Does "books" mean "fiction"?

[Eric]

It struck me just now that the great majority of books discussed here, and on other British and American book threads are novels. It is almost as if the expression "reading a book" is synonymous with "reading a novel".

There are a small number of threads here covering poetry, short-stories, biographies, and so on. But very little on non-fictional topics. Not only here, where the word "literature" is much in evidence, but on other book sites, such as the defunct BBC one and Big Readers.

Do people here read whole books (as opposed to looking up details on Google) about a wide range of non-literary subjects? Some categories are close to literature, such as the biographies of authors, literary theory and criticism. But there is a vast number of non-fictional topics from guides to Provence to books that explain viticulture or bee-keeping, books on French painting, violin-playing or -making, petit-point, American architecture, languages for learning & linguistics, the sciences, religion & spirituality, economics & finance, sports of many kinds, stamp collectiing, rock climbing, modern sculpture, Scandinavian films, etc., etc., etc.

How often to any of the rest of you read non-fictional books, and on what subjects?

[Irene Wilde]

Since this is the World Literature Forum, here I tend to discuss literature, with occasional forays into biography, poetry, and plays, which I'd probably like to do more once the forum matures a bit.

As for reading that falls outside of the topic World Literature, I read nonfiction in fits and starts, depending on what captures my imagination. Recent nonfiction reads included Marion Meade's Bobbed Hair and Bathtub Gin (which is about writers and therefore related), Al Gore's Assault on Reason, Richard Feynman's Six Easy Pieces, Kevin Phillip's American Theocracy, Alex Vilenkin's Many Worlds in One, and my ongoing (albeit one-sided) love affair with all things Noel Coward.

[Sybarite]

Originally Posted by Eric

It struck me just now that the great majority of books discussed here, and on other British and American book threads are novels. It is almost as if the expression "reading a book" is synonymous with "reading a novel"...

As Irene has already pointed out, since this is the World Literature Forum ...

I read non-fiction – history (Prussia is a favourite subject), biography, photography, art, architecture, music, politics, philosophy and sport – and when I read non-fiction, I usually post about it elsewhere.

[Chester]

I’m not following the implication here that non-fiction is somehow not "literature." I’m thinking of great theological or philosophical texts, or political treatises. It’s hard for me to consider, for example, Critique of Pure Reason, or The Ethics, or Essays Concerning Human Understanding, as anything other than literature. Or the Gettysburg Address for that matter. Certainly it seems to me there’s room on a literature forum for discussions of great non-fiction literary works.

Just a thought from a new guy making his first post. Am I wrong?

[Irene Wilde]

Originally Posted by Chester

I’m not following the implication here that non-fiction is somehow not "literature." I’m thinking of great theological or philosophical texts, or political treatises. It’s hard for me to consider, for example, Critique of Pure Reason, or The Ethics, or Essays Concerning Human Understanding, as anything other than literature. Or the Gettysburg Address for that matter. Certainly it seems to me there’s room on a literature forum for discussions of great non-fiction literary works.

Just a thought from a new guy making his first post. Am I wrong?

The original poster mentioned:

But there is a vast number of non-fictional topics from guides to Provence to books that explain viticulture or bee-keeping, books on French painting, violin-playing or -making, petit-point, American architecture, languages for learning & linguistics, the sciences, religion & spirituality, economics & finance, sports of many kinds, stamp collectiing, rock climbing, modern sculpture, Scandinavian films, etc., etc., etc.

Most of these are a far cry from "great theological or philosophical texts, or political treatises." I have a friend who reads things like Montaigne's Essays and Brillat-Sevarin's Physiology of Taste, great numbers of them (and then he quotes them at me when he knows perfectly well what a feeble mind I have) and yes, they would be "literature" within the context of this forum, I believe. I read this original post more as the "how-tos" of non-fiction: references, guides, instructional manuals. In that context, I don't really think they fit the term "literature."

My advice to a new guy would be to discuss the works you enjoy. We've a diverse group here and it is growing every day. Someone will share your interest.

[Chester]

Ah, I see. Yes, I think I would agree that a book on bee-keeping probably doesn't qualify as literature. I was thinking of the OP's reference to books in general and how that word seems to be limited to the novel on a lot of literature forums.

Your advice sounds good, Irene. I have diverse interests so I'm sure I'll enjoy the discussions.

[Mirabell]

Do people here read whole books (as opposed to looking up details on Google) about a wide range of non-literary subjects?

Lots of history, lots and lots of philosophy, theory, and of course masses of litcrit (being my profession), some linguistics, art, lots of political sciences, enough psychology, some stuff on mathematics and physics, but the latter two are only skin-deep. some theology (getting more each month), some anthropology.

[Irene Wilde]

Originally Posted by Chester

I was thinking of the OP's reference to books in general and how that word seems to be limited to the novel on a lot of literature forums.

The novel does dominate in general. At other forums I've visited, I have tried to generate discussions of plays and poetry and for my trouble I was handed a tinfoil hat and told to sit in the corner.

Here, I think there's a place for works beyond the novel, at least I hope so. In fact, I've found the members open to most topics, however strong their opinions might be on those topics.

I hope you'll take a moment to introduce yourself, Chester. Tell us what you like and what brings you here.

[Chester]

"At other forums I've visited, I have tried to generate discussions of plays and poetry and for my trouble I was handed a tinfoil hat and told to sit in the corner."

Two subjects I like. There'll be no tinfoil hat from me.

"I hope you'll take a moment to introduce yourself, Chester. Tell us what you like and what brings you here."

Done.

[Cocko]

I would argue there is a very strong dose of fiction in most non-fiction works, well, at least a good helping of speculation, opinion and perspective which can often amount to the same thing. Anyway, that's probably another debate. Eric, here's something I got into recently, it's by an Englishman who draws on a violent event from the dark and distant past. Something close to the hearts of both Dutch and Australian historians.

Batavia’s Graveyard: The True Story of the Mad Heretic Who Led History’s Bloodiest Mutiny, is a 2002 non-fiction book by Mike Dash. The book chronicles the loss of the Dutch East Indiaman Batavia on a coral reef off the coast of Western Australia in 1629 and the fate of her survivors at the hands of a psychopathic mutineer named Jeronimus Cornelisz, a failed apothecary and suspected heretic who – over the course of several months of terror, and with a gang of cut-throats at his back – had more than 120 men, women and children drowned, decapitated or hacked to death.

Although somewhat slow to get started this painstakingly researched book tells a compelling story of the East India spice trade, the harsh realities of life as a Dutch merchant or sailor and the bloody origins of white settlement in Australia (albeit exile rather than colonisation). The tale is so shocking that if it wasn’t for an additional appendix of 200 pages detailing the source material one would find it hard to believe the events surrounding this ordeal.

While the book is predominantly plot driven it does draw on themes of inequality and survival while also touching on political and religious views of the 17th century. While sometimes confusing, thanks to a seemingly endless procession of characters, the core story has more than enough momentum to push the reader through to a very rewarding ‘where are they now’ epilogue. A nice aspect of the story’s structure is the fluidity of Dash’s jump between central storyline of Batavia and broader discussion of the related history of the people and places.

You can read an extract and find out more about the book on Dash's website.

[Eric]

In the English language, the word 'literature" is conveniently ambiguous. It can mean a) belles lettres, i.e. novels-stories-poems-essays, or b) any books, fiction or non-fiction, about just about anything.

The reason I started this thread off in the first place was to highlight this paradox.

The Times Literary Supplement (taking "literary" to be the adjective from "literature") deals with more than novels, but restricts itself mostly to the humanities: biographies, history, etc., where you don't need, for instance, a specialist scientific training to read the books. A sub-section of non-fiction, in other words.

Then, another term, equally ambiguous, is introduced: "books". So the London Review of Books covers more or less the same ground as the TLS. It really means fiction & humanities.

There are a great deal of magazines and weekly newspapers that discuss all of this, but relatively few that present stories, poems and excerpts of forthcoming novels, to name but a few areas of belles lettres.

I take it that World Literature Forum implies "belles lettres written throughout the world". But if you are pedantic, there is no reason why non-fiction shouldn't be included. Though I am the first to admit that belles lettres is what interests me most.

[Jan Mbali]

My take on the question is that there is much truth in fiction, as it provides a unique kind of freedom to plumb the depths of your memory and the times we live in. Non-fiction, bound by various kinds of conventions, can produce another kind of truth. (Google Jan Mbali and you might find an exploration of this in an essay on my blog).
In this vein, once found an interesting bit of lit crit from none other than Uncle Karl Marx. He stated that concervative Balzac's work get far closer to social reality than the left-wing social realism of Emile Zola.

As with all truths what I have just said is relative and texts that straddle these worlds are often the richest. And there are many ways that this is done, often inadvertently - ancient tales seem to fall into this catgefory because of effect of perspective. As some of the works cited above by various contributors attest. The journalistic works of some quasi-sociologists can reveal more than huge "scientific" works in the soft sciences that follow academic codes to the letter - but both can be done well or done badly. The hard sciences I know much less about, but they too are just as much literature as any other kind. I suppose that any kind of literature can be a good or bad read and reveals something about its author and times. I like to browse on it all, soemwhat shamefacedly, like the proverbial petite bougeois dilletante!

[Eric]

Jan Mbali writes:

My take on the question is that there is much truth in fiction, as it provides a unique kind of freedom to plumb the depths of your memory and the times we live in. Non-fiction, bound by various kinds of conventions, can produce another kind of truth.

I basically agree with that. It is the reason why most of us don't just stick to non-fiction to find out how a country or people ticks.

I've also heard that Marx quote about Balzac. We should be open-minded about the political spectrum, but also about gender, sexual preference, and so on. Imagine if only gays read novels about homosexuality, or only women read novels by women, or only Blacks novels by Blacks. The world would fragment. And we'd never learn what the other half was doing. If you only read fiction and non-fiction describing people who are like you, or with whom you agree, you will never be challenged by something new and different.

I am a dilettante, but being that teaches you things that you wouldn't learn if you stuck to one sort of book or film. As for being middle-class, yes, I am. What is the difference between being middle-class and being bourgeois? And what is the difference between petit bourgeois and haute bourgeois?

[fausto]

Most people tend to read something that will tell them the world is like they already think it is. It's especially clear with political essays. Most of my friends who are very curious about all sorts of music, literature, cinema etc don't seem to be that curious when it comes to politics: they just want to have their own prejudices confirmed.

[Sybarite]

Originally Posted by Eric

... I am a dilettante...

Originally Posted by Concise Oxford Dictionary

dilettante • n. 1 a person who cultivates an area of interest, such as the arts, without real commitment or knowledge.

A most humble admission there, Eric.

[Jan Mbali]

Originally Posted by Eric

Jan Mbali writes:



I basically agree with that. It is the reason why most of us don't just stick to non-fiction to find out how a country or people ticks.

I've also heard that Marx quote about Balzac. We should be open-minded about the political spectrum, but also about gender, sexual preference, and so on. Imagine if only gays read novels about homosexuality, or only women read novels by women, or only Blacks novels by Blacks. The world would fragment. And we'd never learn what the other half was doing. If you only read fiction and non-fiction describing people who are like you, or with whom you agree, you will never be challenged by something new and different.

I am a dilettante, but being that teaches you things that you wouldn't learn if you stuck to one sort of book or film. As for being middle-class, yes, I am. What is the difference between being middle-class and being bourgeois? And what is the difference between petit bourgeois and haute bourgeois?

An excellent outlook. Viva richness in diversity and messy culures. Culrural purity is closely related in my mind to a lot of very nasty tendencies and decay and death. The dilettante tag was ironic - it was an insult by lefties of 100 - 150 years ago, like "petite bourgeois philistine", but underlying the irony is a real fear of being superficial (cf. the dictionary quote by another reader). A fear you and most others on this site do not have to share - you (plural) share a lot of erudition and depth as far as I can supercfically judge.

Your question about differences is intersting. Petite bourgeois in terms of an insult is a state of mind rather than rank. Technically W. Blake was one (a petty tradesman - a printer)- but the breadth of his mind was completely at odds with traditonalal petite bourgeois meanness of spirit and narrow ambitions (which makes them prey to supporting nasty dictators who promise stuff:
"It is an easy thing to rejoice in the tent of prosperity:
Thus could I song and thus rejoice: but it is not so with me."
Just read a story by EM Forster (The eternal moment) followed by one by DH LAwrence in the same collection (The White Stocking). Amazing how Forster was obsessed with fine gradations of class and Lawrence (a cross-class son of a miner and schoolteacher) was liberated from them. And then I thought - half the great works of English literature (Pride and Prejudice!!) is driven precisely by the tension between the petite bourgeois and their rubbing up against the big bourgeois and (very different!) the nobillity.

[Eric]

Cultural purity is like racial purity - it doesn't really exist. After all, one of the tenets of most civilisations is that you should marry someone from the next village, as inbreeding accentuates faults. So too with cultural purity. This is one of the reasons that Socialist Realism failed so dismally. The Hero had to be pure, and so ended up as a cardboard figure.

Class differences exist and will probably always do so. But that is why I believe in the kind of education where, even if you come from a working class background, you can, by means of scholarships and encouragement, get to a decent school and university, and can therefore escape the maybe not very stimulating environment in which you grew up. I know this from second-hand experience, as my grandfather was a coal-miner but my grandmother encouraged my father to learn. He got a scholarship to a decent grammar school in Barnsley (Yorkshire, England) and so made it to Reading University in the 1930s. He ended up teaching history at secondary school level. This was quite a social climb, in those days, for a boy whose father worked down the pit. So when I read Lawrence, I understood what was going on.

I myself have always remained in the middle class. After university I've taught English to foreigners, learnt languages and have used my brain for work, rather than my hands.

British class tensions are always there; some are even fruitful. Look at Lady Antonia Fraser (who was on the Newsnight Review last Friday). She speaks with the most lah-di-dah accent you could imagine, but what she says is straightforward. Her hubby, from a much more humble background, has written creepy-sophisticated plays, though he still speaks with a tang of Cockney. They form an unusual couple: East End of London Jew of Polish-Russian ancestry shacks up with a lady from a hugely rich Roman Catholic family of English landed gentry.

[Sybarite]

Originally Posted by Eric

... I myself have always remained in the middle class. After university I've taught English to foreigners, learnt languages and have used my brain for work, rather than my hands...

If you have to sell the labour of either hand or brain in order to keep a roof over your head and food in your belly, then economically speaking you're working class.

The idea of those people who do blue and white collar jobs being from different classes is a purely social one – much like the sort of definitions that marketing companies use to describe their target audiences (A, B etc).

[Jan Mbali]

Originally Posted by Sybarite

If you have to sell the labour of either hand or brain in order to keep a roof over your head and food in your belly, then economically speaking you're working class.

The idea of those people who do blue and white collar jobs being from different classes is a purely social one – much like the sort of definitions that marketing companies use to describe their target audiences (A, B etc).

This conversation has made me ask myself a question although the thought has been on the tip of my mind for ages. Is there a writer, of any nationality, fiction OR non-fiction, who looks across the classes in their society and gives an objective (and hopefully humorous) view of several of them including their own? The tendency is almost inevitably to favour ones own social milieau and give a distorted view of the others, to agree with the reader who notes we confirm our prejudices. The "others" are stereotyped, if only romanticized. It would require someone who has extraordinary empathy and ability to pick up the subtle nuances of the culture of the other. The meaure would be how alive and whole the descriptions seem to be. A perceptive reader would know.

[Sybarite]

Not sympathetic – quite the opposite – but Tom Sharpe is pretty even-handed in his treatment of his characters from all classes. And very funny.

I'd also suggest Zola – he's fair to characters from all social strata, in my experience of his novels.

In terms of non-fiction, Jeremy Paxman in The English is fair across the board, I think.