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.
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 , 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.
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.
{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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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
This 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.
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.
Gosh, Ray, what do you think of painting, sculpture, and music?
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.
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?
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.)
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.
Yes, all those crazy people like Albert Einstein, and Stephen Hawking . . .
That makes you, probably, unique among all humanity.
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?
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?
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.
“Influential” is not synonymous with “destructive.”
I expect that it not preserve harmful mutations, and I expect Gould, Dawkins, et. al. do as well.
Fantasy Ramblings (Starring Original Famous Ray!) #3: Readers of fiction restrict themselves only to works of fiction. (Huge hint #3: They don’t.)
You don’t know what a media relations wire is, do you?
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?
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”?
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.
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:
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:
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.
, 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.
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?
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?
Honestly, I think you’ve dived off the deep end. You either gonna think now. . .or thwim.
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.
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.’
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]
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.”
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.
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.
And ontogeny doesn’t always follow phylogeny. either. Very often it screws up and the result sits around and reads fiction all the time.
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.
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.
Your thesis, part 1: “Most people don’t read fiction.” Restated, “A minority of people read fiction.” Prove it or lose it.
Your thesis, part 2: “People who read fiction cannot distinguish between reality and fantasy.” Prove it or lose it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mark Twain, as we all know, never wrote nonfiction essays. Nosirree Bob, never happened.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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…
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.
