir Peter Ustinov

Beth

10-Oct-2008, 03:41

kpjayan

10-Oct-2008, 05:19

It does depend on how capable the reader is of appreciating a book as to whether or not it is worthwhile

This would be an interesting angle.. Capability of the reader to appreciate literature. How will one reach this level ? When you start reading, do you start at this level of excellence to understand and appreciate the literature ? To me, you grow as a reader. Over the years, you develop these skills to appreciate good from the rest and that skills can not be developed overnight. Re-reading a book after a span of few years do give me a different perspective. Your knowledge , your reading habits, your thought processes change as you grow older. At each stage of your "reading career" , there is a level of understanding the fiction.

nnyhav

10-Oct-2008, 05:50

Mon message est qu'il faut continuer de lire des romans car c'est un bon moyen de comprendre le monde actuel. Le romancier n'est pas un philosophe, ni un technicien du langage, mais celui qui ?crit et pose des questions."

Mirabell, I'd really enjoy knowing what Le Cl?zio says here. Could you whip up a translation, please?

"My message is that it is necessary to continue to read novels because it is a good means of understanding the current world. The novelist is not a philosopher, nor a technician of the language, but s/he who writes and raises questions."

(my approx having not french but babelfish)
(but I disagree, the novelist may also be a philosopher and a technician of language)

fausto

10-Oct-2008, 09:03

Your approximation is good.

Aiculik

10-Oct-2008, 09:29

On the subject of the importance of fiction I'm reminded of this little snippet from Bernard Malamud's The Assistant (review here (http://theasylum.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/bernard-malamud-the-assistant/)).

He asked her what book she was reading.
“The Idiot. Do you know it?”
“No. What’s it about?”
“It’s a novel.”
“I’d rather read the truth.”
“It is the truth.”

I remember how I once met my friend (a professor of French literature in grammar school) in the tram. And as usually, I had a book with me. She asked me also what I was reading. "Oh, The Idiot," I said. And she asked: "Which one?"
(yes, she tought I was speaking about the author, not the book. :D)

Similarly, why bother to read books if you don't absolutely love literature? Unless the book is a requirement for school, it seems nonsensical that a person who would never be able to appreciate a good book should take the trouble to read one?

Well, here are some reasons which I was told - they read "for fun", that is, because of interesting story. They are ignorant of any other layer of the book, they don't care about symbols, language or ideas. They don't think about the book, don't analyse it in any way (I don't mean the way you do it in school, but personal).
Also, reading books makes you seem more educated, cultural, intelligent. Especially if you read "right" books. If a man above forty would confess that after high school he never read any novel, most people would think he's uncultural primitive. If he'd say he reads only manga, they he has some problem. But if he'd say that he reads Dostoyevsky or Proust... well, that sounds much better, doesn't it? That's often also the reason why people go to opera.

At each stage of your "reading career" , there is a level of understanding the fiction.
I both agree and disagree. :D It is true that you learn to recognize things that make book good. That you can learn skills. But skills are not everything. You can learn how to take great photos, you can learn to distinguish technically good or even great photo from bad one. Yet that doesn't mean you'd be able to judge photos as art, that e.g. Saudek's photos will mean anything to you.
During my study, there were two girls in my study group that always got A for their analysis and interpretations. Oh, they were amazing. You'd think - as everybody else - hey, these really love and appreciate literature! And, as everybody else, you'd be wrong.
All they did, as they told me themselves, was that they learned to find out what they were expected to find out. :) It never relly touched them. For them, it was all useless nonsense. Why they studied literature? Because they did like to read, but for them, literature was only entertaninment. Not art.

Eric

10-Oct-2008, 10:31

I applaud Aiculik when he says in #17:

The fact that someone knows his abc doesn't mean that they can read artistic texts. I see many people all around me - and some are real bookworms, mind you - that simply can't go below the most obvious, top layer of the book. They don't know what to think of the book unless they read the review or critic. And they often choose books because someone, somewhere said that this book is good and worthy, it's classic, it's in some canon or whatever. They ask the questions someone else told them to ask, find meanings someone else found in the text.

This is what I'm always battling ("ranting") against. The propensity of people not to think for themselves, not choosing their own books to read, but slavishly copying the trends, the critics, the gurus. What the Guardian and the NYT "tells" them to read. While I do like to see what is being read in the world (the world, not only London and New York), I try to go my own way.

At present, I've decided to read some Icelandic, Finland-Swedish and Swedish poets. For no particular reason - except that I want to. I could Google to see whether this is the trendy thing to read (e.g. Iceland, bank failure, read their poets), but I can't be bothered. A whim, just now, makes me want to read such things. Next month it may we be prose from a completely different country.

So for me fiction is "important", in the sense that it expands my horizons: geographical, psychological, stylistic. If you look at my list of my 50 favourite books on another thread somewhere, you will find that while half of the authors are common to most other people here, the other half are by authors that no one on these threads may even have heard of. For me, that is the right balance. Neither totally conforming to every trend conjured up by newspaper critics (e.g. a certain author was born or died a hundred years ago this year); nor, on the other hand, turning up my nose at serious and well-regarded writers.

But I must want to read the book, must be driven on to read beyond the first ten pages. I don't want to read through a 500-page novel just because there is pressure from critics, friends, TV, etc., to do so. ("Dostoevsky / Joyce / Mann / Goethe must be good, 'cos everybody says so.")

titania7

10-Oct-2008, 11:40

Eric wrote:
This is what I'm always battling ("ranting") against. The propensity of people not to think for themselves, not choosing their own books to read, but slavishly copying the trends, the critics, the gurus. What the Guardian and the NYT "tells" them to read. While I do like to see what is being read in the world (the world, not only London and New York), I try to go my own way.....

Eric,
I have a friend who is a philosopher and we have discussed this very issue: the tendency nowadays for people not to think for themselves. They read books that are recommended to them, have other people's opinions about the books, and generally don't allow themselves the--shall we say luxury?--of thinking. This isn't just about literature, either. In America, at least, we have become an entire nation of conformists. We let celebrities and fashion magazines tell us what to wear and TV talk shows have become the place that people turn to for input on everything from their marriages and dating lives to how to raise their children. In many ways, I believe that laziness is a factor. It's so much easier to go by other people's opinions than to create our own. I recently came up with my own term for what seems to be a growing epidemic--"cerebral sloth." The beauty of individualism has been replaced by the sheer boredom of utter conformity. Why should one read the same books everyone else is reading? I used to get so annoyed with the trend towards reading the books "everyone" reads that I made a habit of reading the LEAST well-known book by an author first rather than his most important work. If I liked the author, I would read his or her famous works after this. If I didn't, I wouldn't re-visit him or her.

Eric wrote:

.....But I must want to read the book, must be driven on to read beyond the first ten pages. I don't want to read through a 500-page novel just because there is pressure from critics, friends, TV, etc., to do so. ("Dostoevsky / Joyce / Mann / Goethe must be good, 'cos everybody says so.")

Eric,
I must feel a book has true merit to finish reading it. To be candid, there are many books I have left unfinished. If someone asks me if a book I'm reading is "any good," my answer is "Of course. It if weren't, I wouldn't still be reading it." Personally, I read because I have to. I need books the way I need water and food. There are times, in fact, that I become so immersed in a book that I actually forget to eat.

And pressure from anyone to read a certain book has a strange affect on me. Usually, I cannot bring myself to read the work, no matter what it is. I respond well to suggestions and recommendations. But pressure? No. In fact, everyone who knows me well knows that the best way to get me NOT to do something is to tell me it's something I have to do (or read, watch, hear, etc).

I don't really care how "important" a writer is. I could think a novel by Raymond Radiguet was every bit as magnificent as one by Dostoevsky. I wouldn't care what anyone thought about it, either.
We should all be entitled to have our own personal tastes in every realm of our lives. And we shouldn't have to argue about or defend our preferences, either.

Titania

PS I read your list of 50 favorite books. I wrote down a few of the names I hadn't heard of, because many of the writers you like (writers I am familiar with) are writers I like, too. Elizabeth Bowen and Katherine Anne Porter, for instance, are two of my favorite short story writers.

"The knowledge of yourself will preserve you from vanity."
~Miguel de Cervantes

titania7

10-Oct-2008, 12:07

Aiculik wrote
Also, reading books makes you seem more educated, cultural, intelligent. Especially if you read "right" books.

Aiculik,
When I was younger I used to care somewhat about whether or not I came across as intelligent, cultured, or what-have-you. At this point, I honestly don't care. Don't get me wrong--if I seem to possess a certain level of erudition and if others consider me to have a good intellect, I take it as a compliment. But what I've noticed, nine times out of ten, is that people perceive other people the way the want to perceive them. Oft-times their opinion about a person has no basis in reality. This is because we judge current and future experiences according to the past. It's a human tendency that I'm becoming more and more aware of. For instance, if a man thinks that all women who are young and attractive are stupid, he will scarcely disregard this opinion even if he meets a woman who is reading The Brothers Karamazov and is capable of talking brilliantly about its plot, characters, and psychological implications.

I think I know what you mean by "right" books, also. Those are the books people buy to *put on their shelves* but actually never do get around to reading. And, if/when they do read them, often I think they just skim them, maybe read a couple a synopses or reviews so that they can talk half-intelligently about them.

Aiculik wrote:
If a man above forty would confess that after high school he never read any novel, most people would think he's uncultural primitive. If he'd say he reads only manga, they he has some problem. But if he'd say that he reads Dostoyevsky or Proust... well, that sounds much better, doesn't it? That's often also the reason why people go to opera.

Aiculik,
I have met men over forty who said they liked Dostoevsky, Balzac, and similar authors, yet, amazingly enough, they are rarely able to tell me which of their works they liked best. However, if I were to ask them, for example, which movies they've seen recently that they enjoyed, they will be able to name a long list ;).

In regard to the opera....indeed, it is a place people go to see and "be seen." I was never more aware of that than on Tuesday night.
Most of the people were incredibly snooty. I complimented one lady on her outfit and she looked me as if I had insulted her! And I wasn't exactly wearing a sweatshirt and a pair of blue jeans, either.

Aiculik wrote:
During my study, there were two girls in my study group that always got A for their analysis and interpretations. Oh, they were amazing. You'd think - as everybody else - hey, these really love and appreciate literature! And, as everybody else, you'd be wrong.
All they did, as they told me themselves, was that they learned to find out what they were expected to find out. :) It never relly touched them. For them, it was all useless nonsense. Why they studied literature? Because they did like to read, but for them, literature was only entertaninment. Not art.

Aiculik,
You've made a good point. Although I agree that people can learn, to a certain extent, to develop a love for literature, there are some temperaments/natures that will never see books as anything other than something to entertain them during their free hours. Most of the time, these people are incapable of deep emotions and are emotionally on the shallow side.

I, on the other hand, am affected too deeply by books. As a matter of fact, there are certain books I have read that actually had a traumatic impact on me, even though I liked them. Sometimes I wish I had a less sensitive nature, that I could be more indifferent towards things. Yet life without passion has no real purpose. And literature is one of my all-encompassing passions.

By the way, the idea that anyone could see books as "useless nonsense" makes me downright angry.

Titania

"Not everything has a name. Some things lead us into a realm
beyond words."
~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Aiculik

10-Oct-2008, 14:29

Titania,

I'm also passionate for literature. Wherever I go, I have at least one book with me. This summer I wanted to sea and it seemed I'd have to go by train - for 19 hours. Then a cousin decided to join me and we went by his car. It was much faster - only 9 hours. And there I was, actually disappointed - I hoped I'll spend those 19 hours reading. :D

But my very best friend does not read at all. She says she can't understand how I can spend my life reading about made up people living their made up fates in made up world. :) Yet, she's far from shallow or incapable of deep emotions. But she expresses her emotions by music. In fact I think she finds me shallow and incapable of deep emotions, because although I like music, it's not essential for my life. :)

It is normal that people want to be liked and accepted, and that they therefore adjust their behaviour to be in accordance with the expectations of society and culture in which they live. Or rather, it is normal in reasonable limits. I do care what my partner thinks of me. Or my parents. And I'm even ready to make some compromises. I'm always questioning my opinions and I'm ready to change it if it's proved that they're wrong. On the other hand, there are few things that are essential for me, that are part of me and those won't change just because someone disagrees. No matter who that person would be.

One of the reasons why I read is that I can see the world through someone else's eyes. I'm not looking for "truth" in books, becaues it is just fiction. Neither I'm looking for solutions of my problems because they're not there. They're in myself and nowhere else. But seeing how other see the world and how they react to it makes me more sensitive... I'm often wondering "I never thought of this problem that way" and I'm comparing it with my own ideas, reactions and solutions... In a way, it's not just passive reading, but discussion with the author.

titania7

10-Oct-2008, 16:31

Aiculik,
I also take at least one book with me everywhere I go. It's interesting to note that your best friend, who does not enjoy reading, is a musician. I began playing classical music at the age of three, and, for most of my childhood, music was like oxygen for me.
I lived, breathed, completely existed for music. I didn't read nearly as much as I do now, simply because I didn't have the time to do so. I was unaware of how much I missed through literature because I had a relatively limited exposure to it. It is impossible to practice a musical instrument for 9-10 hours a day and find time for anything outside of the most essential things--schoolwork, eating, and sleep.
Music is still crucial to my life. But not more essential to it than books.

I agree it is normal for people to alter their behavior to be accepted by others, though I don't always agree that it is necessary. I don't have a partner, though I live with my mum and I definitely care what she thinks of me. As for friends, they know I am highly individualistic and I don't honestly care that some of them view me as "eccentric." Thankfully, they seem to like me anyway ;). What I find is that people care much less whether or not we share their opinions than whether or not we appreciate them, as people. Thus, I let the most important people in my life know how I feel about them frequently.

In regard to compromises, I am not very good at them. When a person has *completely* different interests than mine, I'm not really eager to spend a great deal of time around them. Time is a limited commodity, after all. I do, of course, question my own opinions. In fact, I change them frequently. But I always have to be the one to decide to change them. I am not persuaded towards a new way of thinking unless it makes sense to me personally. If this makes me appear to be opinionated, that is alright with me. I am the first to admit when I'm in the wrong, however, and I remedy the situation as soon as I am able to.

One of the reasons I read is also to see the world through another person's eyes. I may find some truths in books without consciously looking for them. I realize that novels, short stories, and plays are fiction. But every now and then a solution to a problem may pop up in something I read. I agree that the solutions to our problems are within ourselves--this ties in with the power of the subconscious mind which is far greater than most of us are cognizant of. What a book can do (yes, even fiction) is make us more aware of some difficulty we may be in the midst of or it can make us realize that we have not yet overcome a painful situation of the past. We can receive ideas for how to handle things through fiction. We can work through issues via a character in a book, for instance.

By the way, I love how you refer to reading as "discussion with the author." That is exactly the way I see it, too. Thank you for affording me the opportunity to discuss my thoughts and feelings on literature with you, Aiculik. I was hoping that there would be people here who felt as I do about it.

Titania

"Life must be a constant education.
People must learn everything, from
speaking to dying."
~Gustave Flaubert

jackdawdle

10-Oct-2008, 21:11

for solitary reverie and reflection it is. but for interoffice rapport? that sounds like group therapy. still if it works...who's to say

Max Cairnduff

11-Oct-2008, 01:14

Is people reading what they feel they "ought" to read really a new thing? I doubt it personally.

I would say though, anyone who is cowed from reading something they love by what others may think of it is doing themselves a disservice, and that applies whether it's a quiet love for Harry Potter or a secret stash of Chekov. If one likes what is popular, all well and good, if one likes a thing that perhaps others say one should not, others can take a hike.

Well, that's how I defend my liking for Sax Rohmer anyway, I certainly can't defend it on the basis of his writing or the content...

Similarly, life really is too short to read works one doesn't enjoy just because one feels one ought to. I mean, I hated Crime and Punishment, I may revisit it one day and have another shot but in the meantime I won't regret not having finished it. Something can be a masterpiece, and yet still not speak to a particular reader.

That aside, is fiction important? For the vast bulk of humanity, no, it isn't.

Is it important to me? Yes, absolutely.

Fiction is the closest thing to telepathy we have, it contains not literal truth but truth for all that, or sometimes delight in artifice, or shifting truths and fantasies, or things I lack the skill to name. It's full of worlds, by entering them we enrich our own, and ourselves too.

Well, those of us who care for it anyway. Others just read as a form of entertainment, and there's nothing wrong with that. Most people don't read unless they have need to though, and I doubt that was ever different or ever will be.

Regarding the opera, many men go either because their female partners like it and they're keeping them company, or because their company had tickets and they're entertaining clients. Frequently, they have literally zero interest in the work itself. Similarly, corporate boxes at sporting events are full of men with no interest in the sport in question. Galling for those who are interested but are priced out, but that's the way it goes sometimes.

Max Cairnduff

11-Oct-2008, 01:17

Forgot to say, I don't read because it may benefit me, I read because literature is its own justification. If I learn something from it, that's great, but art needs no function to have merit.

The trouble with Sucher's approach is that it smacks a bit too much of the UK government's approach to culture as being a creative industry.

Art is not a creative industry, whether it makes us money as a nation or helps us be better leaders in the workplace is irrelevant to its value.

IMO and all that.

nnyhav

11-Oct-2008, 20:43

[...]
Fiction is the closest thing to telepathy we have, it contains not literal truth but truth for all that, or sometimes delight in artifice, or shifting truths and fantasies, or things I lack the skill to name. It's full of worlds, by entering them we enrich our own, and ourselves too.

Empathy. Each of us a world.

I think of writing as distinct from other arts in that it's made exclusively of language. It being the basis for our shared understanding of the world we, and the worlds others, inhabit.

(As much as I'd like to extend the thought, here and elsewhere, I have to devote my attention to a different sort of reading for now, of financial markets and the economy. Sorry. I'll be back.)

Beth

12-Oct-2008, 00:18

Empathy. Each of us a world.

I think of writing as distinct from other arts in that it's made exclusively of language. It being the basis for our shared understanding of the world we, and the worlds others, inhabit.

I think that's a perfect summation of the importance of fiction. When we go into the fictional worlds of others, it's easier to make that jump into understanding of the people around us. And without the ability to empathize, we're toast.

Jan Mbali

12-Oct-2008, 10:11

Nnyhav makes a powerful point in saying:

I find fiction indispensible to forming a coherent view of the world (novels in particular, since they're such catch-alls).

What I have discovered, alas late in life, is that writing fiction does this more profundly than reading fiction. The art and skill in the writing is in my view less important that honesty hitched to effort. When it work, Gablriel Marques writes (Introduction to "Strange Pilgrims"), then it is the closest a human can come to expriencing the feeling of flying. And when it doesn't and one persists, he warns, it can do you even physical harm. An uncannily accurate portrayal, but what is this truth founded on? And what are we flying through or in, to extend that metaphor?

It is probably that soup of history and its reflection in our subconscious which manifests in the unpredictable and sometimes magic ways in which an author connects the historical and the biographical when writing fiction. I wrote an essay once to explore this process that is posted on janmbali@blogspot.com.

Eric

12-Oct-2008, 12:01

A lot has been written here since, but I first want to bring up a few things that Titania brings up in #28:

The pressure to conformity is increased as publishers booksellers become more populist and money-driven. If a narrower choice of books is sold dirt cheap by supermarkets, people will tend to buy what they see in front of them.

Language is also an incredibly important factor. I have some of the unfamiliar names on my list because I've read them in languages many Brits and Americans have never learnt. While most of Dostoevsky, Balzac and the Icelandic sagas are available in at least one English translation, very many books written in European countries, especially during the past couple of decades, are not available in English. So it stands to reason that if you can read two or three of someone else's languages, your choice is increased a good deal. Because in the case of, for instance, Swedish (which I read with ease), not only do I have access to lots of Swedish books but also to books translated into Swedish which are not yet available in English.

*

For me, fiction is important because, as both Nnyhav and Jan Mbali say, it helps you get a coherent view of the world. Fair enough. But if you only read things originally written in the USA, Britain and a few other English-speaking countries, plus a couple of French and Russian classics, where is your view of the thirty of forty countries of Europe, what makes them tick, let alone countries further afield?

If, for instance, you want to get beyond the clich?s of plumbers, raving Catholics, anti-Semites and so on, little pigeonholes that Poles often get shoved into, Poland has a vast 20th century literature, with loads of authors to choose from. Nowadays, Poland is so "in" that the British TV comedy series Harry and Paul has a regular sketch (repeated with variations) about two Polish sisters running a takeaway coffee shop and their inept customer.

Thirty years ago, when I first got interested in Poland, there was virtually no information about Poland in mainstream Britain (except during the rise of Solidarity) and their literature was virtually a blank, except for some short-stories by Bruno Schulz, available in Penguin. Things have got better, but I think that British awareness of Polish literature as a national literature is still very circumscribed. That is one dimension of fiction I regard as valuable: opening foreign eyes to the national psyche and history.

Poland has had a particularly traumatic past, and I think that as well as reading huge history tomes, like those of Norman Davies, their authors, such as Konwicki (novels), Milosz (essays), Gombrowicz (diaries), plus more recent ones, can help an understanding. Poland is also linked umbilically to both Lithuania and Ukraine. This is also in evidence in works of fiction. Many leading Polish authors did not come from Warsaw, Krak?w, or "Wooch" (Lodz, to you), but from outlying areas of what used to be Poland. Nor were they all Catholic - quite a few Polish authors had some kind of Jewish background.

So, Polish fiction, alongside poetry and non-fiction, can help you understand a largish country right in the middle of Europe, with immigrant communities spread throughout the world. That aspect of, in this case, Polish fiction is important for me.

Max Cairnduff

12-Oct-2008, 17:46

Eric, without disagreeing with any of your points (as I don't), I'm not sure what one can do about it.

One reader here or there won't make a difference to how much gets translated, translated books just don't sell well in the UK and thus those that do get to be translated tend to be the more obvious. We have no history here of reading Central or East European literature (to pick an example), so other than Pushkin Press who is bothering to translate it?

But learning a language to read literature is a hell of a goal, really to get to that level you need to live in a place for a while, immerse yourself, and that's a level of commitment most will struggle with. I speak fairly good Italian, but I still struggle to read novels, and that's just one country's literature. The prospect of learning Polish to read their literature is rather daunting. Sensibly, one would learn German, which would open their national literature and I strongly suspect would open up a huge wealth of Central and Eastern European literature in translation (to German) - that being their near abroad and all (to use that remarkably menacing Russian phrase).

But, learning German itself is a big ask, personally I don't even like the language. So, I agree with you, but I don't think it's a problem which permits of easy answers, save to buy more books from Pushkin Press perhaps.

nnyhav

12-Oct-2008, 18:00

For me, fiction is important because, as both Nnyhav and Jan Mbali say, it helps you get a coherent view of the world. Fair enough. But if you only read things originally written in the USA, Britain and a few other English-speaking countries, plus a couple of French and Russian classics, where is your view of the thirty of forty countries of Europe, what makes them tick, let alone countries further afield?

People willingly circumscribe themselves, and their world, in various ways. Many don't even read (wait for the movie!). Most of those that do prefer nonfiction, and most of those remaining prefer nonliterature (see bestseller lists). For the minority of the minority, translation provides a more effective means of broadening horizons than does mastering other languages. We're spoilt for choice as it is.

Jan Mbali

14-Oct-2008, 19:33

People willingly circumscribe themselves, and their world, in various ways. Many don't even read (wait for the movie!). Most of those that do prefer nonfiction, and most of those remaining prefer nonliterature (see bestseller lists). For the minority of the minority, translation provides a more effective means of broadening horizons than does mastering other languages. We're spoilt for choice as it is.

If your mind is trained to integrate and make connections, and is equipped with a more or less organised world view and frames of reference with some grounding in world history and so on - then you can hoover up information from a myriad sources and form those coherent views. Fiction, the back of a Cornflakes packet, a fragment of conversation, a photo, a fact or two. But fiction does add something special and yeasty to the brew ...

Beth

15-Oct-2008, 02:11

But fiction does add something special and yeasty to the brew ...

It's as close to magic as we get?

Elsewhere, The Scientific American's Take on Stories (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-secrets-of-storytelling&print=true)

But what could be the evolutionary advantage of being so prone to fantasy? ?One might have expected natural selection to have weeded out any inclination to engage in imaginary worlds rather than the real one,? writes Steven Pinker, a Harvard University evolutionary psychologist, in the April 2007 issue of Philosophy and Literature. Pinker goes on to argue against this claim, positing that stories are an important tool for learning and for developing relationships with others in one?s social group. And most scientists are starting to agree: stories have such a powerful and universal appeal that the neurological roots of both telling tales and enjoying them are probably tied to crucial parts of our social cognition.

Or is this too wonky? Would the April '07 issue of Philosophy and Literature be worth peeking at or should I stay with Shirley Jackson? That question seems to answer itself. :cool:

Jan Mbali

15-Oct-2008, 21:13

It's as close to magic as we get?

Elsewhere, The Scientific American's Take on Stories (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-secrets-of-storytelling&print=true)

Or is this too wonky? Would the April '07 issue of Philosophy and Literature be worth peeking at or should I stay with Shirley Jackson? That question seems to answer itself. :cool:

Not at all wonky - for me a newsih and intriguing idea. Perhaps equivalent of play to predators or a gymnast imagining a new routine before attempting it for the first time. Part of the process of learning (that bit I knew). Manifests physically through pathways forming in your brain. But like all such things, does not always work in a way that leads to evolutionary success. And we are social beings, so all that stuff comes into it, including via archetypes with deep roots in our shared culture and history. Exploited in all sort of nasty ways by baddies. Now part of it flows on the Net. Complex shit!

Eric

15-Oct-2008, 21:29

I'm not as negative about Britain and European fiction, as is Max in #39. I think that those of us that have insights into what is being written all over Europe can do more than sit down and cry.

In a world where, for instance, the EU has expanded exponentially regarding the international linkeage of politics and economics, where the Estonian President pops in to see the Queen (tomorrow, I think) and Iceland has caused a lot of trouble for the local authority finances of the UK, the Netherlands and elsewhere, fiction too could be internationalised. (I will avoid the word "globalised" as this nowadays has bad connotations.)

One reader, here or there, peering out of his window and the falling leaves of autumn (pathos), will make no difference whatsoever to the availability of translated fiction in Britain. That is why those readers, publishers, journos and others that do realise what's going on should rant, rant and rant again (to use a popular phrase from these threads). Concerted effort is the only kind of effort that counts. Most people think "it's only me that thinks this way". But often, many others agree, but are not organised.

I'm a bit too right-wing nowadays to sing the praises of revolution, but all these weasel words of "solidarity", "awareness-raising", "organising", and so on, could be given a new lease of life in the modest field of literature. If people don't know something exists, they don't miss it.

Whether people willingly circumcise themselves, as my colleague Nnyhav (of "ranting" fame) opines, you can kick them in the balls (or tits; I am not sexist) occasionally and tell them they're missing out on well-crafted novels and short-stories from the rest of the world (plus a load of rubbish written in the same languages out there, too).

I subscribe to the old adage: "where there's a will, there's a way". If I find others who agree that there should be more translations in Britain, I'm glad. Fine. If not, I will rant on.

Translation is not a minority activity, like SM or bee-keeping. It's the only way to read novels not written in English. Period. Let's not get too cerebral about the philosophy of the psychology of the sociology of translation, as a concept. We just have to get publishers to see that translations will sell, if people know they exist. Money, dangled in front of the nose of a publisher, is a great incentive. There are funds for this purpose, as BlogSpy tells us now about Abu Dhabi and Arabic literature.

You can argue amongst yourselves about the theory of translation; I'm just going to get on with it, when my next contract, with payment promised, comes through.

nnyhav

16-Oct-2008, 02:03

Ranting about ranting now? how meta ... ;) and all around, too, could call it circumventing ...

Kicking against the pricks isn't much of a prescription for relief, esp amongst those largely in agreement about ends if not means.

Stewart

16-Oct-2008, 10:29

If I find others who agree that there should be more translations in Britain, I'm glad. Fine. If not, I will rant on.
Please, not here. Like others have found, the sheer repetition is getting tiresome. The same opinions spread from thread to thread like a poison. Why not create a thread that addresses, once and for all, with these issues rather than repeat yourself ad infinitum?

Sure, the majority of Brits and Americans don't read translated works. There's no requirement to. They just read what they want to read, if they read at all, with some preferring to follow the provisions of Oprah or Richard & Judy. Big deal! Their loss.

As nnyhav says, "Kicking against the pricks isn't much of a prescription for relief, esp amongst those largely in agreement". We all know attitudes to translations in English speaking countries are non-existent to woeful so there's little reason to waste breath telling those in the know already.

I do realise that we are coming to it from different angles, where, for the majority, reading is a worthwhile use of our time, translation or otherwise; whereas for you, translation is your bread and butter and so a heightened demand for Estonian literature would pay the bills.

My concern is that the incessant repetition is not attractive and, more importantly, not necessary. I'm sure people come to read others' thoughts on books that they may not find discussed on other sites, to pick up recommendations, or maybe to expand their literary palate, amongst other reasons. I'm certain they don't come to have the Brit's woeful translation record served up repeatedly. If anything, it's a disincentive to drop by.

esnc

19-Oct-2008, 07:21

Fiction is the lifeblood of the everyday grind.

Men and women wake up each day, and toil and sweat and stress over their working lives. And many people feel that the magic of living dies when youth is left behind.

I am lucky enough to know the truth, and understand fiction and its importance in my past and in my future. And I watch as it molds the world around me.

Fiction is a revolution that stands against the decaying forces of time. It re-invents itself with each generation. It unites, it diversifies, and it brings beauty into a forlorn and sometimes sad place that we call our mind. Fiction tickles our hearts and souls. We are the empty cup, and fiction is drink that fills us.

To be a writer is to be a creator. A writer crafts a world, and as we turn the page in his book we are turning a key in the lock to a door in his creation. Writers, builders of great things, guides into the unknown, super heroes, they can create and share anything that they imagine.

With fiction I found the neverland inside myself. The feeling of setting my feet onto the floor each day is the adventure. My world is written by the pen, and through my adolescent explorations of worlds, that some call fiction, I learned that each day is what you make it.

I live in a brave new world. I buy brilliance with hard work and years of experience. I tip my hat to the fiction that I own, the fiction that I built myself with, and I wait for the adventure on the horizon.

Jan Mbali

22-Oct-2008, 21:04

ESNC is lyrical about fiction and subjectively we all have feelings of that sort. An alternative way of looking it, to quote somebody or other, is that when it rains shit culture is often the only umbrella available. Does anyone know who said that?

The youth are often impatient with culture. As Brecht puts it, in dark times even a conversation about trees seems to be a crime as it leaves unspoken so much about so many misdeeds. How much more a poem about trees. In "To those who came after" he wrote "We looked at nature with indifference" and "We loved carelessly" . Now natue is kicking baclk and we are fucked if we dont put back those same trees. And to love carelessly means you have a death wish and perhaps a lack of respect for yourself and some others.

When a radical student I caste scorn on a fellow South African exile who was studying drama. He became a brilliant and successful actor, director and writer. I, a student of almsot useless sociology, for god's sake, gradually became aware that culture and values (and good food, company, healthy communities of people) is what makes it all worth while. And imagination and creativity, including as expressed through fiction, is the living heart of the culture that defines our values.

Is this a rant?

titania7

22-Oct-2008, 21:10