I really like to read biographies, news, REAL stories, etc. but have absolutely zero interest in reading fictitious stories, regardless of the author.
In fact, I can’t watch most (all!) TV shows for the same reason.
But, if the situation is outlandish enough, like Star Trek, I can suspend my disbelief.
I read “Mutiny on the Bounty” as a kid and loved it. If I’d known it was fiction I wouldn’t have given a rats ass.
Am I nuts, or what?
Have you ever tried books on tape?
I’m with you. Fiction is so boring lately. Give me a non-fiction historical account (In the Heart of the Sea or Devil in the White City, stuff like that) over just about any work of fiction. The more I read the more I realize that you really can’t make up stuff that’s more suspenseful than, say, Into Thin Air or something.
I have a theory about this, too. I think that for anything to be believable in fiction, it really has to have occured in real life first!
I always think of Susan Smith in this regard. I wouldn’t have thought it possible that a mother could strap her two kids in a car and deliberately drown them, but now that it’s happened I suppose I could accept something like that in a work of fiction. Or terrorists crashing multiple planes into skyscrapers and the Pentagon? It would’ve been a bit out there in a work of fiction prior to 9/11…but not anymore.
My two cents.
Hmm… No, my point is that I cannot empathise, sympathise or relate to fictional characters or situations. My mind says “so this is all just made-up bull shit by some 2 bit author and I’m supposed to interpret it as reality?”
Hey, I see where I’m lacking in imagination, I just wonder if I’m alone or not?
And I’ll even sign this as Doug…
What nearly killed my enjoyment of fiction was taking some fiction writing courses. I could see “the man behind the curtain” too much for a long time. I’m starting to read a bit of fiction again, but it some years.
Really? What about Star Wars?
In both posts, this is just an example of lack of imagination and limited point of view. People for hundreds (thousands!) of years have managed to enjoy stories that bore no relation to their own life.
But you can’t. :rolleyes:
The problem is that people get so hung up on the “reality” of a situation that they can’t just go with it. The key is simply not to worry about the “reality,” but to see where the author is taking you. The point of fiction is to reach a deeper understanding of life by telling lies.
It’s not hard to suspend your disbelief – you just have to be willing to do it. It’s really not all that hard; the difficult part is not suspending it, since that takes a conscious effort.
Huh?
OK, I even have this problem with television and movies. I like news programs, documentaries, etc. and have a really hard time watching contrived shows that for all intents and purposes are written to attract a certain demographic audience that is interested in buying the laundry detergent, tampons, beer, cars, and other products advertised.
Stations are in the business to make money. TV shows are designed to attract audiences to the advertisers. Advertisers pass along the costs to consumers.
Buy no-name.
A perfect example of why fiction is important. The Greeks showed “Medea” doing the same thing almost 2500 years ago. Essentially the same thing (And Susan Smith’s case was considerably less interesting). So fiction not only already predicted that it was possible, it showed why it might happen.
I can enjoy fictional movies as much as anyone, including Star Wars (well, not the last three!). But when it comes to reading I personally prefer learning about what has really happened to people in the world who actually existed. I’m really just not that interested in what some author, talented though he or she may be, can “come up with” to happen to invented characters.
Here, here. My point exactly.
Didn’t someone once say something like, “Fiction has to obey rules…real life does not?”
I’m glad I saw this thread because I’ve often wondered if I’m weird - I read virtually no fiction but thrive on biographies, history, and, of course, physics and cosmology.
Over the years, I’ve come to the conclusion that the explanation for my lopsided literary tastes is that I really do believe that ‘truth is stranger than fiction’ (and much more wondrous too).
Take the world of sports, for example. There have been some great fictional sports books and movies over the years, but I’d bet that none of them can compare to the real-life drama of, say, Seabiscuit or Cinderella Man. Again, I’d have to argue that this is because an author of fiction has to follow rules.
What are some non-fiction books that you’ve enjoyed reading? Chances are that the author has put some “spin” on the subject matter, which is about the same thing as what good fiction writers do. By selecting what facts to give or how to describe them or limiting themselves to a certain point of view, non-fiction writers are subtly fictionalizing and distancing themselves from the story. You aren’t ever going to get the pure and unadulterated truth. Who knows if whatever thing happened the way it’s being portrayed? The non-fiction account that you read might be just as much bullshit as a story by Stephen King.
Good writers of all kinds are able to tell a story convincingly and make you care about the characters, whether they’re writing fiction or non-fiction. Why should someone care about some guys trapped on a fishing boat during the storm of the century or about some guys who tried to climb Everest but failed? Not many people did, especially, until someone decided to write The Perfect Storm and Into Thin Air. The authors of those books communicated the personalities and tried to make sense of the actions of those people, turning them into characters as the author saw them. Fiction does the same thing. It’s just that those characters don’t have physical graves.
I don’t think you’re crazy or lacking imagination, I think you just have trouble suspending your disbelief. Witness your reaction to Mutiny on the Bounty. You thought it was true, and so it was. For the limited time you’re reading, those people are real. Why does it matter if they’ve never actually had flesh?
Does it help you any to know that a lot of fiction is based on things that happen in real life?
To add to RealityChuck’s Medea example, there’s virtually the same story in La Llorona, a Mexican folk legend that carries a lot of baggage culturally. (Forgive me while I hastily summarize.) La Llorona is the legend of a native woman who fell in love with a Spaniard and was his mistress. She bore him two children and he eventually cast her off when it came time for him to go back home. Thinking that it was the children that drove him off, she killed them, and when he recoiled in horror at what she’d done, she went off and killed herself. La Llorona (“the crying one”) then wandered the river that she drowned her children in for all eternity, searching for them. “So the hell what?” you say.
La Llorona is based on the story of La Malinche, who was Cortés’ mistress/translator/baby-mama in Mexico. She is sometimes called La Chingada (“the fucked one”) because her actions are viewed as the betrayal of native Mexican culture – when she was fucked, so was the culture. There are signficant differences between the two stories (La Malinche didn’t kill her mestizo children, for example), but La Llorona and La Malinche are definitely linked together. They, along with the Virgin of Guadelupe, serves as powerful metaphorical symbols and points of identity in Mexican and Chicano literature and culture. “So the hell what?” you say once again.
My point is that literature and history (i.e.: stuff that actually happened) are irretrievably linked together. Half the fun of reading is ferreting out those clues and looking at how the actual event influenced the text. It serves as social commentary, gives historical context, notes things of cultural significance, etc, etc. It’s as much about the culture it originated in as it is about telling a story.
The idea that authors just pull stories out of their asses is patently wrong. They aren’t just making shit up.
What if you don’t know whether the story you’re reading or watching is fact or fiction? I don’t know how fictionalized Seabiscuit and Cinderella Man were. Suppose you didn’t either. Would you still enjoy them, or would you just worry about how accurate they are?
On a different note, how interested are you in people? The thing that (good) fiction can do that non-fiction rarely can is put you directly inside someone’s head and show you what they’re experiencing.
I agree with this. But if they’re not just making it up then they’re basing it on reality. For my money, I’d rather read the reality that they’re basing the fiction on.
Good questions. I suppose if I didn’t know something like Hoosiers (just to pick a different sports flick) was fiction, then I’d think it was hokey and unbelievable. Things like an unbelievable comeback win can happen in real life, but woe to the fiction author who relies on deus ex machina to end a story.
But I disagree with you about non-fiction being better than fiction at putting me into someone else’s head. I’m just starting McCollugh’s (sp) 1776 and right away I can feel the danger that Washington et al are feeling from England.
Sorry, that last post ended abruptly. I meant to add that the best historical non-fiction (like 1776) is terrific at putting the reader into the heads of the participants…namely because many of them wrote letters telling us (or, rather, whomever they were writing to) exactly what they were feeling.
For me, this lends that much more drama to what will happen to these “characters,” if you will.
have you ever read a fiction book thats more than a story?
Herbert (Dune/Dosadi Experiment) writes a story and incorporates about 6 layers of stories, politics, sociological stuff, ecological, and some damn interesting ideas on things all while telling a story.
sounds like you are reading typical crap as opposed to the good stuff but thats just my thoughts. Herbert is probably the best example since hes known for his incredible skill at keeping so many threads all woven together but there are others out there. and its not just a story, the author is putting out ideas, entire philosophies that are interesting in their own right.
I don’t read sci-fi. And I have no problem with an author “putting out ideas,” I’d just rather read them directly than have them woven into a fictional story. Also, I don’t think David McCollugh or Devil in the White City, for example, is “typical crap.” But that’s just my opinion.