Literature is obviously one of the most important things that has advanced civilization and culture over the past thousands of years. My question is, What served a more important role? I originally thought that non-fiction was the answer, but then I thought that fiction was the genre that made for change in language and culture. What do you think?
I don’t think you can compare the two genres in terms of the relative importance of their effects. It seems to me that they serve completely different purposes: non-fiction exists to transfer information, and fiction exists to transfer imagination. Both are vital to society; so much so that I really can’t answer the question in the OP.
: what ultrafilter said :
And what about historical fiction? Sort of non-fiction fiction. What may have happened based on the history.
The best of all worlds, IMHO.
BTW, it’s just NoDak, not nodaker. 
Gaaaaack! How long have you lived there? How’s winter?
All the great movements had writers of both kinds.
Utopia had it’s parallel pedantic work, but they aren’t well known any more. Why? Because the numerous writing teachers love novels, and leave the non-fiction writing for the scarce polysci teachers to cover.
Not to quibble, but there is the whole question of classifying fiction or non-fiction. These terms are not present in every language, and not just because they truly lack the ability to see the difference. I’m inclined to think they don’t much care about it.
On the other hand, you could expand the terms to fact-based (or purportedly fact-based) writing (a la journalism, technical literature, chronicles, civic records, etc.) has had more of an impact than fictional writing.
But you still can’t qualify some important works. For example, what is the Iliad? We have evidence of a destroyed Troy, but are reasonably sure that golden apples, jealousy of the gods, and weapon-resistant heroes were not involved. Yet taking it as history may have had a direct influence on the construction of Virgil’s Aeneid, which probably had a direct influence on the Roman Empire.
I’m not saying you can’t debate the matter, just that it’s a little cloudy, that’s all.
panamajack wrote:
I listened through an abridged book-on-tape version of Homer’s Iliad a couple years ago, and there was no mention of Achilles being weapon-resistant. Heck, at the end of the thing, Achilles was still alive. We don’t even get to hear about him kicking the bucket until the Odyssey, and the tales of his infamous Vulnerable Heel were notoriously absent from either account.
Where was the story presented of Achilles being dipped into the river Styx as a child while being held by his heels? And where was the story of some lucky archer hitting one of those heels with an arrow and killing the demi-god Achilles via gangrene?
And come to think of it, I don’t recall the Golden Apple being mentioned in The Iliad, either. The narrative started after the Trojan War had already been going on for nine years, and ended with Hector’s funeral.
But you still can’t qualify some important works. For example, what is the Iliad? We have evidence of a destroyed Troy, but are reasonably sure that golden apples, jealousy of the gods, and weapon-resistant heroes were not involved. Yet taking it as history may have had a direct influence on the construction of Virgil’s Aeneid, which probably had a direct influence on the Roman Empire.
Call the Iliad fiction. We have evidence of a city that suffered from warfare in more or less the place described in the Iliad. Are books about fictional happenings in WWII in the same league of fact/fiction because there was a WWII?
A lot of Hemmingway and other writers take real life and mix and meld then add on some made up stuff.
Perhaps fiction tells us more of the human condition and also helps us stretch and think ‘what if’…
A lot of ‘what if’ comes from fiction, art imitates life which imitates art and so on.