Is fiction important?

[nnyhav]

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

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

add: The hook: http://www.george-orwell.org/Books_v...arettes/0.html

[Jan Mbali]

Originally Posted by nnyhav

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

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

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Eric

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

which could be done in a non-fiction work

steep claim. can't say I agree.

[kpjayan]

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]

Originally Posted by Mirabell

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]

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]

Oh dear ...

Bibliotherapy, the new shelf-help | Books | guardian.co.uk

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

[Eric]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Eric

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]

On the subject of the importance of fiction I'm reminded of this little snippet from Bernard Malamud's The Assistant (review here).

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.”

[Mirabell]

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 écrit et pose des questions."

Le Clézio : "Il faut continuer de lire des romans" - Culture - Le Monde.fr