Fee Fi Fo Fum - what does it really mean?

[GuanoLad]

So did the Brothers Grimm come up with that one? Or is it a sanitation rhyme included for later kiddy consumption? Not that it's too sanitised - grinding bones to make bread etc.

I once read a book where some so called 'expert' analyzed Nursery Rhymes and came to the conclusion - every time! - that they were about homosexual trysts.

I tended to ignore him after he claimed Jill in 'Jack and Jill' was really a boy's name.

[Nickrz]

Well sure, everyone knows, for instance that
"Hansel and Gretel" was an allusion to a homosexual three-way.

"Hansel, stretch out your finger that I may feel if you will soon be fat." Hansel, however, stretched out a little bone to her, and the old woman, who had dim eyes, could not see it, and thought it was Hansel's finger, and was astonished that there was no way of fattening him."

The "witch" was really a "man" and his intent to "eat" poor Hansel was actually quite literal. Right?

The Brothers Grimm then offered another allegory by way of H&G pushing "her" into the oven, the meaning of which we needn't go into. It all goes to show, "When correctly viewed, everything is lewd."

Fee fi fo fum? I have no idea.

[C K Dexter Haven]

None of my at-hand references shows an origin for Fee Fi Foe Fum. Sorry.

In terms of interpreting folk tales as having sexual implications, I suggest Bruno Bettleheim's USES OF ENCHANTMENT. Ignorning Bettleheim as a person, his thoughts here are quite interesting. His main premise is that one of the reasons that folk tales (such as Brothers Grimm et al) have endured so long is that they strike a resonant chord in the child: that a parent can impart wisdom through a folk tale that the child can understand, but that the child would not accept (and the parent might not deliver) in plainer terms.

For example: the giant (or the wicked step-parent) is usually a simple symbolic representation of the parent. Parents are like giants to the small child; and parents sometimes do things that are terrifying to the child (punish the child, for instance.) The hero/heroine of the folk tale overcoming the giant is a way of conveying to the child that he/she can grow up to overcome these terrors. It also is a way of saying that daddy or mommy sometimes does act like two different creatures -- a loving, supportive, nurturing parent and an angry, punishing, terrifying giant.

The message would not be understood by a child if delivered directly; but put in symbolic story terms, Bettleheim argues that the message can be delivered and understood at a subconscious level.

The argument is not just that the folk tales have a deep-rooted sexual element, but that they have deep-rooted psychological elements, some of which are sexual. And that's why children love the stories, and why they have endured.

[GuanoLad]

Yeah, I agree there. Along with the Hero With A Thousand Faces Joseph Campbell thing: Myth, legend, and folklore; it's all allegory.

However, the aspect that I'm curious about, and maybe it's hard to seriously track down, is the actual elements themselves and how they were decided upon. I'd be fascinated by the annotations in the Grimms' notebook - why they removed some elements, and included their own versions. Where they got each tale from, in how many varieties, and which were distilled.

And what their own motivations were - was it to compile these allegorical tales for the good of the children (or whoever their intended audience was) or was it purely for the money; did they see a franchising opportunity or something.

Anyhoo, my point was - did they themselves come up with "Fee Fi Fo Fum, I smell the blood of an Englishman..." or was it a traditional nonsense phrase. And I'm sure there were many fascinating things like that worth reading up on.

Not to mention Mother Goose, Hans Christian Andersen (though he was a bit of a miserable writer, a bit short on happy endings - no Danny Kaye was he!) and the rest.

[Northern Piper]

didn't the Brothers Grimm originially write the tales in German? if so, the "Fee Fi Fo Fum... Englishman" would be the work of the English translator?

[AHunter3]

"Fee fi fo fum" has a resonance similar to "eenie meenie miney moe" and "hickory dickory dock", which I am given to understand were "one two three four" and "ten eleven twelve", respectively. They may be letters or numbers in consecutive order, from one of our ancestral languages.



------------------
Designated Optional Signature at Bottom of Post

[Gilligan]

Actually, the giant was complaining about his accountants, the English firm of Fum and Fum. They insisted on using FIFO for costing his inventory of golden eggs, and he thought that their fee was too high.

[C K Dexter Haven]

"Jack and the Beanstalk" is not from the Brothers Grimm, it is of British origin; see Katherine M. Briggs Dictionary of British Folk Tales (1970). Bettleheim in The Uses of Enchantment comments that important elements from the story appear in many stories all over the world: the seemingly stupid exchange which provides something of magic power, the miraculous seed from which a tree grows that reaches into heaven; the cannibalistic giant/ogre who is outwitted and robbed; the hen (or goose) that lays golden eggs; the musical instrument that talks. "Jack and the Beanstalk" is a meaningful fairy tale because of the insertion all these elements into "a story that asserts the desirability of social and sexual self-assertion on the part of the pubertal child, and the foolishness of the mother who belittles this."

Still looking for the fee fi fo fum, though... Probably takes a trip to the library or a web search.

[mangeorge]

Main Entry: 1fee
Pronunciation: 'fE
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French fé, fief, from Old French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English feoh cattle, property, Old High German fihu cattle; akin to Latin pecus cattle, pecunia money
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : an estate in land held in feudal law from a lord on condition of homage and service (2) : a piece of land so held b : an inherited or heritable estate in land

Main Entry: fie
Pronunciation: 'fI
Function: interjection
Etymology: Middle English fi, from Old French
Date: 14th century
-- used to express disgust or disapproval

Main Entry: foe
Pronunciation: 'fO
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English fo, from Old English fAh, from fAh, adjective, hostile; akin to Old High German gifEh hostile
Date: before 12th century
1 : one who has personal enmity for another
2 a : an enemy in war b : ADVERSARY, OPPONENT
3 : one who opposes on principle <a foe of needless expenditures>
4 : something prejudicial or injurious

ain Entry: faun
Pronunciation: 'fon, 'fän
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin faunus, from Faunus
Date: 14th century
: a figure in Roman mythology similar to but gentler than the satyr

So, whaddya think? :)
Peace,
mangeorge

------------------
Work like you don't need the money.....
Love like you've never been hurt.....
Dance like nobody's watching! ....(Paraphrased)

[C K Dexter Haven]

I dunno, george, Fee Fi Fo Fum has a lot better ring to it than "Money Ugh Enemy Satyr".

[kunilou]

I don't have anything to add, except to be grateful to be associated with any poster who has a working knowledge of Tom Leher.

"When correctly viewed, everything is lewd."

[NanoByte]

Nickrz:

"When correctly viewed, everything is lewd."

This quote. . .from our moderator/censor! Sounds like we got problems!

CK:

. . .they have deep-rooted psychological elements, some of which are sexual. And that's why children love the stories, and why they have endured.

So kiddies, at the age when they relate to these stories, relate to the "deep-rooted. . .sexual" "elements" "they have" in them? This sort of psych-illogic and litter-airiness reminds of religious doctrine more than anything else. Liberal-artists seem to be able to live off this perpetual ridiculousness generation after generation. To me its about as believable as Romulus and Remus and Greek Mythology. (One is not "well read" if one has not read all this kind of stuff, right?) This goes for both of your posts here.

"Jack and the Beanstalk" is a meaningful fairy tale because of the insertion all these elements into "a story that asserts the desirability of social and sexual self-assertion on the part of the pubertal child, and the foolishness of the mother who belittles this."

Pubertal children concern themselves with "Jack and the Beanstalk"? Gimme a break!

"Fee fi fo fum" is just a group of nice, simple, strong-sounding syllables that very young children can relate to as coming from a big, dangerous being, that may at the same time be thought of as kind of funny, which aspect is enhanced by the alliteration.

FEE FI FO FOOEY on all this psycho-literary pomposity dumped on kids who are still pretty simple in thought at any age during which relate to green giants. . .if any of them do these days at any age. These psycho-literary types must get nursery rhymes shoved into them like religion from fanatics. ;-)

Is one supposed to remember, as an adult, what their thoughts were as to various nursery rhymes? I got the usual array and related to them in some sort of way, I assume, but at present, I don't have one freakin' inkling as to what they ever meant to me. Some years after nursery rhymes came comic books full of superheroes. I don't even understand at present what I ever got out of reading those. . .except I do remember reading, in one comic book, in about 1940, of U235's relating to bombs. Later, it didn't seem to me, that back then, there could've generally been much public mention elsewhere of such goings-on at that early date.

Ray (Where did that cum fum?)

[GuanoLad]

I would have to pretty much agree with NanoByte on that point - it is mostly a load of Mumbo-Jumbo in expecting fairy tales to actually have any impact outside of entertainment on a young person's mind, at least in respect in calling up that feeling you got from them later in life.

I guess the intention of them may have been to affect the intellectual growth of a child, and indeed some people do claim to relate to tales on those levels, but I personally never have. They're just stories to me.

I'm a Star Wars fan, and it's always dumbfounded me how people have said they like those movies because of how they can relate to Luke and his wistful dreams of leaving his home and then his daring adventures and trials he had to overcome to reach his goals, bla bla crap.

I say Bollocks. It's a cool series of movies with aliens and spaceships. The end.

[pluto]

Gilligan, I think that was Foo and Foo. Using Fum and Fum causes the golden eggs to disappear!



------------------
"non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem"
-- William of Ockham

[C K Dexter Haven]

As I think I said when I quoted above, I was citing Bettleheim's theory. The question he poses is: why do some stories endure, well loved by children AND adults, while countless other stories drop aside and are forgotten?

His answer is that the stories that have endured -- especially the ones that circulated orally, probably for centuries, before being written down -- do so because they appeal to basic, primal needs. That's not such a far fetched idea.

Bettleheim said that the story of Jack and the Beanstalk is about a kid hitting puberty -- giving up the stage of dependence (cow, mother) for a more assertive stage of life (beanstalk, overcoming giant.) He did not say that was the audience, Nano, that was the character.

STAR WARS is an interesting analogy, because STAR WARS is "cool" precisely because it draws on great mythic elements. If you like STAR WARS only because the special effects are leading-edge technology, then it will be out of date in a few years. If you like STAR WARS because the story appeals to you, then consider the elements of the story that have such appeal.

To a psychologist or sociologist (and to a few other types, like Hollywood producers and readers of this board) merely classifying something as "cool" is inadequate. The question is: why is this story viewed as "cool" and that story viewed as "uncool"? What psychological and sociological phenomenon cause that outcome?

[GuanoLad]

I am a big Fantasy novel fan, and I do relate to Star Wars on the story level, but also on the 'whizz-bang gosh' and 'fun character' levels. (Not the 'parallels my life and I take inspiration from it' level)

But not to the point where it moves me, only in so far as it captivates my imagination. So I'm not sure if Fairy Tales affect everyone in the same ways - which may be one of the keys of its endurance, I suppose.

Certainly I'm disappointed they've been relegated to Children's Stories almost exclusively. I think those tales of derring-do and character growth deserve better.

One day, I want to see these stories made realistically, (though it is a kind of trend in Hollywood to do that - witness the Sigourney Weaver Snow White for instance) on TV or movies.

CK in re Bettleheim:

why do some stories endure, well loved by children AND adults, while countless other stories drop aside and are forgotten?

His answer is that the stories that have endured -- especially the ones that circulated orally, probably for centuries, before being written down -- do so because they appeal to basic, primal needs.

So the claim is that these stories for toddlers persist because they appeal to the "basic, primal needs'. . .of the adult storytellers, is that it? Well, as an adult, I guess I missed the train, but all trains of that nature, including works of mythology, the Bible, the Koran, Catcher in the Rye, and all such crocks seemed to me to be on their own circular tracks going nowhere -- except in religious, literary or psycho-brainwashers' circles.

At the age level of the listeners of fairy tales, kids are intrigued by animals, varieties of sounds and their relationships, things that are funny in simple terms, scary things and comforting things, good beings and bad beings, yucky things and tasteful things, etc. While sex is in their genes at that time, not much is normally in their minds until the correlate hormones start flowing, normally long after their days of listneing to fairy tales. Or are you saying that, if they don't listen to the fairy tales, these hormones won't flow properly?

I listed some of the "primal needs" toddlers are in the market for. "Ontogeny follows philogeny," prior to adolescence, I'd say. These kids also like to shy away from books and chase things and climb other things. In my prior post, I cited aspects of such things as 'Fee fi fo fum' that fall into my above-listed categories. Persistence of any fairy story may be partly a result of its appeal to particular adult readers of it to children, but I can't really relate to that. I can't even get into the silly fairy stories written today for adults. However, I contend that most of the evolutionary competition of fairy tales depends on the demand side of the transaction. I say Bettleheim's stuff is far-fetched, as you present it, at least. But his kind of babbling sells to a considerable number of aficionados who suck on it. . .because those aficionados apparently never got enough fairy stories read to them as toddlers, so they have to have adult fairy stories read to them as adults. ;-)

Bettleheim said that the story of Jack and the Beanstalk is about a kid hitting puberty -- giving up the stage of dependence (cow, mother) for a more assertive stage of life (beanstalk, overcoming giant.) He did not say that was the audience, Nano, that was the character.

Was I supposed to pick up on that as a toddler, the only time the story was read to me? Gee, guess I was retarded; I didn't then know anything about puberty. Of course, I was in San Jose then, not Berkeley. (I have met nine-year-olds in Berkeley who could write stuff like Bettleheim's.) Jack&B has to do with not depending on a cow? You mean one's milk? Seems to me that many post-puberty folks depend on cows. . .even cowboys (along with Marlboros, of course). Actually, I did OK on human milk, but then at an only slightly advanced age, it was found that I was allergic to cow's milk, so they put me on goat's milk. Maybe that's my problem. What fairy stories would you recommend for goat's-milk drinkers?

The special effects of the original Star Wars were interesting but I wasn't really turned on by them; however, I first saw it as an adult. Did it have a story? I guess there was some corny moralizing in it. I haven't seen the prequel. Close Encounters I could relate to a little better, but it was still silly fantasy. I was never a Trekkie either. Science is interesting; sci-fi is sci-lly.

To a psychologist or sociologist (and to a few other types, like Hollywood producers and readers of this board) merely classifying something as "cool" is inadequate. The question is: why is this story viewed as "cool" and that story viewed as "uncool"? What psychological and sociological phenomenon cause that outcome?

Gimme a break! Hollywood only wants money. And as to the rest of those guys, "psychological and sociological phenomen[a]" are only figments of the minds of psychologists and sociologists, and their readers are people who have trouble relating to the real world, and so hole up in myths. (As I said, probably didn't get enough fairy tales in early childhood. At least that's my psychoanalytical take. ;-) ) Psych and sosh are purely subjective -- more religion than science.

Sofa King:

Robert Johnson, follower of Carl Jung[. . .]based a popular and pretty convincing series of little books that reconcile modern psychology with pervasive, lasting myths.

That's a perennial pastime of psychos and writers. After all, "modern psychology" dug into Greek mythology to construct much of its nonsense. Find a shrink who wasn't steeped in Greek and Roman mythology during his schooling. My parents, with clear reason, couldn't understand why that stuff was dumped on me in seventh grade, but the public schools weren't exactly avant-garde in the '40s in Salinas, so they never pointed out to me how that wonderful stuff should make me want to kill my father and marry my mother, and all that good stuff; so my adolescence was radically disturbed by the abscence of that inclination. Jeez, maybe if that connection had been properly made, I wouldn't be bugging you about this now. Then again, maybe they let lifers get on the Net and post to forums these days. . .so they can find out that it was really the ancient Greeks who are responsible for their crimes. . .and they will be forgiven in secular-humanist heaven.

It turns out that Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella, etc. are all being told to
little Chinese kids, too.

Well, it's as I always figured, Red was a Maoist. But were there pumpkins in China then? And The Three Bears? Pandas, no doubt. And Jack? Bean there, Deng that.

It is difficult to imagine that such stories continue to exist simply because they entertain children so well.

Of course, they originated from the thinking of adults, but "it is difficult to imagine that" they persisted because of elements in them that appealed only to adults, rather than because they had elements in them that would normally appeal only to small children.

If that's the case, people a thousand years from now might be reciting the Barf-O-Rama stories.

Never heard of those, but I don't see why not. Barf is yucky. And I understand that Rama is an incarnation of Vishnu, the chief Hindu god. So psycho-socio-litero-types can ramble on about how these stories derived from Hindu mythology, and thus the offspring of liberal artists should become properly inundated with whatever these stories are for, for at least 1000 years.

I tend to think that these fairy tales do affect us at some basic level that we don't really have words to describe other than in the form of a simple children's story.

All right, I confess. I have always been bothered as to why Jill played second fiddle. She should've, by all politically correct rights, "come tumbling before." Come to think of it, I've never heard that nursery rhyme in feminist Berkeley. But hey, as you say, if people can't find "words to describe" the effects such stories had on them at preschool age, you really ought

[Sofa King]

Well, Robert Johnson, follower of Carl Jung and sterling guitarist--wait... there's more than one guy named Robert Johnson??--based a popular and pretty convincing series of little books that reconcile modern psychology with pervasive, lasting myths. Johnson wastes a lot of the reader's time tying Trystan und Isolte into our "collective unconsciousness," but at the root of his argument is a pretty convincing point.

As I remember it, the brothers Grimm collected their stories from Eastern Europe, writing down stories that had existed in an oral tradition from time immemorial. It was a long time before anyone got the bright idea to check these stories against the myths of the Chinese, and then guess what? It turns out that Little Red Riding Hood, Cinderella, etc. are all being told to little Chinese kids, too. These stories are so persistent, hit people at such a basic level, that they continued to exist in a similar (not unchanged) form for a thousand years and several language changes since they were first written down.

It is difficult to imagine that such stories continue to exist simply because they entertain children so well. If that's the case, people a thousand years from now might be reciting the Barf-O-Rama stories. I tend to think that these fairy tales do affect us at some basic level that we don't really have words to describe other than in the form of a simple children's story.

[Temujin]

Did anybody else, as a child, think this poem had something to do with English muffins?

[Clark K]

Nanobyte, are you deliberately being obtuse?

No one is saying that children or adults consciously understand all the psychological layers of these fairy tales. The point is that these and other tales survive because they are good, and they are good because they touch us in some deep way.

No, little Johnny is not going to listen to "Jack and the Beanstalk" and then think, "By jiminy, suddenly my vague fears about adolescence and parental relatonships have been cast in a whole new light. Thank goodness that delightful tale contained such valuable insight into a child's psyche."

But Johnny might start thinking how fun it would be to leave home and go on an adventure
and outwit someone much bigger than himself.

I read the "Lord of the Rings" as a teen-ager, engrossed by the action and the magic and the poetry. But I daresay all that was given a little extra poignance because the story was also about a small, innocent person given a great responsibility and struggling to do the right thing.

And don't tell me "Huckleberry Finn" doesn't have some significance beyond the simple comedy of an ignorant boy and his redneck acquaintances.

------------------
Up, up and away!

[C K Dexter Haven]

I think Nanobyte is confusing contemporary society with the centuries of pre-television culture, when the great mythic elements were formed, largely through orally transmitted stories. Whether Jack in the Beanstalk will survive the next hundred years, I don't know -- can it stand next to Sesame Street?

But here's the bottom line: there are hundreds of stories that DIDN'T survive with any popularity. And Bettleheim didn't think that was just because some are "cool" and some aren't; a story survives for centuries because it appeals at a very basic, primal level. That's the whole point.

Bettleheim being who he is takes that primal level often to be sexual, but other elements are involved as well -- folk tales are about growing up and going out into the world to make your own fortune, about taking on personal responsibility, about breaking away from parents, about handling sibling rivalry, etc. If you don't like the idea of sex rearing it's ugly head, will you accept that those elements play a critical part in folktales?

Look: suppose Mommy sits you down at age four and says, "Sometimes I will punish you, or otherwise act in a way that you may perceive as unloving, but it's really all for your own good." Impact on you? Zip!

But if Mommy tells you a story about a little girl who overcomes her wicked stepmother, by being good and virtuous, and just by being herself... that conveys the message (at a subconscious level).

The richness of folktales (according to Bettleheim) is the depth of meaning (at mostly subconscious levels) that children can take from them. When a child is at one stage of development, he/she likes Little Red Riding Hood; when he/she outgrows that one, Jack and the Beanstalk has different lessons to teach.

Nano says: << Gimme a break! Hollywood only wants money.>> Reread what I said, Nano -- I said that Hollywood wants to understand what makes one story successful/popular and another not. That's the way they make money, they don't back stories that they think won't be popular.

[NanoByte]

Nanobyte, are you deliberately being obtuse?{/quote]

No. You are probably the type who would take an herb for an ailment simply because there are people somewhere in the world who have taken it for your ailment for thousands of years. Is the Phoenician/Greek/Roman alphabet so unique, irreplaceable and faultless that we couldn't use something better? Same goes for all that storytelling; it's just habit and legitimacy based on 'well it's there'. So is your appendix. But mine is gone, because it ruptured early on. No "deep" meaning. Just nature. Who needs it? Same goes for religions.

[quote]No one is saying that children or adults consciously understand all the
psychological layers of these fairy tales. The point is that these and other tales survive because they are good, . . .

Good for what? Better for whatever than some other dumb thing you could easily make up. A lot of kids like you to make up stories, many of which they like at least as well -- if only halfway good at it. These established tales survive simply because they have some of the very simple-minded elements I mentioned in my last post in them. If you want to convince a rational person otherwise, you'll have to set up some very controlled tests continuing for a full child-rearing period. I just can't get off on 'it's this deep, contorted way, because I believe it is, or because non-objective academicians write that it is. Most preschool kids are relatively simple. Fairy tales are quite simple, with no lessons on how to get through adolescence -- just bits and pieces of things that went on when they were dreamed up or from later times. I really detest the silly mysticism of psychologists, sociologists and novelists. The stuff they write resonates in some way with their own brains (lots of roome in there to echo, I guess), and it gets them a fast buck, I seems. If people want to read it for entertainment, OK, but to me it shows no universal meaning, only these person's peculiar notions of "deep" mental gyrations, apparently. They shouldn't dump this stuff on society as the gospel, that's all. Same thing goes for religion.

. . .and they are good because they touch us in some deep way.

Exactly what is it that establishes your belief that this is so. Supposing, instead the kid went out and rode his bicycle. Would that "touch [him/her] in some deep way"? Do you think either one would make the different whether he would become a Bill Gates or a Bill Clinton, she become a whatever? They attract some kids for a certain length of time because they include very direct and rudimentary dumb little things in them.

No, little Johnny is not going to listen to "Jack and the Beanstalk" and then think, "By jiminy, suddenly my vague fears about adolescence and parental relatonships have been cast in a whole new light. Thank goodness that delightful tale contained such valuable insight into a child's psyche."

Glad you're learning.

But Johnny might start thinking how fun it would be to leave home and go on an adventure
and outwit someone much bigger than himself.

Oh phooey! Any decently adventurous kid would slap the book down and go on his own adventure that had nothing to do with that story, and certainly not relate outwitting a giant to anything he might do in his adventure, such as catching polliwog in a creek or something. There might be one sort that might do something of the nature of which you speak, in a very crude way, i.e, a future psych-socio-novelist might sit there and dream of something like that. . .until his mother called him to supper.

I read the "Lord of the Rings" as a teen-ager, engrossed by the action and the magic and the poetry.

Well, the subject here was Grimm's fairy tales. I think it's indeed nice that, by the time you reached your teens, you had advanced to fantasy for the advanced fantasizer. That trilogy came long after my teen years, but I was definitely not into fantasy then anyhow, and I've never read it, and can't conceive of why anyone would. Fantasy disgusts me. You'd've been right in there at Columbine High. OK, you're right, it isn't all dangerous; most of it's just plain silly. But, in any case, what that reading did with your brain in your teen years is totally off the subject of what Jack and the Beanstock might be claimed to do with a preschool kid's brain. There's no continuity in what you drift around with at all; but I wouldn't expect such with someone so far into fantasy as to still be reading it in his teen years. I assume you're a humanities teacher of some sort.

But I daresay all that was given a little extra poignance because the story was also about a small, innocent person given a great responsibility and struggling to do the right thing.

Well, I never read it, but I have no idea why I should've relate what I should, could or would want to do to a fairy story for retarded teen-agers. I was interested in the world around me that I could do something with, however limited. I don't see any difference between your reading that book and your holing up in a video-game arcade.

And don't tell me "Huckleberry Finn" doesn't have some significance beyond the simple comedy of an ignorant boy and his redneck acquaintances.

I only read that because the made me do it for school. My reaction to it was 'Yeah, I guess so, whatever.' What was it supposed to have to do with my world. Didn't live where there were any islands. Or was it "Tom Sawyer"? Were they different?

. . . . . . . . .------------------
. . . . . . . . ..Up, up and away!

Guess that happens when you read all those fairy stories. But tell me, how do you center things like that; I can only do it by putting characters at least every other space. Damn reality catches up with me every time. All because I never got Goldilocks sorted out from Red Riding Hood, I suppose. There were 3 bears, weren't there -- the father, son and holy ghost, I think. Trilogies bug me; I'm a binary sorta guy.

Ray (Are you the "expert" in the first post. . .who's still wondering why his adolescence didn't come out otherwise?)

[Nickrz]

"I could tell you things about Peter Pan
Or the Wizard of Oz (there's a dirty old man!)"

As kunilou pointed out, I'm simply quoting Tom Lehrer. His points are as valid today as when he made them nearly 35 years ago. Anyone interested in this satirical musical genius can visit http://www.wiw.org/~drz/tom.lehrer/publications.html .

[pldennison]

Geez, Nanobyte reminds me a little of the folks in "Fahrenheit 451," who got rid of books not because they were evil, or out of fascist beliefs, but because, gosh, who wants to sit around and read all these stories, these terrible stories, and be made to care about what happens to these made-up people you've never even met, and get your emotions all messed up, and . . .

So, let's see: You don't like religion, philosophy, psychology, sociology, science-fiction, fantasy, fiction in general . . .what, do you live in a box?

If you think there are no sociological or psychological phenomena which haven't by this point been fairly well quantified and studied, well, you're mistaken. If you think there are no myths which are pervasive throughout all cultures, having developed independently, and which continue to infuse each culture and how the views themselves, you're mistaken again. And if you think there aren't science-fiction and fantasy writers who are also serious men of science, you're mistaken for the third time.

[Fretful Porpentine]

I've never read it, and can't conceive of why anyone would.
Well, I never read it, but I have no idea why I should've relate what I should, could or would want to do to a fairy story for retarded teen-agers.

Nanobyte, did you attend the ARG220 school of literary criticism, by any chance?

[No Me Ayudes Compadre]

On the subject of Star Wars, a Bill Moyers book on mythology delved deep into the persona of Darth Vader. In the book, he said that Vader personified the "man stuck in the system", who lost his soul and humanity out of loyal service to the material plane. This was represented by his machineness and his loyalty to the Emperor which grew out of his early self-seeking.

Further, even though he always knew that Luke was his son, Lord Vader was able to conveniently ignore this fact as his star rose within the Empire (allegory for working man lets family grow apart). Yet, upon realizing what his work habits were doing to what "really matters", almost too late, in Return of the Jedi.

When I read this, and assuming it's somewhat sensible, I wondered, did George Lucas really think all this through as he created the characters?




------------------
"Where there is clarity, there is no choice. And where there is choice, there is misery. But then, why should I speak, since I know nothing?"

[DSYoungEsq]

This reminds me of what Professor Tolkein thought of those who attempted to show that the Lord of the Rings was a book that attempted to shed some light on current events through allegory.As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. ... I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence.
Foreword to the Second Edition, J.R.R. Tolkein (1965)

Basically, as he says elsewhere, he just tried to make up a good tale. So many times, I think we try to make too much of what we like, disliking the notion that we enjoy rather simple fare...

[GuanoLad]

Star Wars has an exhibition going around the US just now called 'The Magic of Myth', and the accompanying book goes really really deeply into how the story's mythical and fairy tale origins are what make more enduring and popular as almost any other movie out there.

But I also think it went far too deeply. Unlike Tolkien, George Lucas does admit his intentions were to create a fairy tale for a new generation, and based his story on certain standards of myth and legend, but I think it's only there on the most obvious levels - Princesses and evil Emperors and pretenders to the Throne, a young boy who discovers his powers and is the one hope to overthrow the tyrant. Any deeper down and they're just reading too much into it.

[AuntiePam]

Nanobyte -- was your mom frightened by a psychologist when she was pregnant with you?

[Clark K]

Yep, Nanobyte, you've pegged me: I'm a retarded, herb-using, humanities professor who holes up to play video games. It's a good thing you don't believe in reading deeper meaning into things or you'd really analyze my psyche.

Seriously, though, you seem to hate all things fictional. I'm curious whether you read any fiction at all, and what kind. If you do, why do you think those particular stories appeal to you? If you don't ... well, I'm just not sure what to make of that.




------------------
Up, up and away!

[C K Dexter Haven]

DSY, please note that the quote from Tolkien was about allegory, and he (quite rightly) denied that his work was allegory.

However, I bet that if you asked him if he thought that his work had deeper meanings, such as that good triumphs over evil, that heroism can be expressed in unconventional ways by quite ordinary people, that evil exists, etc... I bet he'd say, Yes, of course. He never (so far as I know) denied that his stories had meaning to human beings; he only denied that they were allegory.

In contrast, Orwell's ANIMAL FARM is allegory; it's clear what the animals represent, it's clear what the historical realities were.

The folk tales are NOT allegory, but draw upon symbols and meanings that resonate within the psyche of both teller and listener. Tolkien draws upon those folk tales, which he remakes to suit his own purposes.

And to offer my answer to the general question, NO, I think most artists are not really aware of the depths of meaning of their work. The ones who think they are fully aware of the depths of meaning are the conscious, intentional, deliberate intellectual artists... The gut-feel artists draw upon depths that they are usually unaware of.

That's my tuppence.

Let me state an underlying position and then tear into individual posts here.

I DON'T MIND PEOPLE GETTING OFF ON NON-FACTUAL STUFF OR ARCHAIC OUTLOOKS, IF THAT'S THEIR IDEA OF ENTERTAINMENT, BUT I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THEIR TRYING TO INFLUENCE THE REST OF SOCIETY WITH THIS STUFF, OR THEIR TRYING TO INDOCTRINATE OTHERS WITH THE THESIS THAT THE BASIS OF THE GOOD LIFE, PROPER BEHAVIOR, ETC. SHOULD BE DERIVED FROM THIS STUFF, RATHER THAN EVOLVING AROUND EXTERNALLY PERCEIVABLE REALITY.

I find it disgusting that so much of these "teeming millions" repeatedly ignore real incidences of problems or successes of our society or its environment. . .until some sly character, for either monetary or political reasons, publishes so dippy book of fiction that dwells on such topics. Then everybody emotes all over the place on a bunch of distorted product of this character's particular mind, motivated by who knows what -- and then politicians, practicing psycho-social types, law enforcement, lawyers, judges and the whole reactive entourage go into a flurry of knee-jerk oratory, legislation, judicial decisions and whatever, based on this fictional crap, instead of on sampling of the real world. Writers of fiction are simply plugged into themselves, not what's really out there. I don't need them. If others are hooked on them, its fine for them to get their rocks off on such stuff, but that should be the end of it. What's the matter with reality. . .or simply ignoring what's written about anything, and dealing directly with reality or new ways to rationally relate to it? And another thing, fictiona addicts tend to go around espressing how deeply they think, and how deeply the authors they read think, and make statements that people who deal with reality or read about it are shallow and mechanistic or zombies of the system; but I tend to see them as only self-centered, not really of any great depth, not too bright, always analyzing things in subjective ways that are not subjectable to proof, and continually craving attention. A plague on the house of fiction and all its devotees.

pld:

Needless to say, I haven't read that overheated sci-fi, but I can see that it really did things for you. See above. I haven't gotten rid of anyone else's fiction books, and I haven't gotten rid of any of mine either, because I haven't read any that were mine. I know that's a cardinal sin in your eyes, but you know. . .I don't__________! (From all your reading, I know you can fill in that blank with many very to-the-point remarks.)

So, let's see: You don't like religion, philosophy, psychology, sociology,
science-fiction, fantasy, fiction in general . . .what, do you live in a box?

I didn't say I didn't like philosophy. . .if it's mine. ;) If the above are all that are in your life, certainly it is you who live in a box. Occasionally I read some of the above. . .in self defense. Gotta know what the enemy is up to, right?

If you think there are no sociological or psychological phenomena which haven't by this point been fairly well quantified and studied, well, you're mistaken.

Sociological and psychological "phenomena", "principles", or whatever are, by definition, subjective. In simple terms, if you live in a context in which the ones under discussion satisfy your subjective outlook, then you claim, yeah, that's the way things are. If you live in another context, where these don't ring your bell, you say they don't exist the particular way or don't hold. If you claim some certain statistics on some strictly objective behaviors of people or groups of them, you are making a statement outside of psychology and sociology.

If you think there are no myths which are pervasive throughout all cultures, having developed independently, and which continue to infuse each culture and how the views themselves, you're mistaken again.

Suppose you give us some examples. But right off, I can certainly ask you exactly how you are able to establish with certainty 100% independence of any given two instances of a particular prototypical myth in two different cultures.

And if you think there aren't science-fiction and fantasy writers who are also serious men of science, you're mistaken for the third time.

No, I don't think that, and didn't say anything to make anyone believe I did. Isaac Asimov at least thought he should be taken as a serious scientist. He was a combination of some other seemingly incompatible things also. What people combine in their lives doesn't prove anything about how a another party should evaluate or otherwise view the individual matters such people take up. I understand there are serious biologists who claim to believe in Creation Science.

Fretful P:

What is "the ARG220 school of literary criticism"? I just tell it like it is. . .as seen from the outside of lit(t)erature.

El M Loco:

In re Bill Moyer's book on mythology, as to Star Wars, you asked:

. . .did George Lucas really think all this through as he created the characters?

I only saw the original Star Wars movie. It seemed to me Lucas simply considered, "What would people who like to see a bunch of things shooting around on a star-filled screen, and corny animal-modified human-like beings sitting at a bar, accept as appropriate simplistic, grandiose supersocietal ethical and governmental notions that can be stirred into my very marketable masterpiece?" Hey, Lucas is simply into whatever fits his special effects and sells like crazy to the hoi polloi. Darth Vader? Hey, Luddites got money.

DSYE:

Of course, I think your post is really neat. I love it! "A good tale" is what it's all about. Nothing wrong with that -- for those who like "good" tales, so long as such readers accept that there is nothing "deep" in it that makes people and societies tick. And such a writer of a good tale, together with all his aficionados, should not see other people -- who would rather read of facts, or do something other than read -- as being subversive androids with nothing but gears in their heads, because real people are the ones who read into the simplest fiction all kinds deep "human" meanings, and don't act, in their lives, except in ways they see good guys or bad guys act in works of fiction.

GuanoLad:

Of course, I also go with your post. That ain't guano.

AuntieP:

Nanobyte -- was your mom frightened by a psychologist when she was pregnant with you?

Well, I was listening reeeeeeeaaaaaaalllll carefully at the time, but back then (1931) they didn't give fetuses computers to analyze sound tracks for psychobabblers, so I have no definitive evidence on that subject.

Clark K:

Well, if you expect me to believe you inhabit phone booths near the Daily Planet, I just won't believe it. A lot of reporters' work tends to pick up fictional characteristics these days, but you're just toooooooo far gone.

I'm curious whether you read any fiction at all, and what kind. If you do, why do you think those particular stories appeal to you? If you don't ... well, I'm just not sure what to make of that.

See what I mean, Folks? This sort never gets out of his hole sufficiently to realize that many, if not most people NEVER OR SELDOM READ FICTION. I don't read any, unless you want to include short jokes or comic strips. Why do I think the latter

[Fretful Porpentine]

What is "the ARG220 school of literary criticism"?

It's when you say that you haven't read a book and don't plan to read it, because you just KNOW by instinct that it sucks. This sort of thing doesn't exactly add credibility to your argument.

See "Life in Heaven, Part 2: I'd Rather Laugh With the Sinners than Cry With the Saints" in GD for a classic instance.

[NanoByte]

Porp, you mean you go through life continually evenly sampling everything, even though you've learned that you're not interested in certain categories of things. . .just so that you can provide substance to possible arguments against your choice of interests? I don't believe it. Someone like that wouldn't need a brain / doesn't have a brain.

Ray

[Kat]

This sort never gets out of his hole sufficiently to realize that many, if not most people NEVER OR SELDOM READ FICTION.

I assume you have statistics/cites to back this up. Admittedly "people I know" aren't a representative sample, but the greater majority of them do read fiction (and that's "people I know", not "friends" or "people who have the same tastes I do"). I find it hard to believe that nearly everyone I am acquainted with fall into this hidden minority.

Porp, you mean you go through life continually evenly sampling everything, even though you've learned that you're not interested in certain categories of things. . .just so that you can provide substance to possible arguments against your choice of interests?

You do realize that the descriptions "things I am not interested in" or "things I don't like" are not equivalent to "things that suck".

Additionally, most people realize that not all items in a classification are identical. People who dislike a category of (fiction/music/movies/television/food/whatever) will often find that they enjoy one or two examples of that genre of (whatever) while still not finding the overall genre especially interesting.

[aseymayo]

Gee, Ray, no wonder you're so tense - you never have any fun. Some of us read fiction for entertainment, not to further any political agenda. We can enjoy flights of fancy without having to believe "it's all true" on some level. I promise you I never, ever believed "Leave It To Beaver" was for real or that the Cleavers were a better family than mine. I resent being lumped in to your vision of hand-wringing, over-emotional, mouth-breathing fiction readers.

However, I have to agree with you that nursery rhymes don't touch on some sort of Jungian pool of human experience. I think they are remembered and passed on because of several structural traits. First, they use repetitive elements - 3 bears, 3 little pigs, 3 blind mice and multiple boys named "Jack". They use bits of poetry like "Fe Fi Fo Fum" or "Not by the hair of my chinny-chin-chin," making the words easier to remember and repeat. And you're told them when you're young, when your little unlined brain is soaking up stuff left and right. You grow up, have children of your own and surprise! you still remember the stories you heard as a kid and tell them to your own progeny. Once a group of stories like this gets written down, it spreads even further - you no longer need to rely solely on your slowly disintegrating memory. You can learn the fairy stories of some cultural group other than your own - and pass them on.

Did I mention random chance also plays a part?

The more it snows, tiddely-pom.

[C K Dexter Haven]

<< I think they are remembered and passed on because of several structural traits. >>

Of course. No one argues that there is only one rational behind the traditions. Certainly the poetry, the repetitiveness, the silliness, the miraculousness, all play a part -- as does the fact that a parent tells them to the children. (My father used to tell me about his adventures when he was in the Army during WWII and fought on Mars. Not sure how old I was when I understood that he was making it up, but I enjoyed those stories immensely as a small child.)

Shakespeare has a line like, "To be or not to be," which is famous worldwide. Yes, it has a repetition to it, yes it has a poetry to it. But it also strikes at a very common human experience, at the core of the human soul, existence vs nonexistence. That line is only meaningful to certain ages, of course; a small child would find it incomprehensible, outside his/her range of experience.

Why do you deny that a fairy tale like Jack and the Beanstalk can't have a similar response, that strikes at the soul of the listeners? Notice that some fairy tales are consistently beloved by certain age ranges; three little pigs is usually much younger children, Jack comes later, Cinderella later still. Kids get almost obsessed with these stories, and you can't tell me that's ONLY the simple repetitiveness or literary format.

[aseymayo]

Well, give me a f'rinstance of this near obsession. Does the child obsess over the story alone? If he or she is obsessing over Cinderella, will any version do or is it one particular version that captures his or her imagination? Grimm's version of Little Cinders is a lot different than Disney's.

[NanoByte]

"To be or not to be,". . .strikes at a very common human experience, at the core of the human soul, existence vs nonexistence.

So you're saying 'tis only human to be suicidal. And I'm defective, since I haven't considered committing suicide. Well, I would add that I believe those who involve themselves with fiction and fantasy tend to rub closer to suicide, but on the average, not close do the writers of such. Gee, do you think I could become more humanly suicidal if I read all that stuff? I think Shakespeare is particularly ridiculous, and people run around repeating word formations that only he ever used, thinking they are English.

Why do you deny that a fairy tale like Jack and the Beanstalk can't have a similar response, that strikes at the soul of the listeners?

I simply deny it because, having no soul, I've never experienced such a strike, and whether or not others have souls, I've never detected evidence of this from the behavior of others. Since it is you, CKDH, who has postulated it, it should be your obligation to substantiate it, not just emote your support of it. What evidence do you put forth that Magellan sailed around the world because his parents read Jack and Beanstalk to him at the age of 3? Exactly how would you go about getting such evidence anyhow?

To Kat, I'll back off on most people don't read fiction, as it applies to females, but hold to it otherwise. Those who hold the positiveposition, that most people do, should be the ones to first present data. It is the positive that is supposed to be proven, not the negative.

And I get called "tense" for making a rational analysis of the negative affects of fantasy, to which none here makes substantive comment, while CKDF just keeps saying, "Ya gotta believe it; ya gotta believe it."

Look at it objectively: Both 1) nursery rhymes and fairy stories and 2) all those works of adult fiction and fantasy are simply viruses. They infect a society and are rapidly spread throughout a goodly part of it -- because of their reality-mimicking structures, not their functional value to the society. '1)' are quite harmless, while '2)' are insidiously destructive in many subtle ways in many cases, though not all. The parent companies of McAffee and Norton should get out some antisociotics for them as soon as possible.

Kids get almost obsessed with these stories,

Even if kids, in general, did get obsessed with them at the time, this certainly wouldn't prove that their later feats in life had anything to do with the stories. But I disagree than anywhere near a substantial number of kids get "obsessed" with stories. What is it you hear preteen kids talk about mostly? Not the fantasy they read about (and insofar as that, it is all about contemporary pop stuff), but the everyday real-world stuff they're involved in or is going on that relates to their milieu. According to the media, most grade school kids get only as literary as Pokemon at present, and even there their interests are mainly trading Pokemon cards with other kids, all the same as non-legible items, such as marbles might be traded. Your only basis for all you say is your own addiction to such stuff and to the Force you feel is with you. And somebody in there put in some connection with Jungian psychobabble. You guys are nothing but self-arranged avatars. None of you claimed story-centered entities seems to wish to admit his/her productive occupation.

Ray (Not convinced by all your stories.)

[pldennison]

To Kat, I'll back off on most people don't read fiction, as it applies to females, but hold to it otherwise. Those who hold the positiveposition, that most people do, should be the ones to first present data. It is the positive that is supposed to be proven, not the negative.

Uh, no. Experiments are designed to test the null hypothesis. If the assertion is, "Most people do not read fiction," that is (or should be) a proveable assertion. The fact that you have no cite besides your opinion speaks volumes. That's a real pussy way to say, "Well, it's simply true because I say it is." You know, that thing you're chiding everyone else for?

You also seem to be under the misimpression that people who read fiction believe that it is real, another dipshit assertion that you can't prove.

So you're saying 'tis only human to be suicidal. And I'm defective, since I haven't considered committing suicide.

No, he's saying it's human to contemplate the questions, "Why do I exist? And what would it be like if I didn't?" This question has been examined by the religious and nonreligious alike.

I am the most areligious and unsuperstitious person around, but even I recognize that one can be inspired to do things by the words of others, fictional or otherwise.

Look at it objectively: Both 1) nursery rhymes and fairy stories and 2) all those works of adult fiction and fantasy are simply viruses. They infect a society and are rapidly spread throughout a goodly part of it -- because of their reality-mimicking structures, not their functional value to the society.

More unproven assertions . . . you excel at those. The theory of natural selection alone would seem to have eliminated those members of the species who prefer false reality to reality if your idea was true. What surivival value would there be in avoiding reality in favor of "realty-mimicking structures"? None.

'1)' are quite harmless, while '2)' are insidiously destructive in many subtle ways in many cases, though not all. The parent companies of McAffee and Norton should get out some antisociotics for them as soon as possible.

Oh, admit it. You're just a boring person and are quite envious of those who are able to enjoy themselves.

None of you claimed story-centered entities seems to wish to admit his/her productive occupation.

I work at a media relations newswire. What does that have to do with it?

[Hello Again]

You're mistaken abut the Pokemon cards -- they are NOT a "nonlegible" trading items like marbles. they are a rather complicated, rule based role-playing system. In other words, an elaborate fantasy. Lots of people call them "Magic-Lite" -- they are made by the same company as the Magic system of role-playing cards.

Anyone who makes a general postulation about nature
"most people don't read fiction"
or
"the Earth is not a spheroid"

should be expected to prove their statement.

And, by the way, all three "Harry Potter" books - about a young english boy who goes to school to learn how to be a wizard - are on the New York Times Bestsellers list. They are aimed at, basically 10-12 yr olds. Pre-teen kids are buying them in almost the same droves as Pokemon.

[pldennison]

Here's how we begin to establish that Ray cannot support his assertions and is merely kvetching to disguise the facts that he is a boring person with no entertaining interests and that there may be some legitimacy to to social sciences and the humanities.

By visiting the website of the American Booksellers Association at www.bookweb.org/aba (http://www.bookweb.org/aba) , we can find statistics for the retail sales of books.

One thing we discover is that, in 1998, bookstores moved 1,015,763,000 units. (That averages out to about 4.25 units for every person in the U.S., but we'll get to that.) Of those 1.02 billion books, 51.9 percent were from the categories comprising popular fiction. Slightly over half. The next largest category percentage was Cooking/Crafts, at 10.1 percent, followed by Religion, at 9.9 percent, and General Nonfiction at 8.2 percent.

What does that tell us? It tells us that, of the people who purchase books, over half purchase fiction, and fiction accounts for five times as many sales as the next most popular category. I think we can chalk that up as "significant."

The questions that need to be asked are: Do most people buy books? If not, do most people read at all, or is some miniscule percentage of the population buying 1.02 billion books per year? Among those who read but do not purchase, do the borrowing patterns at public libraries reflect the purchasing statistics?

In any case, since we know that, among those who buy, most people buy fiction, we are well on the way to establishing that, among people who read, most people read fiction.

[tomndebb]

nano byte:It is the positive that is supposed to be proven, not the negative.

And I get called "tense" for making a rational analysis of the negative affects of fantasy,
And your proof (or even evidence) that fantasy has negative effects would be?

I'm not sure why anyone is actually debating you. Once you simply deny that any literature has meaning and that all social sciences are bunk, we have pretty well run out of common ground on which to discuss these issues. It is an entirely new thread in GD to try to establish that the social sciences are or are not simply something that James and Freud invented in their spare time and then found the funding to begin dominating education.

On the other hand, if you are going to demand that the folks, here, "prove" their assertions, then I'm afraid I'm going to ask you to "prove" your assertion, as well.

------------------
Tom~

[John W. Kennedy]

Why do I suddenly have a certain infamous scene from "Show Boat" running in my head?

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

[Kat]

{quote]To Kat, I'll back off on most people don't read fiction, as it applies to females, but hold to it otherwise. Those who hold the positiveposition, that most people do, should be the ones to first present data. It is the positive that is supposed to be proven, not the negative.[/quote]

Really? I was unaware that my father, grandfather, two brothers, nephew, brother-in-law, sister's fiance, sisters' ex-boyfriends, sister's ex-fiance, dozen uncles, several dozen male cousins (and second cousins and first cousins once-removed), dozen or so male co-workers, numerous male friends, ex-boyfriends and one male salt-sucking scum of the earth were all female. Or perhaps they are merely the only males who read fiction, leaving the remaining male population as those "most people [who] do not read fiction"?

In any case, you are the one making the positive assertion, which is "most people do not read fiction". All I am asking for is the source: an article, a study, a reputable website, a survey in TV Guide if that's all you have, that backs up the assertion (e.g. "in a study/survey of X people, this high percentage state they do not read fiction" article name, author, publication name, date published, page). Otherwise, I will have to believe that you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Kat]

Grrr...messed up the UBB.

In any case, NanoByte, I am not asserting "Most people read fiction." I am taking your statement "Most people do not read fiction." and saying that, based on my own observations, I find that statement hard to believe and please provide for me the sources that provided you with the data which you used to come to that conclusion because I would like to read it for myself.

Kat:

You do realize that the descriptions "things I am not interested in" or "things I don't like" are not equivalent to "things that suck".

Well, I posted a picture to one of the theads of GQ that I was mildly interested in and which sucked (literally). . .but it was taken off. ;)

Does this statement of yours mean that you believe in an absolute category of "things that suck"? Is this category spelled out in the tomes of fiction somewhere. . .in the Bible. . .where? Certainly I believe there are things I don't like that don't suck, such as wind blowing my papers away. (It doesn't suck; it blows.) But I think the drawing of social conclusions from fiction, at least insofar as they are acted upon, by fiction readers, SUCKS! I.e., it confounds others, even other fiction-readers, in their living life in terms of reality. Fiction only expresses outlooks of mostly sole authors, the majority of which are rather confused people. Why should I care to know all the confusion that goes on in others' heads and support same by buying their books. . .or even trotting across the street to the public library to read them for nothing? As they say, "Life is short." Life, at least for most people, is lived in reality. Reality, of itself, is rather complex -- at least to the less simple. Where does it get one to spout off a bunch of quotations from literary fiction? Maybe a role in some more fiction. I don't want my reality massaged by those minds.

Additionally, most people realize that not all items in a classification are identical. People who dislike a category of
(fiction/music/movies/television/food/whatever) will often find that they enjoy one or two examples of that genre of (whatever) while still not finding the overall genre especially interesting.

So at what level of categorization is one allowed to discriminate? Say I don't claim I dislike people, just liars. Do I have to break that down further and only select certain types of liars? I'm not really even enamored of white liars. Even if I took the view that I mildly liked fiction, but liked real things, or representations of real things, much more -- I don't feel I should have to indulge the fiction scene when I am well occupied with the reality scene. Furthermore, I am very decidedly unimpressed by those who spout their learnings or interpretations of fiction, and by many of the actions of those who resort a lot to their impressions from fictional worlds in determining such.

aseymayo:

Gee, Ray, no wonder you're so tense - you never have any fun. Some of us read fiction for entertainment,

My observation is that those who read fiction are more tense than those who don't. If "tense" here refers to one's nervous system, you would expect that that system woud become less tense from application to simpler environments, such as wandering in the hills (few natural enemies in CA-US). Needlessly trying to match one's nervous system up to the distorted ones that write fiction seems to me to be counterproductive in terms of relaxation.

Yeah, "Leave It To Beaver" would've bored me silly. No, I wouldn't claim such a show might've made you breath through your mouth ;) ; I hadn't even noticed that you were drunk from fiction in this forum, and whether you thought the Cleavers were better or worse than your own family wouldn't influence my views on your watching the show.

Jungian pool of human experience

I never consider that one Olympic size, thus I never dove into it.

Yep, fairy stories and nursery rhymes are much like religions and fiction about ménages-à-trois -- lotsa trinities in 'most all of 'em; but I don't think science has really solved the three-body problem yet. Lotsa 7s, 10s, 12s, 13s, 20s, 21s and 666s also in such things, but I'm not much into numerology, as I imagine you would guess. Now, if I were really good at programming, I would design a program to remove all those fairy-story/nursery-rhyme viruses that, as you say, are transmitted continously from one generation to the next. They tie up a lot o' your hard drive and RAM and cut down on your bandwidth immensely. Just think of all I could do if all that crap weren't cluttering up my wetware.

Did I mention random chance also plays a part?

Just watch out, though, for the other kind. So what does random chance do? It just brings up the noise level. I guess it's suppose to save Native Americans in the US though, through legal gambling casinos.

CKD:

My father used to tell me about his adventures when he was in the Army during WWII and fought on Mars. Not sure how old I was when I understood that he was making it up, but I enjoyed those stories immensely as a small child.

How old were you when you gave up on Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy -- and put your faith in Silcon Valley and the Energizer Bunny? If you found those stories so enjoyable, did you pass them on to your children? I've never heard any fairy stories that took place on Mars. Maybe there aren't enough Jacks there. In our era, though, there really ought to be some fairy stories about carjackings.

"To be or not to be,". . .existence vs nonexistence.

I recall, at some point from age 3 to 5, I realized for the first time that I wasn't going to be around forever. That didn't seem very nice, but the though went out of mind quite quickly. . .all without any help from Shakey or anyone (or more) else.

pld:

Experiments are designed to test the null hypothesis. If the assertion is, "Most people do not read fiction," that is (or should be) a proveable assertion.

Who says your supposed to test the null hypothesis? I've always heard that you can't. But my assertion is not one of existence vs. nonexistence; it is one of minority vs. majority.

The fact that you have no cite besides your opinion speaks volumes.

Well, you guys touted first all your fantastic and fictional wares and implied that those who see no value in them practically don't exist. Thus it is first your turn to post your support for this position. One would expect that it be your who hve evidence that you are dominant species and that God is on your side.

You also seem to be under the misimpression that people who read fiction
believe that it is real, another dipshit assertion that you can't prove.

Well, I didn't really state that I knew how real such people considered fiction, and what I was concerned about was not whether or not they considered any fictional account real, but WHETHER THESE READERS CONSIDERED REPEATED PRINCIPLES BEHIND THESE ACCOUNTS REAL OR NOT. I claim they very much do do the latter, and it is not justified and is needlessly socially disruptive in cases where they do and yet reality shows otherwise, i.e., the distorition of old wives tales. (I certainly don't think women should take all the blame for this.) Hey, the Pope had to concede to Galileo's reality some 400 years after his institution screwed up. Of course, I don't really try to ascertain how fiction readers think; I just watch how they act, in rather objective terms. If they

[NanoByte]

BTW, here is reality in the desert:

http://www.illuminatrix.com/mojave/

Too hot to read, but not to answer the phone.

Ray

[NanoByte]

And, no, a river doesn't run through it.

Ray

[NanoByte]

For Kat:

This (http://www.tsoft.net/~raych/FictionReaders.doc) is all I could find on the Web in re number of fiction vs. non-fiction aficionados. The somewhat related material from each site is inserted after each correlate URL.

Ray

[NanoByte]

My last post should've read 'fiction readers versus all others'.

Ray

[funneefarmer]

After reading that most lengthy post Nano, I'm beginning to wonder who's been wasting the most time on this thread, fiction readers or yourself?

[pldennison]

Who says your supposed to test the null hypothesis? I've always heard that you can't.

Now who's living in fantasy land? Here's a real-life project for you: Ask any statistician or scientist what an experiment is designed to do. (Huge hint: The answer is going to be "accept or reject the null hypothesis.") I would be wary of criticizing others for not appearing to have a handle on reality when you have little yourself.


Well, you guys touted first all your fantastic and fictional wares and implied that those
who see no value in them practically don't exist.

Gosh, Ray, what do you think of painting, sculpture, and music?

. . . what
I was concerned about was not whether or not they considered any fictional account
real, but WHETHER THESE READERS CONSIDERED REPEATED PRINCIPLES BEHIND THESE
ACCOUNTS REAL OR NOT.

So, if Mark Twain writes a work of fiction in which he expresses the thesis, "Slavery is wrong, and you should resist it, even at risk to your own body and, if you believe in one, your soul," that's bad? OK, I'm following you now.

I claim they very much do do the latter, and it is not justified and is needlessly socially disruptive in cases where they do and yet reality shows otherwise, i.e., the distorition of old wives tales.

So, you think the world is demonstrably a worse place because people believe they should wait an hour before swimming after they eat or not go out in the cold with their hair wet? DO you have any real problems to worry about?

Hey, the Pope had to concede to Galileo's reality some 400 years after his institution screwed up.

More Fantasyland ramblings from Ray. You don't really know what happened between the Church and Galileo, do you? You're working off your idea built from a mostly fictional account. We fiction readers know what really happened. (Huge hint #2: The Pope never told Galileo the heliocentric model was wrong or heretical.)

If they act on principles found essentially only in fiction, I'm, at a minimum, quite disgusted with them.

Yes, I much prefer people who commit their atrocities based on works of nonfiction, like all those clean-cut young white kids who have dog-eared copies of "Mein Kampf."

So, if Arthur Miller writes a play which condemns the Communist hunts through the allegory of the Salem Witch Trials, and expresses the idea that it is wrong to persecute people for what they believe, especially on shoddy evidence, and people begin to agree, then that is wrong? Boy, I'm glad I don't live on your planet.

Anyone asking such ought to at least be kept under observation for consideration of being locked up.

Yes, all those crazy people like Albert Einstein, and Stephen Hawking . . .

I've never contemplated why I'm here; I don't see such activity as a reasonable [pun if you will] occupation of my lifetime.

That makes you, probably, unique among all humanity.

I certainly didn't deny this; in fact, I somewhat strongly complained about those who
are inspired to do things I think ill of, as a result of reading fiction.

Well, I don't recall anyone needing to check with you on what is allowable, but in any case, are those who are inspired to do things you think ill of as a result of reading nonfiction excused from your paranoiac rantings?

On the other hand, I
discounted strongly the likelihood that any persons, as children or as an adults, are
ever inspired to do anything either significantly constructive or significantly
destructive.

Yes, certainly books like "Uncle Tom's Cabin" never had an effect on the abolitionist movement. And what's that book about the future war between the whites and the "subhuman races" that all the kids are talking about these days? The one that almost invariably turns up when you find a white supremacist who has killed someone?

Others here have seemed to take similar positions on this issue. Anybody
who claims such cause and effect here certainly is obligated to substantiate this claim.

Does the phrase "contributing factor" mean anything to you? Probably not. It's terrifying to you that a work of fiction can still express a useful idea or a truth.

Hey, it was you guys who claimed that fiction was greatly influential.

"Influential" is not synonymous with "destructive."

Hey, Man, you expect too much of evolution.

I expect that it not preserve harmful mutations, and I expect Gould, Dawkins, et. al. do as well.

It's my duty to entertain you. And there's nothing else in the world but
unreality that's enjoyable.

Fantasy Ramblings (Starring Original Famous Ray!) #3: Readers of fiction restrict themselves only to works of fiction. (Huge hint #3: They don't.)


At certain times, you may have put your storybook down and heard that the public is not very happy with:

1. The media,
2. (Public) relations people,
3. Accuracy and dressing up of the news.

You don't know what a media relations wire is, do you?

[Kat]

Well, the 51.9% is significant if accurate. The average number of books sold across the US population including those who do and who don't indulge doesn't count for much. The breakdown of non-fiction books into such categories as Cooking/Crafts is, of course, completely arbitrary. Obviously, the "next largest category" is really non-fiction. So the "5X" statement is silly. I mean, if we're going to break down non-fiction into subcategories, we certainly ought to break down fiction into correlate pieces, such as sagas about cooks and crafts(wo)men. Clearly, what's "significant" to a storybook supporter is not necessarily significant to the rest of the world.

Little secret for ya, NanoByte. Some people read both fiction and non-fiction. The data on book sales posted really aren't that relavent. Hypothetical situation: Bookstore has 50 customers. 49 of them buy 2 fiction books each. 25 of those 49 buy 2 non-fiction books each. The other 25 people (including the one who did not buy any fiction) buy 3 non-fiction books each. More non-fiction books have been sold, but does that mean anyting in regard to how many people are reading fiction vs non-fiction?

The TV just informed me of something I didn't know -- that there's a telephone booth out in the middle of the Mojave Desert that everyone, particularly those who read the Internet, are calling, and this guy pops up from nowhere to answer the phone and tell you what the weather is. (Unlike everywhere is, it is pretty predictable in the desert.) It seems there are even people, mostly women so far, who have come from as far away as NYC to see this phone booth. So, from this real-world knowledge (the TV is telling me the truth, isn't it?), I do know that people can easily make one lie overnight (well, I suppose I should rephrase that, but. . .), so there is a 0.0005% chance I could be wrong. That's probably not as good a rating as Cecil has. (Don't ask me how I calculated it; that could be wrong also.)

Did the TV offer any evidence? A picture of the phone booth? An interview with they guy?

Have you offered any evidence? An article stating, e.g. "According to X study, out of Y number of people, Z% indicate they do not read fiction"?

So at what level of categorization is one allowed to discriminate? Say I don't claim I dislike people, just liars. Do I have to break that down further and only select certain types of liars? I'm not really even enamored of white liars.

To take your example further, you don't like liars. A couple of acquaintances tells you about a wonderful, generous, funny, intelligent, generally good person. Oh, but once in a while this person has lied. Thus you decide, hmm, this person seems to be admired for a number of positive qualities, but has one quality that I do not like, therefore, I will make no attempt to check this person out and make a judgement for myself because I already know I will find nothing to like about him/her.

After reading that most lengthy post Nano, I'm beginning to wonder who's been wasting the most time on this thread, fiction readers or yourself?

I guess it's a toss-up. One gets exactly nowhere trying to bring reason out of the minds of fiction readers. Their posts here, however, delightfully show up how irrationally they put things together though.

pld:

Ask any statistician or scientist what an experiment is designed to do. (Huge hint:
The answer is going to be "accept or reject the null hypothesis.")

Baloney. You're doing the same thing the guy writing on this page is complaining of in his debate opponents, in arguments about religious myths:

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1997/4/4null97.html

I guess you want me to prove the equivalent of a thesis that Jesus did not arise from the dead. People who read about and believe in myths are all the same, whether the myths be religous or otherwise. They mythed out on something when they were being handed out.

If this be what the null hypothesis is:

http://www.animatedsoftware.com/statglos/sgnullhy.htm

, it assumes some commonality of frame of argument. Just saying 'well our religion / preference for unreality over reality as a guide is the coolest; prove otherwise' is just passing the buck. Anyone that says unreality is a cooler guide is obligated to justify same, given the guiding is supposed to relate to reality. I can't prove the nonexistence of something that makes no sense to me.

[of my quote of you] Well, you guys touted first all your fantastic and fictional
wares and implied that those who see no value in them practically don't exist. [end what I said]

Gosh, Ray, what do you think of painting, sculpture, and music?

Oh, I have really strong opinions on kitchen sinks. Would you like to hear them also, before you decide whether I'm right about fiction? Those things have to do with esthetics; I either like a given example of them for what it is, or not -- not for its justification of some underlying principle, as you fiction lovers are trying to sell in the stuff you read. If those things have, say, politics expressed in them, I might snicker at it, but not relate to it as part of the art. If they start playing "Yankee Doodle Dandy", I'm supposed to grab a musket and blow somebody's head off. Is that your point here?

So, if Mark Twain writes a work of fiction in which he expresses the thesis,
"Slavery is wrong, and you should resist it, even at risk to your own body and, if you believe in one, your soul," that's bad? OK, I'm following you now.

Oh, Man! I guess you're saying 'resist slavery', not 'resist slavery's being wrong', but how am I supposed to know? Can't fiction-readers write unambiguously? But either way, why on earth would I care what ol' Sammy Clemens thought about slavery? If he were worth listening to, he'd've used his own name when writing books. I'm afraid my views on slavery would've remained my own or been influenced by others more reputable, including those who wrote about reality. But hey, all this suppositional stuff. . . Hell, if I were then a slaveholder, I'd probably've remained one. This is all fiction and is meaningless. Dig it!

So now your "following" me. But you just got me lost, so where are we headed? We gonna fight the Civil War over again?

So, you think the world is demonstrably a worse place because people
believe they should wait an hour before swimming after they eat or not go out in the cold with their hair wet?

Honestly, I think you've dived off the deep end. You either gonna think now. . .or thwim.

The Pope never told Galileo the
heliocentric model was wrong or heretical.

So history is essentially fiction. It's rewritten about every week. Nothing but a bunch of opinions. Never repeats itself (no predictability), so what's it good for? I'm not into that stuff either.

Yes, I much prefer people who commit their atrocities based on works of
nonfiction, like all those clean-cut young white kids who have dog-eared copies of "Mein Kampf."

Right. Get their Straight Dope on how to build bombs off the Internet. . .from those cool, knowledgeable scientists and engineers there. Do a clean job of it; none o' this 'Tom Finn and Huck Sawyer planned it this way, but then a ghost blew in and changed their minds.'

Arthur Miller. . .Communist hunts. . .Salem Witch Trials. . .persecute. . .shoddy evidence. . .wrong? Boy, I'm glad I don't live on your planet.

SURPRISE! Put down those storybooks, Kiddo, and realize. . .WE LIVE ON THE SAME PLANET!

I'm unique because I haven't contemplated why I'm here? Heck, they just pulled me out and I saw a sign that said:

. . . . . . . . .YOU ARE HERE --> X

The sign wasn't on the fiction shelf, so I just accepted it. . .right there in front of my faith. Was a long time before I went to college and realized there were such things as. . .tada. . .FICTION READERS who wondered, 'I think; therefore am I? To be, or not to be? I better key that into the SD or I'll never know.'

[quote of me]I've never contemplated why I'm here;. . .[end quote of me] That makes you, probably, unique among all humanity.

Ah, but 'tis nice to be "unique". Even the fiction readers like to think they're unique (but they all sound the same to me). And Frankie sang "I Did It My Way."
"Uncle Tom's Cabin". . .future war between the whites and the "subhuman races". . .

Hey, Man, it's trenchcoats these days. Mein Kampf is out. You know, reading levels and all that. Just watch them trenchcoats in the movies. That'll do it. Uncle Tom's Cabin? That's the one on the syrup bottle, isn't it. Never read it; sounds propagandistic.

Does the phrase "contributing factor" mean anything to you?

Yep, if fiction and fantasy weren't a contributing factor in the distortion of reality, more people would have a better idea what was going on. Jurassic Park. . .humans contemporaneous with dinosaurs. . .mumble, mumble.

"Influential" is not synonymous with "destructive."

And ontogeny doesn't always follow phylogeny. either. Very often it screws up and the result sits around and reads fiction all the time.

[quoting me]Hey, Man, you expect too much of evolution.[end quoting of me]

I expect that it not preserve harmful mutations,. . .

Evolution compromises. In order to keep the grass green in cemetaries, as many humans must be planted there as possible. Although the reading of fiction is a harmful attribute as to survival of the human race, evolution permits a certain number of those who do it to persist, in order to keep the cemetaries green during droughts.

[quote]You don't know wh

[pldennison]

Well, now we're really getting to the meat, which is that Ray really is, at this point, speaking out of his ass and will say anything to avoid addressing any actual points.

1) Your thesis, part 1: "Most people don't read fiction." Restated, "A minority of people read fiction." Prove it or lose it.

2) Your thesis, part 2: "People who read fiction cannot distinguish between reality and fantasy." Prove it or lose it.

3) Galileo's problems did not arise from holding the heliocentric theory, they came from demanding that the Church modify its theology to accommodate his ideas (part of which, it turned out, had its science completely wrong, and from the added political factor of using the Pope as a figure of ridicule in one of his dialogues. No amount of weaseling will change the fact that you screwed the pooch on that one. If you think you can find a reasonably well-researched history text that says otherwise, go for it, but I'll have to send Tom after you, and believe me, he'll set you straight on that one.

4) Whatever your problem with Jurassic Park, it never posited the idea that dinosaurs were contemporaneous with humans at any time in the past. If you want to take issue with a plot that involves cloning long-extinct animals from highly incomplete gene sequences of dubious origin, and the likelihood of science really being able to achieve this, address it elsewhere.

5) Your avoidance of fiction has apparently left you completely unable to understand analogy or metaphor. (In re the "same planet" remark.) Conversations with you must be simply scintillating; you, of course, attempt to cover your literal-mindedness with goofy semantic diversions and pop-cultural drop-ins nearly as silly as Dennis Miller's.

6) So fiction doesn't have an aesthetic component? Gee, knock me over with a feather. I'm curious, of course, as to how you came to an opinion on the aesthetic whys and wherefores of something you've never viewed.

7) Way to dodge the nonfiction question, but I expect nothing less of someone who mistakes his personal likes and dislikes for actual facts, then professes groundless assertions based on them.

8)

7) Mark Twain, as we all know, never wrote nonfiction essays. Nosirree Bob, never happened.

8) If you seriously accept anyone to believe that you never heard of fictional literature, or of philosophy, before you flunked out of college (which you must have), you are so full of shit your eyes are turning brown.

9) Whoops, looky there--Your thesis, Part 3: " . . . the reading of fiction is a harmful attribute as to survival of the human race." Prove it or lose it.

10) Wow, what a clever, punny way to say, "No, I don't know what a media relations wire is, and was criticizing based on knowledge I don't actually possess." It hurts getting caught with your thumb up your ass, doesn't it?

[Hello Again]

nano, what the hell are you talking about?

I stated that all 3 Harry Potter books were on the NYT Bestsellers lists and this is, in fact provable: http://www.nytimes.com/books/yr/mo/day/bsp/besthardfiction.html

As you can see from the above, they are in positions 1,2, and 3, and the first title in the series has been on that list for 40 weeks. I said this to contradict your contended that children have no interest in reading.

Oh, these books are by a British author. They are also HUGE in the UK. I suppose I could contact the publisher and find out exactly how many copies have been sold worldwide, if you insist.

Don't worry, Harry isn't involved in oppressing anyone, he's just a confused 11 year trying to make friends and get by in school.

[Kat]

Sorry, I don't claim the Web pages I cited proved much of anything. They were just all I could find on the basic subject. I don't know where to easily find the data you ask for.

So, in other words, when making the claim that "most people do not read fiction" you had no evidence to back it up. And now, asked to provide evidence, you are unwilling or unable to do the research to back yourself up. Wonder why that is...

[Rysdad]

Nano, that's the cleverest, most dedicated (albeit long-winded) example of devil's advocate I've ever seen.

But seriously...what do you reaaaallly think about fiction readers?

[Persephone]

1) My kitchen has dishes in it that need to be washed.

2)I balanced my checkbook last night.

3)I went bowling this evening.

4)After I get up tomorrow morning, I have to go grocery shopping.

5)My grandmother has a doctor's appontment to tomorrow, and her doctor thinks she may have bone cancer.

6)I paid my rent this afternoon.

7)I read fiction.

8)My parents read fairy tales to me when I was a child.

Well. I may not know anything about any phone booth in the Middle East, but I do know what's going on in my little corner of the universe, and I know how to deal with it. Prove to me that I don't.

'Lo there, this is "meat" talkin':

Gotta keep this short. Essentially no substance in this blathering. Asemayo called me tense. I wonder what he would call these two phiction phreaks. Pld seems to have a little trouble counting today -- two '7's and two '8's, although one of the latter is empty. Oh well, that made it come out a nice religious list of 10 items.

1. Dunno where this came from, but 100% - most = a minority, in my book.

2. I'm not claiming they can't so distinguish; I'm just claiming the tend not to and try to get others confused by what they read.

3. How Galileo and the Church tangle was never any point of mine, and I didn't say what their contention actually was. This is history, open to all kinds of interpretations nobody is able to completely establish. I'm not interested in history. I only commented as to their having been some kind of issue there that wasn't resolved until some recent Pope apologized about the issue in some way. I certainly don't know anything about any details of this quarrel, only that it has been talked about. However, Copernicus (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/copernican.html), quite before Galileo, is the one best and first known for a heliocentric planetary system. I never made whatever point you claim I screwed up.

4. OK, I didn't do this one up right. Hey, you're desperate for a point? Here ya go; ya got one.

5. I know quite well what an analogy and a metaphor are. But I don't have the slight idea what your problem here is. O Owner of the Planet, if you can stop it, I'll consider getting off it and finding a less contaminated one -- and one where I have the right not to read adult fairy stories.

6. Well, looking up the word '(a)esthetic', I do see that -- although I used the word in a meaning related to its meaning listed second in my dictionary, 'of or pertaining to the sense of the beautiful' -- the first sense listed in my dictionary, 'of or pertaining to the criticism of taste' sort of covers your use of the word. I actually used the word to mean 'of or pertaining to that which is subject to the sense of the beautiful', but I don't see that meaning listed in my dictionary, although I hardly ever hear any other meaning than that modern one. I don't like the word because it sounds like one's trying to be complex about something simple. What I was trying to say was that the visual or aural arts your referred to produced works that appealed directly to the senses (or sight and vision). Literature doesn't do that, so that if you use some term which I meant to apply to sensory appeal in application to literature, it is only appropriate in a metaphoric sense. OK, so if 'esthetic' has been in use directly in respect to criticism of taste of any sort, I should've made my distinction with the use of a different term, say, 'sensory appeal'. If you want to say literature has that, I say you're just getting too metaphoric to continue the discussion. So the bottom line here is that your juxtaposing visual arts and music to fiction or literature in general is wandering off into a different territory. Literature does not directly involve one of the five senses, so that I can like or dislike art and music independent of the issues we have over fiction.

7-1. Dunno what this refers to.

8-1. Most intelligent thing you've said yet.

7-2. I never said he did. All I did was pooh-pooh the influence you said his fiction had on the events of history.

8-2. Ooooooooh, how pldish! I think your real name is 'Dutch'. You supposedly write about the real world, but everyone says what you wrote is fiction. Whatever the intent, factual reading or fiction, lying or entertaining, the result is a problem I don't have respect for. (Maybe you people get your high numbers for the number of fiction readers because you count what is sold or loaned as nonfiction, but which turns out to be fiction.) So now I flunked out of college. Yes, Dutch. I nearly died when they tried to assassinate me also. And, well, it is not permanent constipation or latanoprost (Xalatan) that has made my eyes brown; they were hatched that way. People with blue eyes are aliens. Pass it on. Also, you can't tell whether such people can distinguish the truth from unreality or not.

9. There used to be a lot more lemmings, before they caught their romantic-novel habit.

10. "No, I don't know what a media relations (news)wire is." OK, there, I've said it with no bells and whistles. I wonder exactly how many people reading this thread know what such a thing is. Why don't you produce here just one here-and-now informative piece of information? Tell us what that is, and since that doesn't sound like exactly what you function occupationally as (which is the question I asked that brought forth that designation), please tell us what you do also.

rmariamp:

I stated that all 3 Harry Potter books were on the NYT Bestsellers lists. . .

So? I didn't deny that anywhere. I had never heard of them. I don't understand what you think it means that they are on the NYT Best Sellers List. Do you envision that that means that suddenly the kids of America are no longer playing in the ballpark, at the video arcade, launching rockets, skateboarding or getting in trouble. . .and are now curled up in an armchair reading how to be wizards? The page doesn't say whether these books are for adults or kids, or whether this "Best Seller" list in cludes both or what. If the list is only for kids' books, even if only one book each a year were sold and no other kids' books were, these would have to be placed at the top of this list. If the list is for adult books also, then I would guess these are at the top because adults are reading them. But, whatever, what does such a list mean even as far away as Hoboken?

I suppose I could contact the publisher and find out exactly how many
copies have been sold worldwide, if you insist.

Please don't. That wouldn't solve any issue stated in this thread.

Don't worry,. . .

"What, me worry?"

. /""""###\
@_^ A ^_@
. .\. '--' ./

Kat:

So, in other words, when making the claim that "most people do not read fiction" you had no evidence to back it up. And now, asked to provide evidence, you are unwilling or unable to do the research to back yourself
up. Wonder why that is...

1. I had no hard evidence to back it up. I do not believe it is fiction. ;)

2. Yes, I am unable to do the research to get hard evidence, in a reasonable time, to back my statement up. The reason why that is is that I need to get some other things done. Why, since you believe the opposite, don't you do such research. Since you apparently currently buy books, you probably have contacts to find the hard data more easily than I. I'll tell you what, though, I'll ask at Black Oak Books in Berkeley (whose management probably knows 6 times over whatever there ever was to know about books) where one could get such unbiased, hard data. That store sells a wide variety of both fiction and nonfiction books.

Rysdad:

But seriously...what do you reaaaallly think about fiction readers?

They SUCK. . .and HOW they suck!!! I mean, just look at these posts from friction-feeders. . .I mean. . .fiction readers.

Cristi:

[quote]Well. I may not know anything about any phone booth in t

[NanoByte]

And bowling. . .let me tell you about bowling. . .oops, that's a different thread.

Ray (rolling down the alley with his thumb stuck in the ball)

[NanoByte]

The 'here' after the phone number in my second post back was supposed to be linked to this map (http://www.cardhouse.com/g/moj/map.jpg).

Ray

[NanoByte]

BTW:

Cristi's Report Card:


1) My kitchen has dishes in it that need to be washed.

F

2)I balanced my checkbook last night.

A

3)I went bowling this evening.

C

4)After I get up tomorrow morning, I have to go grocery shopping.

A only after check-out

5)My grandmother has a doctor's appontment to tomorrow, and her doctor thinks she may have bone cancer.

E incomplete

6)I paid my rent this afternoon.

A

7)I read fiction.

F- I'll see you after school.

8)My parents read fairy tales to me when I was a child.

No credit

Mr. NanoByte, 5th Grade Errand Studies

[aseymayo]

Ray, get back on the medication.

What I was trying to say was that the visual or aural arts your referred to produced works that appealed directly to the senses (or sight and vision). Literature doesn't do that

It does when it's read aloud, like, oh, say, nursery rhymes.

And I'm a she, not a he.

[pldennison]

So, we've established you can't prove a single one of your assertions except through further assertion, which isn't proof at all. Just as I thought. And the backpedaling on the Galileo thing was simply masterful.

Oh, and the fact that I mistakenly repeated numbers seven and eight pales in comparison to the fact that you've cluttered up more than one thread with multiple attempts to correctly post hyperlinks and silly little ASCII graphics. I'd try to be a tad more parsimonious with my criticism about that sort of thing, were I you.

[Hello Again]

HP 1, 2 & 3 are on the "regular" bestsellers list. the New York Times bestsellers list is compiled using data from thousands of bookstores around the country, including major national chains like Borders & Barnes & Nobles, and lots of independent stores around the country. being on the list means that you are selling *millions* of copies of this book.

perhaps I should have pointed you to this list instead, which compares ranings at Chain and independently owned stores: http://www.nytimes.com/books/yr/mo/day/bsp/fictioncompare.html

As stated at the bottom, chain listing represent 2,225 US locations of the 4 major chain booksellers, while "Independents" represents hundreds of independently owned stores nationwide.

While some adults may be reading this title, it is aimed squarly at the 10-12 year old set.

I'm not saying that kids aren't out there playing arcade games, skateboarding, shopping at the mall etc. You just claimed that kids have *no* interest in reading. Clearly, *someone* is reading all those Harry Potter books. I have a feeling that (gasp) its mainly kids.

[Persephone]

Nano: Please forgive my Middle East/Mojave Desert error. I grovel at your feet.

You still didn't do what I asked, though. You wrote some dippy-assed poem (in which you spelled my name wrong) and graded my post as if it were a homework assignment. If this was meant to make me laugh, it didn't. If it was meant to intimidate me, it didn't do that either.

I'm not good at flaming. I'll leave that to the pros. I will say, though, that you've yet to make me believe that people who read fiction have problems with reality.

If you'll excuse me for a moment, I have to go wake up my husband. He has to put together the dresser we just bought for the son we're expecting in two weeks. Damn reality. Keeps getting in the way of my actual life.

[Kat]

1. I had no hard evidence to back it up. I do not believe it is fiction.

So, you're claiming you had some evidence? And what evidence was that? That hastily thrown together little thing you posted previously? Exactly what part of that? Anyway, I was under the impression you came up with that after my second(?) request for you to post your evidence.

And "what X believes" isn't any sort of evidence, is it? If I believed that "Most people eat rabbit dung." or "Most people don't watch sit-coms." or "Most people drink orange Kool-Aid." and had no evidence and requests for such were repeatedly met with tangential (is that a word?) comments or irrelevant information, would it be reasonable for me to expect people to take my word for it, whether it's true or not?

2. Yes, I am unable to do the research to get hard evidence, in a reasonable time, to back my statement up. The reason why that is is that I need to get some other things done. Why, since you believe the opposite, don't you do such research. Since you apparently currently buy books, you probably have contacts to find the hard data more easily than I. I'll tell you what, though, I'll ask at Black Oak Books in Berkeley (whose management probably knows 6 times over whatever there ever was to know about books) where one could get such unbiased, hard data. That store sells a wide variety of both fiction and nonfiction books.

No thanks, I will simply not take any information you post as valid, considering that this is obviously an issue you feel strongly about, and yet you can't be bothered to get together any facts on the subject.

[NanoByte]

My post referring to a number of Web pages included a few non-numerical indications. One point mentioned more than once in them was that women spend considerably more time on fiction than men. I think this reinforces that. Other than the Harry Potter stuff, which apparently had to do with indicating more interest in books/fiction by children, a different subject, no one here wants to list any evidence, forgetting proof, as to whether more people read fiction than don't. At this point, the thread has just degenerated to a silly, surly hen party, and yet another one wants to redefine 'flaming'. I think these pro-fiction posts here also show up some of the problematic natures that lead their owners to the desire to read a lot of stuff that isn't true.

[NanoByte]

And the one who doesn't want to explain his wiring wants to put fiction into the domain of things having sensory appeal by mentioning its being read aloud. Whether a book of fiction sounds good as read aloud is clearly only a side effect and would never determine its standing on a best-sellers list. Most books, including fiction, aren't written to be evaluated as to whether they are esthetic when read aloud. This tribe just sounds like a bunch of smokers screaming that their cigarettes and smoking locations not be taken away from them. . .but nobody's burning you people's books.

Ray (THE END. Close the book. Fiction readers suck. QED, reality proves it.)

[Nickrz]

Fee Fi Fo Fum I smell a great debate. Shall I transfer this?

[pldennison]

Person 1: "Reading fiction endangers the survival of the species."

Person 2: "Prove it."

Person 1: (Glib, irrelevant comment about lemmings and romance novels.)

Person 2: "Oh, well, you've definitely established that premise."

This is the fantasy exchange that is repeatedly taking place in Ray's head. I can nearly guarantee that an overwhelming majority of regular SD posters are readers of fiction, which really leads one to questions Ray's underlying assumptions.

Oh, and I hope he isn't claiming that I referred to fiction being read aloud to establish an aesthetic component, because I never did any such thing. To claim otherwise would be an outright lie.

[Persephone]

I suppose I should ask this question, just out of curiosity. Does this fiction that Nano is so opposed to cover books for very young children as well? Not Harry Potter-age readers--I mean my two-year-old. Should I be concerned that I am warping her little psyche by reading books to her about very large cats that wear very large hats? It is fiction, after all. Or should I just let her have at my (substantial) non-fiction collection? Yes, I read fiction, but I mix it up, as I'm certain most of us do.

[Kat]

My post referring to a number of Web pages included a few non-numerical indications. One point mentioned more than once in them was that women spend considerably more time on fiction than men. I think this reinforces that.

Note: WOMEN SPEND MORE TIME ON FICTION not Men do not spend any time on fiction. Say you choose a representative group of 100 women and a representative group of 100 men. 79 of the 100 women read fiction, averaging 10 hours a week. 82 of the men read fiction, averaging 2 hours a week. Have you proved that most people don't read fiction? Have you proved most men don't read fiction? Have you proved more women read fiction than men? No, no and no.
Without the numbers, the statement "women spend considerably more time on fiction than men" means nothing.
All I ask for, Nano, is some evidence, no even proof, to back up your statement. Evidence that a thinking person would accept as being relavent to the statement "Most people do not read fiction." As I said before, even if all you have is a TV Guide survey that says "Out of X people surveyed, this high percentage say they do not read fiction." It doesn't even have to be a representative group.

[C K Dexter Haven]

You thought this one was dead, right? But this is back to the original topic.

But by happy coincidence, I stumbled across a list of expletives used by Shakespeare, and lo! there, prominently displayed, is: "Fie, foh, fum!"

Unhappily, the author who compiled the list did not bother to accredit which play, nor where, nor said by whom. Perhaps someone with a Shakespeare disk-and-search-engine can enlighten us. However, at least we've tracked at least 3/4ths of the opening verse to Shakespeare!

[phouka]

Wow.

Great thread. Probably more suitable to Great Debates.

Nanobyte:

By lumping all fiction readers into one category of people unable or unwilling to differentiate between reality and fiction, you are just as guilty of bigotry as the most virulent racist or misogynistic sexist. I think that, more than anything else, damages your argument. If you have no use for fiction, that's fine. It doesn't mean, though, that those of us who do are in any way deficient.

It's pretty much an accepted groundrule of debating that if you make an assertion (such as "of people who read, less than half read fiction"), you need to back that assertion up with some proof. Proof can take many forms, but an additional assertion is not one of them. If you can't produce proof, then you need to take back your assertion.

It is my opinion (not assertion, but opinion) that fiction is part of the human condition. Whether it takes the form of myth, legend, story, poem, song, or narrative art, there is evidence of it at least as far back as 14,000 years ago (the cave paintings of Lasceaux and other sites in southern Europe).

Fiction is not a replacement for reality, but rather an addition to. It does not destroy a person's ability to deal with reality; it enhances that same ability. It is evidence of our ability to look at ourselves from a different perspective, see beyond present circumstances, and imagine something else. It may even be a defining factor of who we are.

There are some people who are incapable of differentiating between fiction and reality, but I would hazard a guess - a Wild Assed Guess at that - that they number no more than those of us who have no use for fiction, imagination, or narrative.

[aseymayo]

'Child Rowland to the dark tower came,
His word was still, "Fie, foh, and fum,
I smell the blood of a British man."'

It's from King Lear, said by Edgar, son of Gloucester, at the end of Act III, scene iv.

It doesn't appear to be a coinage of WS, however, but a recitation of an already familiar phrase.

[ruadh]

Thanks for bringing this back on topic aseymayo :) My roommate (who's abroad at the moment so I can't doublecheck this right now) whose parents are native Irish speakers told me once that the origin of the phrase is Irish, but I can't remember what it meant (much less the original spelling :)). I'll try to remember to ask, though, if anyone still cares....

[amberly]

In "The Classic Fairy Tales" by Iona and Peter Opie it is stated -

"And nine years before "king Lear", Thomas Nashe, in "Haue with You to Saffron-Walden,...gave a warning...

'O, tis a precious apothegmaticall Pedant, who will finde matter inough to dilate a whole daye of the first inuention of Fy, fa, fum, I smell the bloud of an Englishman.'