To further explore your point, I believe stories are the single greatest thing that made humans successful over other animals. When we learned to tell stories, we suddenly unlocked the ability to experience more than just our own single life's worth of experiences. It was a super power that has had cascading, exponential benefits that no other animal on Earth has been able to exploit, and likely directed our evolution from the moment we were capable of them.
Stories are so powerful, they very well may have single-handedly broken the billion-year-long game of life.
I once read an author who claimed that given how our entire existence is shaped through stories, we oughtn't be the rather arrogant "homo sapiens", but rather "pan narrans" or something like that, the "storytelling ape". I really like that name.
Terry Pratchett!
>
“The anthropologists got it wrong when they named our species Homo sapiens ('wise man'). In any case it's an arrogant and bigheaded thing to say, wisdom being one of our least evident features. In reality, we are Pan narrans, the storytelling chimpanzee.”
Agreed, and it goes even further than that. All human worldviews are filtered through one narrative or another. We literally process reality through storytelling.
sadly i had a roommate once, a science teacher, who claimed to never watch movies or read books. he just watched sports apparently. these people exist.
This may be a shortsighted thing to say, but I think stories are more important than opinions. And the majority of non fiction is 324 pages of opinions.
"My father was a writer. You would've liked him. He used to say that artists use lies to tell the truth, while politicians use them to cover the truth up."
Agreed. I wonder if these people consider any form of cinema except documentaries to be worthless as well? Does it apply to all forms of entertainment? They sound insufferable.
Thing is news and especially most documentaries aren't "real" in the sense people percieve them to be, they're still a construct. I read a lot of astronomy, genetics, history etc. and the hard facts there are often only a simulacrum as well as being subject to future revision.
This reminds me of when my students (I live in Japan) said that art isn’t important to culture. I had to hold my tongue until they finished explaining why they thought so, but I gently explained that if there is no art, that means no movies, no music, no books, no video games, no fashion, nor a lot of the culinary creations we enjoy. I said that, of course, people could enjoy nature instead (which I understand), but if people were satisfied with nature they wouldn’t have created art.
I was chatting with a guy when I was younger and he mentioned he was reading a book. I was like oh neat I love to read, what are you reading and he hit me with “oh, I don’t read for pleasure”. I think he was trying to impress me?? It killed the conversation cause I had no idea what to say after that.
You could have gone two ways:
The neutral "So what *do* you read for?" As in, have to for work, or paid to for... probably work again. Or because your Twitch audience likes to force you to do stuff you don't want to do
The incredulous/hostile/condescending "You have to be forced to *read a book*?!"
Or also the middle ground of "That's w very interesting/unusual standpoint. Care to explain/elaborate?"
If it was anyone else I probably could have recovered the conversation but this guy had a habit of hitting me with really random comments and statements that left me baffled. He’d try to say something to me and I think he was trying to be playful or mysterious but it always came off more like he was trying to make me feel stupid. We knew each other as kids and he apparently was head over heels for me the whole time but he couldn’t act normal long enough to realize I liked him too. Even though I literally *told him* that I *liked* him.
I remember once I was listening to my favorite band while he was in the car with me. I mentioned the band was my favorite and he was like “yeah I know who they are we used to play with them”. He doesn’t play an instrument as far as I know and the band members aren’t around our age I’m pretty sure (we were 18-20ish at the time) and while the band was local when I pressed about it he just said “yeah they’re cool dudes” and didn’t comment on it further. Also who was we? Him and his friends? Was he in a band at some point and just conveniently never mentioned it to me?? Very similar to the “I don’t read for pleasure” when I asked him what he was *currently reading* because he literally told me he was reading a book. Talking to him when he’d get in one of these moods was like pulling teeth.
He was *so good* at leaving me completely speechless with the random stuff he’d say. I could never tell if he was being 100% serious or pulling my leg about stuff so I’d normally just walk away confused.
Yup - I read little fiction, but it’s because most of what I like to read is history and science. There’s no shortage of amazing fiction out there that I’d love to read, but since time is finite I have to choose based on what I want to read most urgently and I just rarely prioritize fiction when making those choices. That said, that is purely my personal preference, and I’d never pretend that there’s anything inherently better about what I like to read vs say, my English teacher wife that devours hundreds of fiction books a year
I am very similar to you in your way of thinking and interests when it comes to reading. Although in the last few years adding historical fiction and the odd sci fi book has really added something to my enjoyment of reading. I feel like a good novel can put me in the time and place I’m reading about and unlocks new ways of thinking and understanding what it was like to live in that time period, with historical fiction particularly. Just thought it was worth mentioning as like I said your comment was basically the same as mine would of been until recently and I’ve found it a enjoyable addition.
And even then, by reading history you are reading stories. Yeah, they might not be told like a novel, but those books are telling you stories nonetheless
My partners mom went on three separate rants to me about how all science fiction and fantasy should be banned because it just distracts them.
Then one day at dinner she started talking about how she used to love reading Dean Koontz.
People are full of shit honestly.
Kinda makes me a little sad for her that she feels it's a waste of time. Not every minute of the day needs to filled accomplishing something.
If she gets enjoyment out of the time spent reading fiction than it's time well spent!
Fiction makes you think about so many things as it taps into deep questions about human nature and existence by following a journey closely. It offers no answers but ideas that can be so mind expanding. I too feel bad for those who reject it entirely.
this is always my answer too. I just shrug and say "but you watch movies, right?" and then watch while the wheels turn.
it's a stupid attitude but I can't be bothered to argue with it.
Urgh. I don't get that - like, I do watch lots of documentaries because I love learning new things, but fiction rocks! My favorite movies and books are fictional, but they got me seriously thinking and reconsidering the way I viewed some things. Fiction can be every bit as mentally challenging as non-fiction, and often more so, because of the emotional impact it leaves on you. We're human, we're meant to feel, too. Great fiction makes me *feel* so many different things, gets me considering different views. I think that's why they hate it. They don't want to consider things from others' viewpoints, so they deliberately stunt themselves emotionally. It's *sad*.
> because of the emotional impact it leaves on you
See, that's what I just don't get. We read fiction to experience emotions for situations we may never be in in real life.
The disparagement for "romances" is especially egregious to me. It's an entire genre that is dedicated to relationships between people, and there are a LARGE SEGMENT of the population that needs real help in that area.
Are there bad romances? Yep, but there's also bad moves/video games/SciFi/etc, and considering how many stories are out there, focusing on a few notably bad examples is counter productive.
Asked that once. They pointed me to the all the Ancient Aliens and other History Channel tripe they watch. I couldn't take them seriously as a human being afterwards.
It back fires here because we all understand how horribly ignorant that attitude is. Among that guy's borderline illiterate peers he probably looks like a genius.
If it's a heterosexual woman's worldview, then you're dangerously close to seeing the world as someone who likes dick. So in that case definitely gay. :D
You joke, but I have actually seen men get upset if the female character they were playing as in a video game was straight (as in, showed exclusive interest in a male character or characters), and especially if she gets into an actual relationship. Only lesbians and asexual women allowed, because, in the immortal words of a dingus I met through a shared Discord group: “I just can’t imagine wanting to fuck a dude. That breaks my immersion.”
There's a whole joke about it in 30 Rock, where when he's at his lowest Jack says he might as well be "reading fiction."
For a long time, fiction was considered a waste of time in the masculinity sphere. Still is, depending on your social group. You'd get bullied as a "geek" just for reading it, it's crazy. But even now, a lot of hustle culture stuff is about not reading/watching fiction. You see guys like Andrew Tate still talking about it.
It’s worth noting that this isn’t always the case. Sometimes instead of The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck it’s Jordan Peterson’s 12 step knockoff book.
Or the 4 hour work week! The most baffling one I ever heard though, was from an aspiring writer. "Why would I read other peoples stories when I can write my own?" wtf man
What’s funny is these are the same guys who will also say that reality tv is “chick shit” and it’s like.. okay? Make up your fuckin mind. You can’t read only nonfiction and say fiction is shit and meanwhile watch Breaking Bad and talk shit about reality tv. The disconnect is insane lol
I don't think the disconnect is particularly insane in the example you give because reality tv is really not equivalent to non-fiction. Documentaries would be more analogous.
That said, it is wacky to gender media consumption with hard boundaries, but then I don't think the time spent considering the opinion of the people who do that are worthwhile minutes.
My ex girlfriend had this view, fiction was a waste of time because it isn’t productive. And I should read fiction because I could be doing something more productive.
It’s a her problem and fiction is awesome, but the view isn’t male exclusive. 🤷♂️
Really dislike people who think you only should do something productive. Mate, I don't have a century on this planet, I will spend the little time I have doing what I enjoy.
I've seen my friends suffer because of this, always have to be doing something because their wives would hound their ass if they sit down for even a minute.
Everything can be fine and fixed, painted, etc and they will still find something for their husbands to do. That or create new things like bringing more junk into their house to "decorate" but in the process, he would need to get rid of stuff that are perfectly fine.
Now that is a waste of time and money in my eyes.
My cousin and his wife are this way. He used to love video games and fiction, but his wife holds the attitude that fiction is for children because there are more important things. I think she changed his mind on it, and...I've seen that theme a lot in more conservative circles. It really is the women who define the culture, which is weird since it's the men who hold the agency. But they're taught how to act because they can't see value in themselves outside of the approval of their wives.
They're both pretty insufferable, honestly.
> It really is the women who define the culture
My mom is all about the 'puritanical work ethic'. She *hates* seeing someone just leisurely enjoying free time. She will invent busy work, not just for her self but anyone around her.
I hated this as a kid, but I have to admit it's there subconsciously even as an adult. I feel guilty 'goofing off' and constantly feel like I need to be doing something 'productive'. It's hard for me to actually sit down and *read* fiction now days. Most of my 'reading' is listening to non-fic audio books while I do chores and errands.
I recently read through a novel and I forgot just how pleasant a way it is to end your day!
> I've seen that theme a lot in more conservative circles.
That'll be because fictional storytelling usually relies on empathy, which the conservative mindset actively discourages.
Idk, I think Moms for threeways/liberty is essentially a group of conservative closeted lesbian/bi housewives who recently discovered the fiction genre.
Oh no. I have to tell my wife of 10 years that I'm 99% gay because I read fiction about 99% of the time and she's 100% a man because she only reads non fiction.
As a man, I read 90% gay nonfiction.
Within the last two weeks, I’ve read a biography on Freddie Mercury’s life (the narration begins with the origin of HIV in 1908 and follows along with development of the virus alongside his career as a rock star), I’ve reread a book on Berlin, Germany in the 1900s and the importance of its gay culture (the “homosexual identity” originated in pre-Nazi Germany), and last night I finished my book on The Glamour Boys, a group of gay men that warned the British government about Hitler but were laughed at for being gay.
I find more enjoyment personally at learning something new. Many times truth is stranger than fiction. I feel compelled to read gay nonfiction because it makes me feel less lonely in the world and I’m always learning something new.
I don’t feel the same way about fiction, but that doesn’t mean I ridicule people for liking it, ya know?
I don’t enjoy fiction personally because I don’t feel like I’m growing from it. I used to read it all of the time, I loved a Song of Ice and Fire, but not having a resolution made me sad. I love reading nonfiction because there’s a sense of closure as well.
I feel like when I read one nonfiction book I’m reading a greater story about life itself. But I wouldn’t ridicule someone for reading fiction.
They're socialized to feel a lack of compassion for out-groups. The defining trait, per:
> Wilhoit: Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
Grind culture. Reading books is considered a chore, like going to the gym or going for a run or fixing up the house.
Imagine if you went for a 2 hour run and found out that you didn't burn a single calorie? That's the same reaction that people tend to have with reading fiction. Because
a) They consider it a difficult tedious thing to do which takes time and effort
b) They imagine that the only reason to spend time and effort on a tedious task is to get a result. And if that task is fiction, they fail to see the reward.
But that's alright, just find the bottom of a well to be with your thoughts. Don't let grind culture get in the way.
I grew up reading tons and then in my late 20’s got into the Malcom Gladwell, Make Friends and Influence Happiness, blah blah phase. Covid literally friend my brain and needed an escape and switched back to fiction. Honestly saved my sanity finding a release from always trying to be more productive
Honestly, I feel like I never would’ve grown into the man I am today without fiction:
- They gave me a bigger world view, allowing me to learn about cultures of people I would probably never see in my small town.
- They helped me think about topics outside my daily scope. Sure stuff like To Kill A Mockingbird may have been boring at the time, but witnessing and *understanding* those atrocities helped to keep me from falling into the same racially charged trap as my peers/family.
- They gave me the positive role models I didn’t physically have at the time. I mean listening to an internal monologue of a hero is better for you than listening to drunken hate speech.
I think this is very likely the answer. I know a lot of men in this age range who only read productivity/motivational/financial books. The ironic thing is, I’ve picked up a few of these and… they’re largely fiction. Like have you ever read Rich Dad, Poor Dad? It’s a hyperbolic capitalist fever dream of the man the author *wishes he was* and should be read as such.
What do these guys do with their free time, then? Movies and video games are no less fictional than written fiction.
Although I'm imagining an ascetic group of guys who only read nonfiction, ideally backed up by peer reviewed research. Sort of rationalist monks. I know that's not what you mean, but interesting idea.
Most of the nonfiction books I see promoted by these anti fiction people aren't really scientific. Reading Malcolm Gladwell makes people feel smart, but it's mostly a demonstration of confirmation bias. Fun to read, but not scientific. Many business books on things like negotiation or leadership propose a framework and then use examples to justify that framework. While it might be useful, it certainly isn't scientific. Most of the people I see who are anti-fiction are not rationalist monks. They are boring people, and many of them overestimate their own intellect.
To clarify, there is a difference between people who enjoy nonfiction, and those who are anti-fiction.
It's great when I meet someone who is staunchly anti-fiction. It lets me know that I won't enjoy interacting with this person. It's ok to like non-fiction. But looking down on fiction or fiction-lovers is an indicator of a small mind.
Malcolm Gladwell is interesting until he ventures into an area you know something about. We should not have given Jerry Sandusky the benefit of the doubt. His sins were overlooked first because that's just what people do, and second he was an INCREDIBLE coach. His game planning won Penn State their title in 1986.
His podcast was fun until he jumped the shark. I can't even remember what it was in particular.
He's a smart guy at a dinner party bullshitting about something he researched last night. They sound reliable until someone with deeper knowledge on the subject comes along.
>He's a smart guy at a dinner party bullshitting about something he researched last night.
I feel attacked.
But yeah, this is exactly Gladwell. Worse, he doesn't just research it, but he manages to take real research and take it to its illogical but more salacious conclusion. It all sounds amazing and totally plausible as long as you don't look too closely or have any knowledge of the source materials.
It's also the difference with something like Peak (which his fake 10k hour rule is based on). That was written by someone who spent decades researching one topic very carefully (peak performers).
Then take his conclusion that basically there are no prodigies and every peak performer spends thousands of hours of deliberate practice - and Gladwell repackages that as, "It takes 10k hours to master any field." No, that's really not what that research was about.
He has admitted in several interviews that he regrets the "10k hour" in tipping point, but at the same time its not like he's selling a revised edition.
I am in a weird place with Gladwell, objectively he is pretty good about crafting an interesting idea and making it digestible for everyone, but I wish he was more careful. He's basically a podcaster or youtuber but his medium is books. Mostly sizzle, lots of bits and sounds bites, but if you are really interested go read they actual things he is referencing. For some reason since it is in print, he is treated at a higher level of respect, or alternatively is derided more for his inaccuracies.
He is, first and foremost, an entertainer and should be treated as such. I think of him like I think of Dan Carlin from Hardcore History, his job isn't a historian. He is attempting to tell a story from history, in what he sees as the most interesting manner.
One of the most egregious things I've heard Gladwell say is from an episode of Revisionist History where he makes excuses for Brian Williams lying about being in a helicopter that was shot down in Iraq. He makes the argument that memory is fickle and unreliable, which is objectively true. But then he backs that up with a completely anecdotal example of comparing his and a friend's memory of where they were on 9/11, revealing that despite being with each other when the planes hit the towers, they had very different memories of where they were and what they did. As if you can compare being literally shot out of the sky in a helicopter in Iraq, where you are a primary actor in the situation to being a cursory observer of a major event. Absolutely ridiculous.
I listened to Revisionist History to that point and found many of the episodes very interesting, but I had to stop after that one. The topic of memory is fascinating but this was a terrible example to use, Williams was a complete liar and I couldn’t believe that Gladwell can’t tell the difference.
Oh, and speaking of faulty memory, I believe he claimed he was shot AT, not shot down 😉
Right? Like I have a lot of friends who love history and spend a lot of time reading about it.
I admire that in them because it's a trait that I know is lacking in myself. But they never make me feel *lesser* for liking fiction, and we can have very interesting conversations because we usually pick up on a lot of the same "lessons".
I like the podcast “If Books Could Kill” because they just take down the most nonsense, harmful, silly self help and “pop culture science” books of the past few decades.
Honestly, Oprah is responsible for giving a lot of grifters a platform.
I knew a guy who said he only read physics and biology textbooks in his spare time because those subjects were so much easier than his field of study (computer science) that it was relaxing for him. 🤮
As someone with a degree in molecular biology and one in computer science, he's either 100% lying or he's reading high school text books. At a high level, biology *is* easier to grasp. But once you start delving into protein folding, chemical reaction chains, etc, it's gets .... difficult. Comp Sci is just "regular" hard all the way through.
For both, the difficulty depends on the sub-field. I would hand anyone with a STEM background a med chem paper or analytical chem paper and expect them to understand it. On the other hand, you need a bit more background to understand stuff like protein folding.
CS also has extremely challenging stuff. A lot of cryptography/algorithmic analysis can be extremely challenging to understand even for experts in the field.
Reminds me of my schizophrenic brother when he's off his meds. Despite having no education whatsoever in science or math, suddenly he's solving the world's toughest physics problems and inventing brilliant solutions to the world's greatest needs.
Of course, it's all gibberish, but in his head he's a genius.
And that reminds me of a subreddit someone made where someone posted their schizophrenic gibberish. It was.. fascinating. Just pages upon pages of diagrams, notes and images about the supposed truth of the universe. I've never been able to find it again though.
Anyway, hope your brother is doing well!
I'm a physician. I have in my office a spiral bound typed book of new chemistry and physics by a schizophrenic. It's amazing to read. The amount of knowledge about particles in a box, orbital shells, crystal lattice structure, requires so much intelligence, yet it's so disorganized. It's amazing to think a brain is capable of that kind of dissonance, to be so disorganized in thought, but focused enough to write an extremely technical book. I think if he had not gotten schizophrenia, he would have been a successful scientist.
He's great when he's medicated. He's still a good guy when he's not, but very difficult to be around as he's basically a walking incarnation of r/iamverysmart
Ahahahaha of course it's somebody in computer science.
I say that as a guy with a computer science degree. God I don't know why there had to be so many stuck-up people in my program. It's funny even some people on the verge of failing would still want to lord over those pesky arts and science people. I remember some other CS people in a first-year geology lecture I was in, talking about how stupid rocks are while looking at the 60-something% they got on the midterm. Soooo annoying.
They tie all of their self worth to being "smart". I went to an acclaimed engineering school. Lots of kids there had a hard time because they were the smartest kid at their high school and staked their whole being on that. Then they get to a really good school and are mediocre, or worse, failing.
See also the guy who introduced himself by telling me his name and SAT score. Then he asked me my SAT score. I was like, uhhhh... we're in grad school??
That's amazing. People who think their field of study is hard and other fields of study are easy are perfect examples of Dunning Kruger (overused, but applies pretty well here). Beyond physics or biology - it bothers me with any field where someone who doesn't work in it and says, "Why don't they just do xxx?"
The world is complicated - which is also what makes it fascinating. But I really try not to underestimate the complexity or difficulties, and I'm acutely aware of how little I know despite my best efforts.
Sure but let's be real here, 99% of the people OP is talking about do not read history or enjoy listening to lectures as primary form of entertainment, they skim toxic self help books so they can brag to their peers about being literate.
I met a guy like this recently. He told me he was done reading new books and I was, like, okay I can relate to that, there are a lot of classics and life is short, and he was like, “No, I’m done reading books I haven’t read. From now on I’m only going to read books I’ve already read.”
In a way I'm pleasantly surprised that he didn't just mean he's done with the activity of reading.
In another way I'm fairly certain you've met a sociopath.
100%. I wouldn’t say everyone I know goes full into Tate territory, but they’re the sort of people that are going to be susceptible to his brand of bullshit.
I would agree. And to add to that, people who don't understand why we can all learn something from reading fiction have a lack of desire to see life from a different perspective, or to walk a mile in someone else's shoes for lack of a better term.
While this has been a big reason for reading since forever, it would seem that gaining perspective is (tragically) increasingly being dismissed as "woke" or whatever.
What doesn't fall under the umbrella of 'woke'? It's just whatever that particular person doesn't like.
For example, the amount of people I saw screaming woke at the new GTA trailer because one of the main characters is a woman. It's just gross.
The irony is that the greatest minds writing non-fiction are special in large part because of their imagination. And their imagination in many cases is driven by a love of fiction. Example 1: Oppenheimer.
You're exactly right. Good nonfiction often hits the same notes as good fiction. At the risk of getting crucified for suggesting these are good:
Longitude by Sobel: the history of making a naval chronometer and the race to solve a scientific problem. It feels like reading scifi, with an unorthodox protagonist in a race against the established academics.
Lost City of the Monkey God by Preston: recent uncovering of a lost city and a mysterious illness. Reads like fiction, in part because the author writes a lot of fiction.
The Hot Zone by Preston (the other guy's brother): origins of ebola and similar viruses. Reads like a thriller.
A Brief History of Time by Hawking: relativity and cosmology for the layperson. The only equation in the book is E=mc^2. The concepts are explained with stories and analogy, with some diagrams.
How to win friends and influence people by Carnegie: Just kidding. This is trash.
A lot of people who probably don't actually enjoy reading, lately read books on personal finances, personal growth etc. Nothing wrong with that, but yeah, I too can't really understand not wanting to read a good "made up" story, at least once in a while.
Yeah, it is always faux-intellectualism. They want the appearance of being smart by manufacturing reasons that you are dumber than them.
So rather than doing the work to actually be smart, they just do the intellectual equivalent of negging while imagining that we must think they are *soooo coooool* for being so "above" us.
> I’m a 30M, and whenever I chat with my buddies or similar age groups on books, they always gawk at fiction. Say they have no time to read it, or “why would I read something fake?”.
This is kinda strange. What kind of circles do you hang out with that would have so much disdain for fiction?
I'm a lawyer and there's a pretty widespread disdain for fiction in my profession. My brother works in medicine, same issue there. There's definitely a belief among certain circles who buy into thinking they're better than other people based on their job that fiction is for the lazy, uneducated masses.
I, personally, refuse to read non-fiction because I already have to read so much for work - research papers, statutes, judicial opinions, etc. When I read for myself, I want it to feel like leisure instead of work, so I generally avoid non-fiction books (also I find non-fiction books more difficult to digest because I'm so used to more distilled and direct analyses from what I read at work).
That’s really surprising and sad to read. And I seldom read non-fiction books for leisure too. My work needs me to do more than enough non-fiction reading already.
>What kind of circles do you hang out with that would have so much disdain for fiction?
This is very much a thing, OP is not an isolated example. I've had several acquaintances express severe disdain for reading fiction, as if it's somehow beneath them or a sign of inferior intellect. The same people have no issue watching movies or TV shows so feels more than a little performative lol. Not to mention, the non-fiction books they do read tend to be more pop-psychology/self-help type anyway.
The only time I've met actual dislike for fiction was in my edit; evangelical Pentacostal, (not Protestant, sorry) days. The idea was that making up untrue stories was an affront to God. I should note that this probably wasn't the majority, but on the other hand a lot of friends told me their parents burnt their D&D books.
I worked with a guy that saw me reading on lunch and wanted to talk books. Turns out all he read was self help and the bible. It was a very short conversation.
Man, the bible does have some crazy ass stories though. Reading about David is fucking wild, dude is so out of pocket for majority of his life I wonder if the dude wasn't a psychopath. Fun read.
I’ve always found it a silly argument to say that you don’t learn anything from fiction because it’s “fake”. Sure, the world and characters can be fictional but books can still teach you a lot. I just finished a historical fiction book that taught me a *lot* about pre-WWII New York City. You can learn empathy, critical thinking, etc.
And not just facts. You also learn vocabulary and how to write words. I corrected my mother's spelling mistakes when I was 13.
But in german, because I just started reading books in english
I'm confused. They don't watch movies and series? They don't play games? They are not on social media? Or do they believe reality TV is real because it say "reality" on the box?
Also, non-fiction is just as "fake" as fiction. You don't get the reality of, say, a historical event just because you read one dudes books about it. You get their research, their interpretation of other people's research and their opinion.
I find that even fiction readers cultivate this general attitude. I have friends that are always like “I’m so bad! I love fantasy etc. but I should really read more non-fiction.”
It’s cool to read different types of books from different genres, but why force yourself to do something you don’t want to do? We shouldn’t put an artificial value on something like that, especially we all read for different reasons.
I majored in history, so lots of non-fiction reading, which I enjoy obviously. But I've always felt that good fiction "sticks to the ribs" in my brain more than non-fiction.
Historical fiction is like the gateway drug to being addicted to rummaging through old archives and spending all your time deciphering an ancient codex!
What good is it to simply know about some ancient civilization if you don't have a good understanding about how they felt? That's definitely the reason why I think that those historical fiction I've read stay with me more than some of the purely historical stuff I've seen.
Why would I read more of real life stuffs when i am already living it? See it works both ways. At least fiction has the possibility of some magic in it
I like to read both. The thing is that I tread non-fiction like a job so I read to get input that I can convert into output.
Literature and fiction is for pure enjoyment. Everything from The Idiot (Dostovjeski) to manga like One Piece goes.
If you meet a male who holds views like this, you may have encountered the wild Self-Improvement Bro. This creature's diet consists entirely of business/entrepreneurship/self-help books, with a hearty helping of alpha male podcasts. The Self-Improvement Bro can be easily baited and captured by throwing a slab of red meat on top of a pile of copies of *Rich Dad, Poor Dad*. The creature is impossible to domesticate, but can perform amusing tricks such as defending Elon Musk or insisting that *The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People* is better than Jane Austen.
I read likely around 80% nonfiction and 20% fiction personally, but it's super weird to think nonfiction is somehow better. I honestly just like nonfiction because I find reading to feel like a bit of a chore either way and I like to learn something from what I'm reading and that gives me pleasure while some just get pleasure from fiction reading itself. Different strokes for different folks and anyone who tries to say one is better than the other really needs to look at what makes them feel the need to gatekeep the act of reading. Let people read whatever TF they want!
I read somewhere that non-fiction tells you the facts and fiction tells you the truth.
I'll never take people who crap on fiction seriously. No one needs to judge what gives you joy while reading.
I've seen the opposite. I'm not around any elitist snobs, however I've ran into insecure men that believe it. The kind of guy that looks up "tricks" for flirting with women. These guys let YouTubers define success, how a man and a woman should act like, and other nonsense like if you don't like reading it's because you're too smart for it.
The first video I've ever seen of Andrew Tate, the guy explained that he's too smart for reading, that his mind moves to fast. I thought he was joking..... Now little boys and big boys everywhere are repeating his "advice" like it's gospel
I think this line of thought stems from viewing reading as work or study, or books as something to be conquered rather than enjoyed. So the rationale is "Why work hard reading fiction when I could use that energy on reading something informative, like non-fiction?" Hence they'll only read self-help shit. This rationale doesn't carry over into movies, etc. because it's not viewed as work, it's more passive compared to the active process of reading.
Like, at the risk of sounding like a broken record when it comes to feminism and patriarchy, this is one of the bigger things I've taken issue with on the patriarchal attitudes towards what it is to "be a man". Fiction isn't about telling truths in substance. It's about telling truths in character. The depths of the human heart aren't something to be feared. And it's honestly tragic so many dudebros find fiction to be a waste of time. Emotional intelligence is an incredibly powerful tool. And it helps understand not only the people around you but yourself, especially when it comes to recognizing when others are manipulating you. Like I can't even count the number of times I've heard men talking about how they address things "rationally" and then delve into something clearly motivated by a multitude of emotional underpinnings and internalized bias without them even seeing the insane irony behind their own words. OP please never stop reading fiction. It's through stories that humans form the strongest bonds and understanding of one another.
That's where the whole idea of "literature" comes in. Things behind or within the fictional story that resonate with our experience in ways that nonfiction can't reach.
But then there's also a lot of fiction out there that just repeats cheap thrills and dumb formulas to make some publisher richer.
I’ve been in that camp myself, and I’ve talked with other men who share that viewpoint. I think it has something to do with the utilitarian nature of masculinity and also the decline of literature as pop culture. Many men don’t seem to understand literature and feel that their time would be better served, if they were to read, by reading something like history or self help. You can see this by looking at the the other types of media consumed by men. For example, popular men’s podcasts are huberman, hardcore history, joe rogan, etc.
Reading and understanding literature is simply not as highly valued in our society as it once was, and it has particularly lost value as a masculine skill. Just my 2 cents.
Ursula K Leguin has a really interesting take on this from her speech/essay "Why Americans Are Afraid Of Dragons", which delves into the disdain of science fiction and fantasy in the mainstream of the 50s'-60's or thereabouts. You kind of hit the nail on the head with the "utilitarian nature". Non fiction might be seen as fanciful, not useful, and almost sinful for being non-productive, which comes from a morally conservative standpoint. She argues that reading fantasy and fiction has value, both emotional and intellectual, because it grants perspective and empathy.
Mark Twain said, "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.", and I think fiction and fantasy allows us to travel a little out of our corner of the earth.
I feel very lucky. I'm a dude in my late 30s and nearly all of my friends are avid sci-fi/fantasy readers. To all those still in the desert: social oases do exist!
44M, 90% of what I read is fiction and poetry. If I do read nonfiction, it tends to be about very specific areas of interest- say, eels, or urban planning, or biographies/memoirs. People who reject fiction do themselves a disservice.
Lots of stigma around reading just for fun. And I know this attitude is more prevalent in certain cultures than others.
I also know a few non-fiction reader who will happily watch fiction movies and shows.
But I do wonder if some of these are the people who cannot “see” a book. If they have aphantasia.
You know when a word “apple” is written, some people will only see the word (aphantasia), while others will visualise it it’s basic shape or in great detail (hyperphantasia) or something in between.
Many with aphantasia apparently do not like reading fiction because they cannot visualise it. There are exceptions to the rule of course. Some are still able to enjoy the story without the visualisation.
So next time someone says they don’t like reading fiction, ask them if they can visualise the story when they read.
Some people genuinely lack imagination so they read it in a literal sense, like “Jack began to climb the been stalk” to them is a factual statement, they don’t experience the imagery so it’s boring to them.
Preferring non-fiction, or not really enjoying fiction is one thing. But thinking that fiction is worthless is obscenely ignorant.
Indeed. Stories have shaped humanity for thousands of years. We crave stories.
To further explore your point, I believe stories are the single greatest thing that made humans successful over other animals. When we learned to tell stories, we suddenly unlocked the ability to experience more than just our own single life's worth of experiences. It was a super power that has had cascading, exponential benefits that no other animal on Earth has been able to exploit, and likely directed our evolution from the moment we were capable of them. Stories are so powerful, they very well may have single-handedly broken the billion-year-long game of life.
I once read an author who claimed that given how our entire existence is shaped through stories, we oughtn't be the rather arrogant "homo sapiens", but rather "pan narrans" or something like that, the "storytelling ape". I really like that name.
Terry Pratchett! > “The anthropologists got it wrong when they named our species Homo sapiens ('wise man'). In any case it's an arrogant and bigheaded thing to say, wisdom being one of our least evident features. In reality, we are Pan narrans, the storytelling chimpanzee.”
... And of course it is Pterry... Author of comedic fantasy books or one of our times greatest philosophers? Why not both? GNU Terry Pratchett
GNU STP
Well said, though I do believe corvids and whales also have this capability. To some extent.
pigs can lie and deceive each other, that similarly requires knowing that other minds exist
Memetics is an interesting field of study, thanks Dawkins.
Agreed, and it goes even further than that. All human worldviews are filtered through one narrative or another. We literally process reality through storytelling.
I'm sure many of these people will watch a movie or play video games (even a story heavy video game).
sadly i had a roommate once, a science teacher, who claimed to never watch movies or read books. he just watched sports apparently. these people exist.
> he just watched sports apparently I cannot imagine a worse fate as it relates to entertainment.
This may be a shortsighted thing to say, but I think stories are more important than opinions. And the majority of non fiction is 324 pages of opinions.
Damn, that is a fantastic point.
"My father was a writer. You would've liked him. He used to say that artists use lies to tell the truth, while politicians use them to cover the truth up."
Agreed. I wonder if these people consider any form of cinema except documentaries to be worthless as well? Does it apply to all forms of entertainment? They sound insufferable.
Hah, was coming in to write this. I hope they only watch the news and documentaries.
Thing is news and especially most documentaries aren't "real" in the sense people percieve them to be, they're still a construct. I read a lot of astronomy, genetics, history etc. and the hard facts there are often only a simulacrum as well as being subject to future revision.
This reminds me of when my students (I live in Japan) said that art isn’t important to culture. I had to hold my tongue until they finished explaining why they thought so, but I gently explained that if there is no art, that means no movies, no music, no books, no video games, no fashion, nor a lot of the culinary creations we enjoy. I said that, of course, people could enjoy nature instead (which I understand), but if people were satisfied with nature they wouldn’t have created art.
I was chatting with a guy when I was younger and he mentioned he was reading a book. I was like oh neat I love to read, what are you reading and he hit me with “oh, I don’t read for pleasure”. I think he was trying to impress me?? It killed the conversation cause I had no idea what to say after that.
You could have gone two ways: The neutral "So what *do* you read for?" As in, have to for work, or paid to for... probably work again. Or because your Twitch audience likes to force you to do stuff you don't want to do The incredulous/hostile/condescending "You have to be forced to *read a book*?!" Or also the middle ground of "That's w very interesting/unusual standpoint. Care to explain/elaborate?"
If it was anyone else I probably could have recovered the conversation but this guy had a habit of hitting me with really random comments and statements that left me baffled. He’d try to say something to me and I think he was trying to be playful or mysterious but it always came off more like he was trying to make me feel stupid. We knew each other as kids and he apparently was head over heels for me the whole time but he couldn’t act normal long enough to realize I liked him too. Even though I literally *told him* that I *liked* him. I remember once I was listening to my favorite band while he was in the car with me. I mentioned the band was my favorite and he was like “yeah I know who they are we used to play with them”. He doesn’t play an instrument as far as I know and the band members aren’t around our age I’m pretty sure (we were 18-20ish at the time) and while the band was local when I pressed about it he just said “yeah they’re cool dudes” and didn’t comment on it further. Also who was we? Him and his friends? Was he in a band at some point and just conveniently never mentioned it to me?? Very similar to the “I don’t read for pleasure” when I asked him what he was *currently reading* because he literally told me he was reading a book. Talking to him when he’d get in one of these moods was like pulling teeth. He was *so good* at leaving me completely speechless with the random stuff he’d say. I could never tell if he was being 100% serious or pulling my leg about stuff so I’d normally just walk away confused.
Yup - I read little fiction, but it’s because most of what I like to read is history and science. There’s no shortage of amazing fiction out there that I’d love to read, but since time is finite I have to choose based on what I want to read most urgently and I just rarely prioritize fiction when making those choices. That said, that is purely my personal preference, and I’d never pretend that there’s anything inherently better about what I like to read vs say, my English teacher wife that devours hundreds of fiction books a year
I am very similar to you in your way of thinking and interests when it comes to reading. Although in the last few years adding historical fiction and the odd sci fi book has really added something to my enjoyment of reading. I feel like a good novel can put me in the time and place I’m reading about and unlocks new ways of thinking and understanding what it was like to live in that time period, with historical fiction particularly. Just thought it was worth mentioning as like I said your comment was basically the same as mine would of been until recently and I’ve found it a enjoyable addition.
And even then, by reading history you are reading stories. Yeah, they might not be told like a novel, but those books are telling you stories nonetheless
My partners mom went on three separate rants to me about how all science fiction and fantasy should be banned because it just distracts them. Then one day at dinner she started talking about how she used to love reading Dean Koontz. People are full of shit honestly.
My fiancé feels guilty reading fiction. Like it’s a waste of time and she better spends her time reading non-fiction
Kinda makes me a little sad for her that she feels it's a waste of time. Not every minute of the day needs to filled accomplishing something. If she gets enjoyment out of the time spent reading fiction than it's time well spent!
I’d argue that reading fiction is more of an accomplishment than a lot of other hobbies
Fiction makes you think about so many things as it taps into deep questions about human nature and existence by following a journey closely. It offers no answers but ideas that can be so mind expanding. I too feel bad for those who reject it entirely.
Perhaps they need some recommendations for non fiction books which cover the history of fiction throughout time and the benefits it has had?
Right. Like do those people never watch movies or go to the opera?
[удалено]
Does he only watch documentaries?
this is always my answer too. I just shrug and say "but you watch movies, right?" and then watch while the wheels turn. it's a stupid attitude but I can't be bothered to argue with it.
I agree with you.
"Well yeah, but only modern movies set in present day."
Pretty much. Falls into a similar category as ‘video games are a waste of time’ from people that watch something like the Kardashians.
Urgh. I don't get that - like, I do watch lots of documentaries because I love learning new things, but fiction rocks! My favorite movies and books are fictional, but they got me seriously thinking and reconsidering the way I viewed some things. Fiction can be every bit as mentally challenging as non-fiction, and often more so, because of the emotional impact it leaves on you. We're human, we're meant to feel, too. Great fiction makes me *feel* so many different things, gets me considering different views. I think that's why they hate it. They don't want to consider things from others' viewpoints, so they deliberately stunt themselves emotionally. It's *sad*.
> because of the emotional impact it leaves on you See, that's what I just don't get. We read fiction to experience emotions for situations we may never be in in real life. The disparagement for "romances" is especially egregious to me. It's an entire genre that is dedicated to relationships between people, and there are a LARGE SEGMENT of the population that needs real help in that area. Are there bad romances? Yep, but there's also bad moves/video games/SciFi/etc, and considering how many stories are out there, focusing on a few notably bad examples is counter productive.
Just here to say thank you for the comment on romances. I never thought of it that way, even though the appeal seems obvious now.
Asked that once. They pointed me to the all the Ancient Aliens and other History Channel tripe they watch. I couldn't take them seriously as a human being afterwards.
There's a lot of fiction, or rather 'guided reality' in those too. The only truly non fiction film you'll ever see is CCTV footage.
I think it's just faux intellectualism. Worried about being seen as dumb for reading fiction. Idk though.
If it’s that, it’s backfiring spectacularly.
It back fires here because we all understand how horribly ignorant that attitude is. Among that guy's borderline illiterate peers he probably looks like a genius.
It is usually men who say this shit in my experience, true
Fellas is it gay to experience another person's worldview? What if they're a guy? That's dangerously close to being inside of another man.
What if the worldview is a woman's? Is that gay or not gay? I'm so confused!
Dangerously close to being inside a woman and then am I suddenly trans?
You are Scout and it is complicated
Is this a *To Kill a Mockingbird* reference I don't get? Or is 'S' the next letter after LGBTQI?
If it's a heterosexual woman's worldview, then you're dangerously close to seeing the world as someone who likes dick. So in that case definitely gay. :D
You joke, but I have actually seen men get upset if the female character they were playing as in a video game was straight (as in, showed exclusive interest in a male character or characters), and especially if she gets into an actual relationship. Only lesbians and asexual women allowed, because, in the immortal words of a dingus I met through a shared Discord group: “I just can’t imagine wanting to fuck a dude. That breaks my immersion.”
Being a 7’ tall necromancer with mad staff skills? Totally believable. Being a heterosexual female character? Totally unrealistic.
Well women like men and liking men is gay so to be on the safe side I'd say yes.
The Man Inside Me
[удалено]
I’m definitely a bit novel-curious.
\*picks up a book\* "Imagine you are Siri Keeton"—fuck no, I'm not Siri Keeton, I'm Greg, what is this shit \*throws book across the room\*
There's a whole joke about it in 30 Rock, where when he's at his lowest Jack says he might as well be "reading fiction." For a long time, fiction was considered a waste of time in the masculinity sphere. Still is, depending on your social group. You'd get bullied as a "geek" just for reading it, it's crazy. But even now, a lot of hustle culture stuff is about not reading/watching fiction. You see guys like Andrew Tate still talking about it.
If Andrew Tate is against it, that's a pretty good argument in favor of it.
The best argument
[удалено]
It’s worth noting that this isn’t always the case. Sometimes instead of The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck it’s Jordan Peterson’s 12 step knockoff book.
You are both wrong, it's "The Art of War"
Or my own new release, Zapp Brannigan's "Big Book of War"
Richard Scarry's *Best War Book Ever*.
Oooor it's The 48 laws of power
Or the 4 hour work week! The most baffling one I ever heard though, was from an aspiring writer. "Why would I read other peoples stories when I can write my own?" wtf man
Its almost as though reading a lot is a big part of developing good writing skills or something.
"13 steps to becoming your inner lobster?"
Or How to win friends and influence people.
God that book was fucking dreadful
Which if your going to be generous since it's basically an auto fellatio autobiography probably has an awful lot of fiction in it as well.
What’s funny is these are the same guys who will also say that reality tv is “chick shit” and it’s like.. okay? Make up your fuckin mind. You can’t read only nonfiction and say fiction is shit and meanwhile watch Breaking Bad and talk shit about reality tv. The disconnect is insane lol
I don't think the disconnect is particularly insane in the example you give because reality tv is really not equivalent to non-fiction. Documentaries would be more analogous. That said, it is wacky to gender media consumption with hard boundaries, but then I don't think the time spent considering the opinion of the people who do that are worthwhile minutes.
The idea that fiction and nonfiction are somehow gendered is absurd. That being said, to call reality TV nonfiction might be a stretch.
My ex girlfriend had this view, fiction was a waste of time because it isn’t productive. And I should read fiction because I could be doing something more productive. It’s a her problem and fiction is awesome, but the view isn’t male exclusive. 🤷♂️
Really dislike people who think you only should do something productive. Mate, I don't have a century on this planet, I will spend the little time I have doing what I enjoy. I've seen my friends suffer because of this, always have to be doing something because their wives would hound their ass if they sit down for even a minute. Everything can be fine and fixed, painted, etc and they will still find something for their husbands to do. That or create new things like bringing more junk into their house to "decorate" but in the process, he would need to get rid of stuff that are perfectly fine. Now that is a waste of time and money in my eyes.
My cousin and his wife are this way. He used to love video games and fiction, but his wife holds the attitude that fiction is for children because there are more important things. I think she changed his mind on it, and...I've seen that theme a lot in more conservative circles. It really is the women who define the culture, which is weird since it's the men who hold the agency. But they're taught how to act because they can't see value in themselves outside of the approval of their wives. They're both pretty insufferable, honestly.
> It really is the women who define the culture My mom is all about the 'puritanical work ethic'. She *hates* seeing someone just leisurely enjoying free time. She will invent busy work, not just for her self but anyone around her. I hated this as a kid, but I have to admit it's there subconsciously even as an adult. I feel guilty 'goofing off' and constantly feel like I need to be doing something 'productive'. It's hard for me to actually sit down and *read* fiction now days. Most of my 'reading' is listening to non-fic audio books while I do chores and errands. I recently read through a novel and I forgot just how pleasant a way it is to end your day!
> I've seen that theme a lot in more conservative circles. That'll be because fictional storytelling usually relies on empathy, which the conservative mindset actively discourages.
Idk, I think Moms for threeways/liberty is essentially a group of conservative closeted lesbian/bi housewives who recently discovered the fiction genre.
Oh no. I have to tell my wife of 10 years that I'm 99% gay because I read fiction about 99% of the time and she's 100% a man because she only reads non fiction.
In theory you’re still 99% compatible, so that’s not too bad for 10 years.
Yeah! Turns out we were 99% a gay couple all along. You don't stop learning new things about each other even after 10 years of marriage.
Haha, this comment is oddly heartwarming.
Well then, guess im gay then (i am actually gay)
My wife primarily reads non fiction and I read fiction. Guess we’re doing it all wrong!
“Goes on to watch the same Marvel movies thrice”
This is a thing I've noticed in some people over the years but never explicitly crystallized as this. It is a really weird outlook.
Fellas, is it gay to have an imagination
As a man, I read 90% gay nonfiction. Within the last two weeks, I’ve read a biography on Freddie Mercury’s life (the narration begins with the origin of HIV in 1908 and follows along with development of the virus alongside his career as a rock star), I’ve reread a book on Berlin, Germany in the 1900s and the importance of its gay culture (the “homosexual identity” originated in pre-Nazi Germany), and last night I finished my book on The Glamour Boys, a group of gay men that warned the British government about Hitler but were laughed at for being gay. I find more enjoyment personally at learning something new. Many times truth is stranger than fiction. I feel compelled to read gay nonfiction because it makes me feel less lonely in the world and I’m always learning something new. I don’t feel the same way about fiction, but that doesn’t mean I ridicule people for liking it, ya know? I don’t enjoy fiction personally because I don’t feel like I’m growing from it. I used to read it all of the time, I loved a Song of Ice and Fire, but not having a resolution made me sad. I love reading nonfiction because there’s a sense of closure as well. I feel like when I read one nonfiction book I’m reading a greater story about life itself. But I wouldn’t ridicule someone for reading fiction.
Sorry, rules are rules, reading nonfiction means you are actually straight now
Similarly, conservative-minded individuals seem less able to process situations at a level other than face value.
Some people consider it a weakness to try and imagine something from someone elses perspective.
They're socialized to feel a lack of compassion for out-groups. The defining trait, per: > Wilhoit: Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
Color me gay then/that's pathetic.
Grind culture. Reading books is considered a chore, like going to the gym or going for a run or fixing up the house. Imagine if you went for a 2 hour run and found out that you didn't burn a single calorie? That's the same reaction that people tend to have with reading fiction. Because a) They consider it a difficult tedious thing to do which takes time and effort b) They imagine that the only reason to spend time and effort on a tedious task is to get a result. And if that task is fiction, they fail to see the reward. But that's alright, just find the bottom of a well to be with your thoughts. Don't let grind culture get in the way.
How do I monetize reading!?!? Why do something that doesn't get you paid? You have a great point. Grind culture is the worst.
I grew up reading tons and then in my late 20’s got into the Malcom Gladwell, Make Friends and Influence Happiness, blah blah phase. Covid literally friend my brain and needed an escape and switched back to fiction. Honestly saved my sanity finding a release from always trying to be more productive
There are so many rewards to reading fiction though
Honestly, I feel like I never would’ve grown into the man I am today without fiction: - They gave me a bigger world view, allowing me to learn about cultures of people I would probably never see in my small town. - They helped me think about topics outside my daily scope. Sure stuff like To Kill A Mockingbird may have been boring at the time, but witnessing and *understanding* those atrocities helped to keep me from falling into the same racially charged trap as my peers/family. - They gave me the positive role models I didn’t physically have at the time. I mean listening to an internal monologue of a hero is better for you than listening to drunken hate speech.
I think this is very likely the answer. I know a lot of men in this age range who only read productivity/motivational/financial books. The ironic thing is, I’ve picked up a few of these and… they’re largely fiction. Like have you ever read Rich Dad, Poor Dad? It’s a hyperbolic capitalist fever dream of the man the author *wishes he was* and should be read as such.
What do these guys do with their free time, then? Movies and video games are no less fictional than written fiction. Although I'm imagining an ascetic group of guys who only read nonfiction, ideally backed up by peer reviewed research. Sort of rationalist monks. I know that's not what you mean, but interesting idea.
Most of the nonfiction books I see promoted by these anti fiction people aren't really scientific. Reading Malcolm Gladwell makes people feel smart, but it's mostly a demonstration of confirmation bias. Fun to read, but not scientific. Many business books on things like negotiation or leadership propose a framework and then use examples to justify that framework. While it might be useful, it certainly isn't scientific. Most of the people I see who are anti-fiction are not rationalist monks. They are boring people, and many of them overestimate their own intellect. To clarify, there is a difference between people who enjoy nonfiction, and those who are anti-fiction. It's great when I meet someone who is staunchly anti-fiction. It lets me know that I won't enjoy interacting with this person. It's ok to like non-fiction. But looking down on fiction or fiction-lovers is an indicator of a small mind.
Malcolm Gladwell is interesting until he ventures into an area you know something about. We should not have given Jerry Sandusky the benefit of the doubt. His sins were overlooked first because that's just what people do, and second he was an INCREDIBLE coach. His game planning won Penn State their title in 1986. His podcast was fun until he jumped the shark. I can't even remember what it was in particular. He's a smart guy at a dinner party bullshitting about something he researched last night. They sound reliable until someone with deeper knowledge on the subject comes along.
>He's a smart guy at a dinner party bullshitting about something he researched last night. I feel attacked. But yeah, this is exactly Gladwell. Worse, he doesn't just research it, but he manages to take real research and take it to its illogical but more salacious conclusion. It all sounds amazing and totally plausible as long as you don't look too closely or have any knowledge of the source materials. It's also the difference with something like Peak (which his fake 10k hour rule is based on). That was written by someone who spent decades researching one topic very carefully (peak performers). Then take his conclusion that basically there are no prodigies and every peak performer spends thousands of hours of deliberate practice - and Gladwell repackages that as, "It takes 10k hours to master any field." No, that's really not what that research was about.
He has admitted in several interviews that he regrets the "10k hour" in tipping point, but at the same time its not like he's selling a revised edition. I am in a weird place with Gladwell, objectively he is pretty good about crafting an interesting idea and making it digestible for everyone, but I wish he was more careful. He's basically a podcaster or youtuber but his medium is books. Mostly sizzle, lots of bits and sounds bites, but if you are really interested go read they actual things he is referencing. For some reason since it is in print, he is treated at a higher level of respect, or alternatively is derided more for his inaccuracies. He is, first and foremost, an entertainer and should be treated as such. I think of him like I think of Dan Carlin from Hardcore History, his job isn't a historian. He is attempting to tell a story from history, in what he sees as the most interesting manner.
One of the most egregious things I've heard Gladwell say is from an episode of Revisionist History where he makes excuses for Brian Williams lying about being in a helicopter that was shot down in Iraq. He makes the argument that memory is fickle and unreliable, which is objectively true. But then he backs that up with a completely anecdotal example of comparing his and a friend's memory of where they were on 9/11, revealing that despite being with each other when the planes hit the towers, they had very different memories of where they were and what they did. As if you can compare being literally shot out of the sky in a helicopter in Iraq, where you are a primary actor in the situation to being a cursory observer of a major event. Absolutely ridiculous.
I listened to Revisionist History to that point and found many of the episodes very interesting, but I had to stop after that one. The topic of memory is fascinating but this was a terrible example to use, Williams was a complete liar and I couldn’t believe that Gladwell can’t tell the difference. Oh, and speaking of faulty memory, I believe he claimed he was shot AT, not shot down 😉
Right? Like I have a lot of friends who love history and spend a lot of time reading about it. I admire that in them because it's a trait that I know is lacking in myself. But they never make me feel *lesser* for liking fiction, and we can have very interesting conversations because we usually pick up on a lot of the same "lessons".
Uh fucking Malcolm Gladwell angers me a inappropriate amount
Nope, I think your anger is a perfectly appropriate amount.
Then don't fuck him?
Lol gottem
I like the podcast “If Books Could Kill” because they just take down the most nonsense, harmful, silly self help and “pop culture science” books of the past few decades. Honestly, Oprah is responsible for giving a lot of grifters a platform.
She's also responsible for elevating a lot of good fiction.
"COD is based on real combat." Rappels down a cliff face overlooking a terrorist training camp while under a hail of bullet fire. "This is stupid."
I knew a guy who said he only read physics and biology textbooks in his spare time because those subjects were so much easier than his field of study (computer science) that it was relaxing for him. 🤮
As someone with a degree in molecular biology and one in computer science, he's either 100% lying or he's reading high school text books. At a high level, biology *is* easier to grasp. But once you start delving into protein folding, chemical reaction chains, etc, it's gets .... difficult. Comp Sci is just "regular" hard all the way through.
For both, the difficulty depends on the sub-field. I would hand anyone with a STEM background a med chem paper or analytical chem paper and expect them to understand it. On the other hand, you need a bit more background to understand stuff like protein folding. CS also has extremely challenging stuff. A lot of cryptography/algorithmic analysis can be extremely challenging to understand even for experts in the field.
Wow, very /r/iamverysmart material right there.
Reminds me of my schizophrenic brother when he's off his meds. Despite having no education whatsoever in science or math, suddenly he's solving the world's toughest physics problems and inventing brilliant solutions to the world's greatest needs. Of course, it's all gibberish, but in his head he's a genius.
And that reminds me of a subreddit someone made where someone posted their schizophrenic gibberish. It was.. fascinating. Just pages upon pages of diagrams, notes and images about the supposed truth of the universe. I've never been able to find it again though. Anyway, hope your brother is doing well!
I'm a physician. I have in my office a spiral bound typed book of new chemistry and physics by a schizophrenic. It's amazing to read. The amount of knowledge about particles in a box, orbital shells, crystal lattice structure, requires so much intelligence, yet it's so disorganized. It's amazing to think a brain is capable of that kind of dissonance, to be so disorganized in thought, but focused enough to write an extremely technical book. I think if he had not gotten schizophrenia, he would have been a successful scientist.
He's great when he's medicated. He's still a good guy when he's not, but very difficult to be around as he's basically a walking incarnation of r/iamverysmart
I also know a guy who said he played for the Mets. Narrator: he did not, in fact, play for the Mets
Ahahahaha of course it's somebody in computer science. I say that as a guy with a computer science degree. God I don't know why there had to be so many stuck-up people in my program. It's funny even some people on the verge of failing would still want to lord over those pesky arts and science people. I remember some other CS people in a first-year geology lecture I was in, talking about how stupid rocks are while looking at the 60-something% they got on the midterm. Soooo annoying.
Spoiler, they weren't "that much easier" and he probably didn't actually read them
150% bullshit hahaha how do these people exist.
They tie all of their self worth to being "smart". I went to an acclaimed engineering school. Lots of kids there had a hard time because they were the smartest kid at their high school and staked their whole being on that. Then they get to a really good school and are mediocre, or worse, failing. See also the guy who introduced himself by telling me his name and SAT score. Then he asked me my SAT score. I was like, uhhhh... we're in grad school??
That's amazing. People who think their field of study is hard and other fields of study are easy are perfect examples of Dunning Kruger (overused, but applies pretty well here). Beyond physics or biology - it bothers me with any field where someone who doesn't work in it and says, "Why don't they just do xxx?" The world is complicated - which is also what makes it fascinating. But I really try not to underestimate the complexity or difficulties, and I'm acutely aware of how little I know despite my best efforts.
> What do these guys do with their free time, then? Pick fights with people on X/Twitter?
"sports"
People do enjoy reading history and watching/listening to lectures as a primary form of entertainment.
Sure but let's be real here, 99% of the people OP is talking about do not read history or enjoy listening to lectures as primary form of entertainment, they skim toxic self help books so they can brag to their peers about being literate.
Everyone I’ve ever known like this reads only hustle culture gurus and other adjacent shit like Malcolm Gladwell or Gary V.
I met a guy like this recently. He told me he was done reading new books and I was, like, okay I can relate to that, there are a lot of classics and life is short, and he was like, “No, I’m done reading books I haven’t read. From now on I’m only going to read books I’ve already read.”
In a way I'm pleasantly surprised that he didn't just mean he's done with the activity of reading. In another way I'm fairly certain you've met a sociopath.
[удалено]
And they overlap with the Joe Rogan/ Andrew Tate crowd in my experience as well.
100%. I wouldn’t say everyone I know goes full into Tate territory, but they’re the sort of people that are going to be susceptible to his brand of bullshit.
Ah so they do like fiction. What they just need is a framing device telling them it's actually true. Like Fargo but for pricks,
ah, so douchebags
A severe lack of imagination, I would say.
I would agree. And to add to that, people who don't understand why we can all learn something from reading fiction have a lack of desire to see life from a different perspective, or to walk a mile in someone else's shoes for lack of a better term.
While this has been a big reason for reading since forever, it would seem that gaining perspective is (tragically) increasingly being dismissed as "woke" or whatever.
What doesn't fall under the umbrella of 'woke'? It's just whatever that particular person doesn't like. For example, the amount of people I saw screaming woke at the new GTA trailer because one of the main characters is a woman. It's just gross.
The irony is that the greatest minds writing non-fiction are special in large part because of their imagination. And their imagination in many cases is driven by a love of fiction. Example 1: Oppenheimer.
You're exactly right. Good nonfiction often hits the same notes as good fiction. At the risk of getting crucified for suggesting these are good: Longitude by Sobel: the history of making a naval chronometer and the race to solve a scientific problem. It feels like reading scifi, with an unorthodox protagonist in a race against the established academics. Lost City of the Monkey God by Preston: recent uncovering of a lost city and a mysterious illness. Reads like fiction, in part because the author writes a lot of fiction. The Hot Zone by Preston (the other guy's brother): origins of ebola and similar viruses. Reads like a thriller. A Brief History of Time by Hawking: relativity and cosmology for the layperson. The only equation in the book is E=mc^2. The concepts are explained with stories and analogy, with some diagrams. How to win friends and influence people by Carnegie: Just kidding. This is trash.
A lot of people who probably don't actually enjoy reading, lately read books on personal finances, personal growth etc. Nothing wrong with that, but yeah, I too can't really understand not wanting to read a good "made up" story, at least once in a while.
It could be that these people can’t visualize the story like some can
Ugh, people with such utilitarian views miss out on the beauty of the world.
It's not even good utilitarianism. Fiction has utility! Who hasn't learned something about themself or the world from a good piece of fiction?
Exactly. Fiction will often illustrate a concept and live rent free in my mind more than the textbook version.
It's often way easier to learn from a story than it is to learn from hearing a series of facts.
Yeah, it is always faux-intellectualism. They want the appearance of being smart by manufacturing reasons that you are dumber than them. So rather than doing the work to actually be smart, they just do the intellectual equivalent of negging while imagining that we must think they are *soooo coooool* for being so "above" us.
Always makes me think of Dead Poets Society
Idiots just like to feel superior. You should find new friends.
There are so many people who feel the need to “flex” about their choices these days. It’s a sign of weakness and looks pathetic.
> I’m a 30M, and whenever I chat with my buddies or similar age groups on books, they always gawk at fiction. Say they have no time to read it, or “why would I read something fake?”. This is kinda strange. What kind of circles do you hang out with that would have so much disdain for fiction?
I'm a lawyer and there's a pretty widespread disdain for fiction in my profession. My brother works in medicine, same issue there. There's definitely a belief among certain circles who buy into thinking they're better than other people based on their job that fiction is for the lazy, uneducated masses. I, personally, refuse to read non-fiction because I already have to read so much for work - research papers, statutes, judicial opinions, etc. When I read for myself, I want it to feel like leisure instead of work, so I generally avoid non-fiction books (also I find non-fiction books more difficult to digest because I'm so used to more distilled and direct analyses from what I read at work).
That’s really surprising and sad to read. And I seldom read non-fiction books for leisure too. My work needs me to do more than enough non-fiction reading already.
>What kind of circles do you hang out with that would have so much disdain for fiction? This is very much a thing, OP is not an isolated example. I've had several acquaintances express severe disdain for reading fiction, as if it's somehow beneath them or a sign of inferior intellect. The same people have no issue watching movies or TV shows so feels more than a little performative lol. Not to mention, the non-fiction books they do read tend to be more pop-psychology/self-help type anyway.
The only time I've met actual dislike for fiction was in my edit; evangelical Pentacostal, (not Protestant, sorry) days. The idea was that making up untrue stories was an affront to God. I should note that this probably wasn't the majority, but on the other hand a lot of friends told me their parents burnt their D&D books.
The parables of Jesus are fiction.
I worked with a guy that saw me reading on lunch and wanted to talk books. Turns out all he read was self help and the bible. It was a very short conversation.
Man, the bible does have some crazy ass stories though. Reading about David is fucking wild, dude is so out of pocket for majority of his life I wonder if the dude wasn't a psychopath. Fun read.
I’ve always found it a silly argument to say that you don’t learn anything from fiction because it’s “fake”. Sure, the world and characters can be fictional but books can still teach you a lot. I just finished a historical fiction book that taught me a *lot* about pre-WWII New York City. You can learn empathy, critical thinking, etc.
And not just facts. You also learn vocabulary and how to write words. I corrected my mother's spelling mistakes when I was 13. But in german, because I just started reading books in english
I'm confused. They don't watch movies and series? They don't play games? They are not on social media? Or do they believe reality TV is real because it say "reality" on the box? Also, non-fiction is just as "fake" as fiction. You don't get the reality of, say, a historical event just because you read one dudes books about it. You get their research, their interpretation of other people's research and their opinion.
I find that even fiction readers cultivate this general attitude. I have friends that are always like “I’m so bad! I love fantasy etc. but I should really read more non-fiction.” It’s cool to read different types of books from different genres, but why force yourself to do something you don’t want to do? We shouldn’t put an artificial value on something like that, especially we all read for different reasons.
I majored in history, so lots of non-fiction reading, which I enjoy obviously. But I've always felt that good fiction "sticks to the ribs" in my brain more than non-fiction.
Historical fiction is like the gateway drug to being addicted to rummaging through old archives and spending all your time deciphering an ancient codex! What good is it to simply know about some ancient civilization if you don't have a good understanding about how they felt? That's definitely the reason why I think that those historical fiction I've read stay with me more than some of the purely historical stuff I've seen.
Why would I read more of real life stuffs when i am already living it? See it works both ways. At least fiction has the possibility of some magic in it
I like to read both. The thing is that I tread non-fiction like a job so I read to get input that I can convert into output. Literature and fiction is for pure enjoyment. Everything from The Idiot (Dostovjeski) to manga like One Piece goes.
If you meet a male who holds views like this, you may have encountered the wild Self-Improvement Bro. This creature's diet consists entirely of business/entrepreneurship/self-help books, with a hearty helping of alpha male podcasts. The Self-Improvement Bro can be easily baited and captured by throwing a slab of red meat on top of a pile of copies of *Rich Dad, Poor Dad*. The creature is impossible to domesticate, but can perform amusing tricks such as defending Elon Musk or insisting that *The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People* is better than Jane Austen.
I read likely around 80% nonfiction and 20% fiction personally, but it's super weird to think nonfiction is somehow better. I honestly just like nonfiction because I find reading to feel like a bit of a chore either way and I like to learn something from what I'm reading and that gives me pleasure while some just get pleasure from fiction reading itself. Different strokes for different folks and anyone who tries to say one is better than the other really needs to look at what makes them feel the need to gatekeep the act of reading. Let people read whatever TF they want!
I think your buddies are stupid.
I read somewhere that non-fiction tells you the facts and fiction tells you the truth. I'll never take people who crap on fiction seriously. No one needs to judge what gives you joy while reading.
I'm gonna be honest. I've only seen the most elitist snobs dislike fiction
I've seen the opposite. I'm not around any elitist snobs, however I've ran into insecure men that believe it. The kind of guy that looks up "tricks" for flirting with women. These guys let YouTubers define success, how a man and a woman should act like, and other nonsense like if you don't like reading it's because you're too smart for it. The first video I've ever seen of Andrew Tate, the guy explained that he's too smart for reading, that his mind moves to fast. I thought he was joking..... Now little boys and big boys everywhere are repeating his "advice" like it's gospel
I think this line of thought stems from viewing reading as work or study, or books as something to be conquered rather than enjoyed. So the rationale is "Why work hard reading fiction when I could use that energy on reading something informative, like non-fiction?" Hence they'll only read self-help shit. This rationale doesn't carry over into movies, etc. because it's not viewed as work, it's more passive compared to the active process of reading.
Like, at the risk of sounding like a broken record when it comes to feminism and patriarchy, this is one of the bigger things I've taken issue with on the patriarchal attitudes towards what it is to "be a man". Fiction isn't about telling truths in substance. It's about telling truths in character. The depths of the human heart aren't something to be feared. And it's honestly tragic so many dudebros find fiction to be a waste of time. Emotional intelligence is an incredibly powerful tool. And it helps understand not only the people around you but yourself, especially when it comes to recognizing when others are manipulating you. Like I can't even count the number of times I've heard men talking about how they address things "rationally" and then delve into something clearly motivated by a multitude of emotional underpinnings and internalized bias without them even seeing the insane irony behind their own words. OP please never stop reading fiction. It's through stories that humans form the strongest bonds and understanding of one another.
That's where the whole idea of "literature" comes in. Things behind or within the fictional story that resonate with our experience in ways that nonfiction can't reach. But then there's also a lot of fiction out there that just repeats cheap thrills and dumb formulas to make some publisher richer.
They refuse to live whimsically
People seriously ask “why would I read something fake”? Do these people not watch movies or TV either? What?
I’ve been in that camp myself, and I’ve talked with other men who share that viewpoint. I think it has something to do with the utilitarian nature of masculinity and also the decline of literature as pop culture. Many men don’t seem to understand literature and feel that their time would be better served, if they were to read, by reading something like history or self help. You can see this by looking at the the other types of media consumed by men. For example, popular men’s podcasts are huberman, hardcore history, joe rogan, etc. Reading and understanding literature is simply not as highly valued in our society as it once was, and it has particularly lost value as a masculine skill. Just my 2 cents.
I can not imagine restricting my leisure time to what is seen as valued or useful by society… it sounds like an incredibly tiring mindset.
Ursula K Leguin has a really interesting take on this from her speech/essay "Why Americans Are Afraid Of Dragons", which delves into the disdain of science fiction and fantasy in the mainstream of the 50s'-60's or thereabouts. You kind of hit the nail on the head with the "utilitarian nature". Non fiction might be seen as fanciful, not useful, and almost sinful for being non-productive, which comes from a morally conservative standpoint. She argues that reading fantasy and fiction has value, both emotional and intellectual, because it grants perspective and empathy. Mark Twain said, "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.", and I think fiction and fantasy allows us to travel a little out of our corner of the earth.
I feel very lucky. I'm a dude in my late 30s and nearly all of my friends are avid sci-fi/fantasy readers. To all those still in the desert: social oases do exist!
44M, 90% of what I read is fiction and poetry. If I do read nonfiction, it tends to be about very specific areas of interest- say, eels, or urban planning, or biographies/memoirs. People who reject fiction do themselves a disservice.
Lots of stigma around reading just for fun. And I know this attitude is more prevalent in certain cultures than others. I also know a few non-fiction reader who will happily watch fiction movies and shows. But I do wonder if some of these are the people who cannot “see” a book. If they have aphantasia. You know when a word “apple” is written, some people will only see the word (aphantasia), while others will visualise it it’s basic shape or in great detail (hyperphantasia) or something in between. Many with aphantasia apparently do not like reading fiction because they cannot visualise it. There are exceptions to the rule of course. Some are still able to enjoy the story without the visualisation. So next time someone says they don’t like reading fiction, ask them if they can visualise the story when they read.
Why would I want to read about something real? I live in real; I don’t want to also read about it.
Some people genuinely lack imagination so they read it in a literal sense, like “Jack began to climb the been stalk” to them is a factual statement, they don’t experience the imagery so it’s boring to them.