What kind of non-fiction appeals to you?

[DouglasM]

As someone who, for academic reasons, has read a lot more non-fiction than fiction, I would like to know from you if you are in the habit of reading books other than the literature that we normally discuss here. As a psychologist, obviously a good part of my reading is from the area. As I work and research intercultural relations, I end up reading books on linguistics, anthropology and social sciences in general. I also like to read about politics and philosophy. I am by no means, of course, an expert in any of these areas except mine. My interest is that of a dilettante.

Do you read anything other than literature? What kind of non-literary reading do you usually do? Even if it is literary theory, comment on your readings and your tastes.

 

[Bartleby]

I admittedly am not very used to reading non-fiction, but I like it when I do; mostly some literary theory (scattered texts here and there), books and texts about cinema, or essays by fiction writers I admire (Robinson, Zadie Smith, Knausgaard etc), also interviews with said writers when they detail their creative process. I have a couple of biographies I want to read, but in general it’s not much my thing — I need to be extremely invested in the person written about. Then if someone whose tastes I trust recommends me a non-fiction writer (like someone here who has done so with Kapuscinski), or if a literary prize I hold in high regards awards such a book, I’ll want to read it too... finally, I’ve been discovering an interest in philosophy recently, but I’m still very (very) much in the beginnings of exploring it...

 

[nagisa]

For professional reasons (which fortunately dovetail with my personal interests), I have to read a lot of literature on international relations, globalization economics, international law, and political theory. This quickly leads to political philosophy and philosophy in general, where I'm acquainted with the field as a devoted amateur; and also to history, where I'm trying to fill in my gaps.

As regards personal preferences, I'm not sure this will speak to anyone, but in IR I'm a firm constructivist (Wendt) with a heterodox realist and International Political Economy lens (Strange) informed by historical institutionalism (Zürn). In economics, I suppose I would gravitate towards world-systems theory-oriented (Wallerstein, Arrighi) and moderately globalization-critical authors (Rodrik, Tooze). In international law I'm interested in the new school critical of the distributional outcomes of encoding economic rules at the international level (Pistor), and very attentive to the challenge of defenders of maximum national sovereignty (Schmitt).
Generally in philosophy I gravitate towards questions of justice and authority, as they flow into political theory. I read quite a few of the classics of political philosophy a while ago (Plato, Aristotle, Confucianists, Stoics, Machiavelli, La Boétie, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, Marx...) as well as the moderns (Arendt, Berlin, Strauss, Kojève, Habermas, Foucault, Rawls, Lyotard...), but I have gaps (always). Schmitt I suppose is my "dark star" in political theory broadly speaking, as the "conservative revolutionary" whose dangerous ideas are reemerging faster and faster. I try to counterbalance him with anarchist (Malatesta) and ecosocialist (Gorz) theory. Then personally I've been moved to read more feminist (Beauvoir, Cuboniks), queer (Butler, Wittig), and demon-quote "critical race theory" (Fanon, Coates) — even, horrors, as a three-in-one package (Lorde) !

I think Alexievitch's nomination for non-fiction writing was an outstanding choice, and I'd love to read more like that. I've enjoyed some of Naipaul's travel writing (once one gets over the author's sometimes evident disdain for "the natives"); I've heard Kapuscinski is good, and he's on my shelf. So are Coetzee's literary essays, and Sebald's. I'm very curious to read some of my favorite authors' opinions on literature — and I like it when they have "strong opinions" like Nabokov, that shake up the canon a little.

 

[nagisa]

(snip) finally, I’ve been discovering an interest in philosophy recently, but I’m still very (very) much in the beginnings of exploring it...

I've found the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to be invaluable resources to get a quick handle on an author or topic. It's a huge ocean, happy swimming !

(More recently, I've been surprised and extremely amused at the aptitude of this categorisation of philosophers/concepts along these "Social Justice Warrior/Intellectual Dark Web" and "Basically Pleasant Bureaucrat/Sexy Murder Poet" axes... ? a bit niche of a joke perhaps ?)

 

[tiganeasca]

As regards personal preferences, I'm not sure this will speak to anyone, but in IR I'm a firm constructivist (Wendt) with a heterodox realist and International Political Economy lens (Strange) informed by historical institutionalism (Zürn). In economics, I suppose I would gravitate towards world-systems theory-oriented (Wallerstein, Arrighi) and moderately globalization-critical authors (Rodrik, Tooze). In international law I'm interested in the new school critical of the distributional outcomes of encoding economic rules at the international level (Pistor), and very attentive to the challenge of defenders of maximum national sovereignty (Schmitt).
Generally in philosophy I gravitate towards questions of justice and authority, as they flow into political theory. I read quite a few of the classics of political philosophy a while ago (Plato, Aristotle, Confucianists, Stoics, Machiavelli, La Boétie, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, Marx...) as well as the moderns (Arendt, Berlin, Strauss, Kojève, Habermas, Foucault, Rawls, Lyotard...), but I have gaps (always). Schmitt I suppose is my "dark star" in political theory broadly speaking, as the "conservative revolutionary" whose dangerous ideas are reemerging faster and faster. I try to counterbalance him with anarchist (Malatesta) and ecosocialist (Gorz) theory. Then personally I've been moved to read more feminist (Beauvoir, Cuboniks), queer (Butler, Wittig), and demon-quote "critical race theory" (Fanon, Coates) — even, horrors, as a three-in-one package (Lorde) !

Adrien. Dear friend. Needless to say, I cannot speak for anyone else on this board but I would very much like to understand what you're saying. I can't. Can you simplify what you've said (I get some glimmers of understanding here and there, but mostly it's opaque for me) so that I could follow a little more easily? As a lapsed academic, I understand the need for jargon but I also would like to entertain the hope that at least some of this can be explained without the need for a four-page post.

 

[DouglasM]

I try to counterbalance him with anarchist (Malatesta) and ecosocialist (Gorz) theory.

Since 2019 I have increasingly identified myself with the ideas of (post)anarchist and communalist authors. Malatesta was one of the first that I read to enter this world. Although theoretically there are much more exciting things, he is very didactic and his passion is contagious. In addition, he had a cool beard.

 

[namelesshere]

Over the past year I've read a lot more non-fiction than I ever have before. My gateway drug was picking up some natural history works by Richard Mabey and Robert Macfarlane (the latter of whom is just remarkable). Since then I've tried to stumble my way through into a bit more non-fiction - nothing particularly academic or heavy, that's not really the sort of thing I'd go for in non-fiction. I've read lots more natural history since (Wilding by Isabella Tree, for example) and have lots more on my list. I've also tried to branch out into biographies either of people I'm interested in, or written by people I know I can rely on - best example is probably Penelope Fitzgerald's biographies (e.g. Edward Burne-Jones, Charlotte Mew).

My most striking discovery though has been some volumes of oral history. I picked up Londoners by Craig Taylor, an "oral history" of the denizens of London, and instantly had that falling-deeply-in-love feeling that I hope other people recognise from coming across particular styles or forms of literature that your brain just latches on to. I loved it, short, telling vignettes from one character to the next weaving together to form a larger series of impressions. From that I found Ronald Blythe's Akenfield (glorious) and then Craig Taylor's own contemporary updating, Return to Akenfield. I understand Alexievich writes similar oral history so I have Chernobyl Prayer waiting patiently on the shelf.

 

[nagisa]

Since 2019 I have increasingly identified myself with the ideas of (post)anarchist and communalist authors. Malatesta was one of the first that I read to enter this world. Although theoretically there are much more exciting things, he is very didactic and his passion is contagious. In addition, he had a cool beard.

I'd love to hear some of the authors you've explored, and what you've thought!

Adrien. Dear friend. Needless to say, I cannot speak for anyone else on this board but I would very much like to understand what you're saying. I can't. Can you simplify what you've said (I get some glimmers of understanding here and there, but mostly it's opaque for me) so that I could follow a little more easily? As a lapsed academic, I understand the need for jargon but I also would like to entertain the hope that at least some of this can be explained without the need for a four-page post.

I know it's telegraphic, but going into detail really would derail this into a four-page post... Please do ask what bits I can start with for you at least !

 

[ralfy]

Mostly, the works found in Great Books of the Western World, and in the past critical and literary theory.

Currently, The Anatomy of Melancholy, The Conspiracy Against the Human Race, and Decline of the West.

 

[jam]

I read non-fiction and fiction at the same time. I also happen to like non-fiction on fiction. That is, works of non-fiction that deal with the question of "doing fiction." Bookstore aisles and common understanding suggest that fiction and non-fiction are mutually exclusive. That the latter deals with things that are "not real." Both modern and postmodern approaches to knowledge contest this claim. Fiction in essence is a way of laying bare the ambiguities that cannot be reduced to an "either-or." Because fiction also happens to involve "imagined" things doesn't make fiction altogether imagined. So the argument goes. It's got clout too IMO. There are also plenty of philosophical works that probe the nature of imagination (esp. the phenomenological approach-based ones). Great reads.

Currently reading:
1. Traversing the Imaginary: Richard Kearney and the Postmodern Challenge -- The Foreword is really interesting; it presents a great overview of how aesthetics and political thought / action combine, and how imagination features as a commonality in both these spheres otherwise considered distant from one another.
2. Economics Today and Tomorrow - This one focuses on what sorts of modes of production, labor, and relation to capital characterize different parts of the world. In other words, it focuses on how "political economy" determines economic thinking and action. Among other things, of course.

 

[Bagharu]

I read non-fiction and fiction at the same time. I also happen to like non-fiction on fiction. That is, works of non-fiction that deal with the question of "doing fiction." Bookstore aisles and common understanding suggest that fiction and non-fiction are mutually exclusive. That the latter deals with things that are "not real." Both modern and postmodern approaches to knowledge contest this claim. Fiction in essence is a way of laying bare the ambiguities that cannot be reduced to an "either-or." Because fiction also happens to involve "imagined" things doesn't make fiction altogether imagined. So the argument goes. It's got clout too IMO. There are also plenty of philosophical works that probe the nature of imagination (esp. the phenomenological approach-based ones). Great reads.

Could you share the names of some of these Great reads? They sound very exciting, would love to check them out!

 

[jam]

Could you share the names of some of these Great reads? They sound very exciting, would love to check them out!

Hey,

The Feminist Standpoint Theory is a great place to begin. Please don't let the "Feminist" there let you think this is a gender war. The works produced from this perspective do largely address gender, but gender as a concept is also expanded greatly. Modes of knowledge production and verification are also subjected to critical inquiry. It's a great place to begin if one wants to go further into questions such as "fiction," "knowledge," "objectivity."
As always IEP's page on this is phenomenal. Here it is: https://iep.utm.edu/fem-stan/

I hope this isn't too basic for you. The ones I do read are mostly quite jargon-based and philosophers, though they love to create and use terms, they do so without regard to readers' mental health sometimes. But Feminist Standpoint Theory is a great place to hang out in.

If you're looking for something more advanced (advanced in that it is specifically about the imagination), this is something I recently read: https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...n-perception/3FBD9F1056783E0F8AE4F30B0E039E1C

It's paywalled, as is most non-fiction unfortunately. But if you scroll down just a little, you can find references used in the paper, and they're all hyperlinked. Most of these might be available on JSTOR with an institutional log in.

Then there's the classic -- Maurice Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception (small preview available on Google) -- https://www.google.com/books/editio...Lh_e0_y1YjgC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover

This one's available in libraries, and shouldn't be a problem to find. The internet is also full of helpful material for readers of this book, even for those who haven't done philosophy in a formal or semi-formal capacity.

Hope this helps! Stay safe!

 

[Patrick Murtha]

I maintain a balance between fiction and non-fiction reading, approximately 50% each. The non-fiction includes plenty of history and philosophy (I was a humanities teacher), biography, travel literature, belles-lettres such as essays, letters, and diaries, really a lot of different things.

 

[Leseratte]

This days I read little non fiction. In the last years I read some of Freud's essays I hadn´t read before, but for revision. I used to read
Literary Theory and Comparative Literature (my area) and Social Science and History.
Today, as my head isn´t so used to non fiction any more, I prefer authors like Freud and the Polish author of the article on translation, Michal Rusinek, who master their subjects so well, that they are able to write about it in a simple style.

 

[Stevie B]

I need to read more non-fiction. When I occasionally pick up a work of non-fiction, it’s usually a book of essays or a work of travel literature.

 

[Leseratte]

I love travel literature. Brazilian literature begins with it and it may contain fiction too.

 

[Stevie B]

I love travel literature. Brazilian literature begins with it and it may contain fiction too.

Reminds me of the old saying that one should never allow the truth to get in the way of a good story. ?

 

[Tony W]

I read non- fiction to learn. I honestly hardly read any fiction until 15 years ago - and it opened me to something that is not inherently common in non -fiction: Creativity.

 

[wordeater]

My favorite non-fiction book is No Logo by Naomi Klein. It's a critique of capitalism or neoliberalism. It was published in 2000, when protest marches against the IMF were held by the antiglobalist movement.

First she describes how brands and logos have pervaded our daily life and that of our children. They're omnipresent in the media, in the streets, in the living toom, even in schools. It's no longer about the product itself, but about selling an image and marketing. Then she addresses the problems behind the facade. Large companies are increasingly working with temporary workers. Sometimes there are mass layoffs. Production is being transferred to low-wage countries with tax-free zones. Klein went to the Philippines to visit the sweatshops: workshops where local laborers assemble export products in inhumane conditions. This leads to alienation. The workers live in slums and could never afford that pair of shoes. Westerners do not know where their clothes, toys and electronics are made. In the final part she talks about the protest movements.

 

[Leemo]

My favorite non-fiction book is No Logo by Naomi Klein. It's a critique of capitalism or neoliberalism. It was published in 2000, when protest marches against the IMF were held by the antiglobalist movement.

First she describes how brands and logos have pervaded our daily life and that of our children. They're omnipresent in the media, in the streets, in the living toom, even in schools. It's no longer about the product itself, but about selling an image and marketing. Then she addresses the problems behind the facade. Large companies are increasingly working with temporary workers. Sometimes there are mass layoffs. Production is being transferred to low-wage countries with tax-free zones. Klein went to the Philippines to visit the sweatshops: workshops where local laborers assemble export products in inhumane conditions. This leads to alienation. The workers live in slums and could never afford that pair of shoes. Westerners do not know where their clothes, toys and electronics are made. In the final part she talks about the protest movements.

I need to read that. For a deep dive specific to the temporary worker conundrum, John Berger's A Seventh Man is excellent.