Adulthood, Age, and Modernity

[Gormongous]

I'd strongly disagree with the idea that fiction is uniquely good at providing introspection. I've gotten so, so much more out of non-fiction when it comes to stunning ideas that challenge how I see the world; I read fiction for the stories precisely because there's better options if I want my brain stretched. I think wanting stories is just fine, there's value in storytelling.

 

I also think it's a very Western and twentieth-century thing to think introspection is always useful and that fiction is an effective vehicle for it. I generally feel uncomfortable reading articles that use the assumptions of one cultural framework to evaluate another one that is often also newer. Invariably, the latter is found wanting, especially if they phrase their conclusions using various imponderables like "adulthood."

 

Speaking as a longtime and learned reader of speculative fiction, I find that most mainstream works of fiction, even the ones that win awards and sell millions, often have very mundane settings and a  dearth of what some people might call "substantive action." Looking further and deeper, I can't help but see the same in the readers of these so-called "great novels." With no fantastic landscapes or acts of heroism to inspire them, the cultural and intellectual lethargy that has seized the Western world as we move into the twenty-first century is entirely unsurprising. They've all been taught by these books to spend endless hours navel-gazing in existential agony, without learning how to have the dreams and actions that once put a man on the moon. We can only hope that these readers, currently seduced by the gleam of Nobel and Booker Prizes, will someday leave those stodgy and quotidian books behind and find literature that actually challenges them in a way that creative types like me find more valid.

 

And yeah, not that this is what the article's saying, but I'm always reminded of a fifteenth-century German chronicler describing someone reading silently for pleasure, how disturbing it was for them that the person spent hours sitting in one place, not noticing or talking to other people who entered the room, and going away with memories of events that weren't even real.

[Blambo]

I'd strongly disagree with the idea that fiction is uniquely good at providing introspection. I've gotten so, so much more out of non-fiction when it comes to stunning ideas that challenge how I see the world; I read fiction for the stories precisely because there's better options if I want my brain stretched. I think wanting stories is just fine, there's value in storytelling.

Isn't that a personal, subjective thing though? For people who can easily parse abstract ideas, nonfiction might be better at conveying stuff while for others relating and extrapolating concepts from concrete plots might be easier. It's just that fiction focusing on form (storytelling) rather than purpose is kind of a waste, because it could be about so much more.

[Twig]

DISCLAIMER: I haven't read any articles, I'm just responding to stuff I've seen written in posts. So this is probably all missing like a buttload of context. OH WELL.

 

I have a very big problem with the idea that pure storytelling is a waste of your time. Fuck that. If people like stories, good. Let them read stories. There's no such thing as wasting your time by reading something purely for entertainment. It's an almost offensive idea, to me, that we are wasting our time if we don't make an effort at every single turn to improve ourselves. Who cares if someone reads Harry Potter because they have no interest in using books to grow? And also! Who cares if someone reads - I dunno, pick any book you would argue is "worth" reading - and only cares about the story and puts it down and never thinks of it again? Who cares!

 

Whenever I read something that is supposed to be something More, I might trick myself into thinking maybe it made me think, but a week later I know I've just enjoyed the story of it. Or, I haven't enjoyed the story. Either or. Nearly all of my introspection comes from conversations I have with people. Sometimes those conversations are about books (or movies or games), and that's fine and/or good, but I don't have conversations with myself. Well, I do, but only on exceptionally lonely afternoons. And not about books. Usually. Maybe.

 

Books just... don't do that for me, even when they're the kind that ostensibly should. The closest I believe I've come is when I read some of the Idle Thumbs Book Club books, but I think that's mostly because I was making a special effort to get more out of the books because I felt I was expected to do so. But, even then, most of my introspection came from reading other people's thoughts and then associating that with what I experienced from the books - which was, again, basically the story and nothing but the story. I guess I'm wasting my time every single time I read a book! Dangit me! Get your act together!

 

This reads pretty negatively because it annoys me. To add some positivity: I actually enjoyed the challenge of trying to get More out of a book with the Book Club. I still haven't caught up (and since it's still going I never will ha ha oh), and I am going to actually start working on that again real soon. I'm looking forward to embracing that challenge again. (back to negativity) But my point is there's nothing wrong with not being that person. You don't have to get your emotional or mental growth from reading books, and if you're the kind of person who only really cares to read trashy pulp nonsense, then fucking go for it and feel good about yourself because fuck the world for looking down on you.

 

It's definitely important to seek out that growth out SOMEWHERE, though.

 

Also I promise I'll read the article tomorrow after I've woken up so I can feel extra awkward when people point out this has literally nothing to do with anything.

[Blambo]

Buh I didn't mean for what I said to come out as weirdly elitist and pedantic. Fiction being purely storytelling isn't a waste. Exploring form is just as important as exploring purpose, its just that having both makes a Cooler Thing.

[Twig]

Hah well I wasn't responding to you specifically, just the general sentiment. There's been a lot of words calling it a waste, and I just disagree very strongly with that idea!

[sclpls]

I'd strongly disagree with the idea that fiction is uniquely good at providing introspection. I've gotten so, so much more out of non-fiction when it comes to stunning ideas that challenge how I see the world; I read fiction for the stories precisely because there's better options if I want my brain stretched. I think wanting stories is just fine, there's value in storytelling.

 

While I wouldn't agree that it is "uniquely good", I definitely believe that fiction provides unique opportunities for introspection that are distinct from non-fiction. Like, I am fairly certain my views about racism would be poorer if I was only familiar with the autobiographies of Fredrick Douglas and Malcolm X, but I had not read Another Country, Invisible Man, or "Benito Cereno". That's not to denigrate non-fiction, it is certainly true that similar unique opportunities exist in that space. I just wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the opportunities for fictional works to challenge your thoughts and assumptions.

 

To Gormongous's point, I'll readily concede that this idea of the value of literature, and how it improves the mind is a relatively new concept. I'm less sure about how much weight I would place on our 15th century German observer's moral concerns about reading. When Augustine observed St. Ambrose silently reading, it was a profound and unusual enough event for him to write about it. Back then, most reading was done out loud. Last time I checked, scholars estimated that silent reading as a common practice in Europe happened around the 10th century. That created some religious conflict as it created the space for private readings of text, and people started to develop their own interpretations. Heresy suddenly becomes an increasingly pressing issue, and certainly by the 15th century it had reached something of a boiling point. I don't know the politics and beliefs of this German, but I would not be surprised if these other social concerns colored this moral unease with silent reading.

[Gormongous]

To Gormongous's point, I'll readily concede that this idea of the value of literature, and how it improves the mind is a relatively new concept. I'm less sure about how much weight I would place on our 15th century German observer's moral concerns about reading. When Augustine observed St. Ambrose silently reading, it was a profound and unusual enough event for him to write about it. Back then, most reading was done out loud. Last time I checked, scholars estimated that silent reading as a common practice in Europe happened around the 10th century. That created some religious conflict as it created the space for private readings of text, and people started to develop their own interpretations. Heresy suddenly becomes an increasingly pressing issue, and certainly by the 15th century it had reached something of a boiling point. I don't know the politics and beliefs of this German, but I would not be surprised if these other social concerns colored this moral unease with silent reading.

 

I didn't mean it as an absolute point. I meant it more to indicate that people decrying ways of reading and enjoying literature with which they aren't personally comfortable is very old, and that it's always framed in terms of the running concerns of the age. I have no doubt that someone five hundred years from now will view these "thinkpieces" on YA fiction as reactionary pearl-clutching, just like we do the fifteenth-century German's protestations about lack of moral turpitude.

[feelthedarkness]

A central point of Name of the Rose is about Monk's hoarding knowledge. 

 

How does the fury over translating the bible out of Latin fit in? 

 

Sidebar: I reject the idea of you like what you like! You need to occasionally challenge yourself to understand and find value in something difficult. There are plenty of things not immediately pleasing that are totally rewarding.

[Gormongous]

Sidebar: I reject the idea of you like what you like! You need to occasionally challenge yourself to understand and find value in something difficult. There are plenty of things not immediately pleasing that are totally rewarding.

 

Isn't the issue more that articles like this one are saying, "People who don't like what I like are going to be emotionally and intellectually stunted, unlike me?" That's what's fucked. Anybody who peddles a specific form of media consumption as conspicuously useful and beneficial is immediately suspected by me.

[feelthedarkness]

I read those as a criticism of exclusively enjoying simple pleasures that demand little intellectual or emotional engagement of the consumer beyond a surface level reaction, like eating candy for every meal. I do believe it's infantilizing for adults to read YA exclusively. 

[Gormongous]

I read those as a criticism of exclusively enjoying simple pleasures that demand little intellectual or emotional engagement of the consumer beyond a surface level reaction, like eating candy for every meal. I do believe it's infantilizing for adults to read YA exclusively. 

 

More infantilizing than not reading anything at all, though? That's usually the split, not between Hunger Games and Joyce. Isn't there something in the basic act of reading fiction that is more uplifting than the supposed difference between reading YA fiction and the classics?

 

I also take issue with the idea that simple pleasures are somehow inferior than more complex ones, because I feel that says more about our zeitgeist than the actual functioning of the human psyche. Ascetics live on bread and water, gourmands on exotic feasts. Neither really reflects on their emotional and intellectual maturity independent from their own reasons for doing so. Actually, for a more personal example, I have a bad sweet tooth and eat a lot of candy. Given the choice between chocolate and any other kind of food, I will eat chocolate. I don't eat it exclusively, but it dominates my "pleasure" eating to a conspicuous degree. I don't see how it infantilizes me to make the choice to indulge in a simpler pleasure like that, not unless it damages or inhibits me in some substantive way.

[feelthedarkness]

More infantilizing than not reading anything at all, though? That's usually the split, not between Hunger Games and Joyce. Isn't there something in the basic act of reading fiction that is more uplifting than the supposed difference between reading YA fiction and the classics?

 

Well, not more than not at all, but I don't think it's a simple dichotomy! I'm also thinking across other experiences as well, like the first thing I thought of was The Birthday Party, who's best record ironically has the trashiest of "low art" covers.  

 

Also, I wouldn't say inferior, but I would say "limiting." I mean, I've dumped hundreds of thousands of hours into video games, so I'm not riding exclusively the highest of horses.

[Mangela Lansbury]

More infantilizing than not reading anything at all, though? That's usually the split, not between Hunger Games and Joyce. Isn't there something in the basic act of reading fiction that is more uplifting than the supposed difference between reading YA fiction and the classics?

 

There are YA classics. YA includes works like a Wrinkle in Time, Lord of the Flies, the Chronicles of Narnia, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, and the Diary of Anne Frank. There are modern classics like the Book Thief to consider as well. The distinction that you're probably trying to make is pulp fiction and not pulp fiction.

 

I agree with most of what you have to say, I just think that's a silly way to separate things.

[Twig]

You need to occasionally challenge yourself to understand and find value in something difficult.

Why? Says who? You?

[Gormongous]

There are YA classics. YA includes works like a Wrinkle in Time, Lord of the Flies, the Chronicles of Narnia, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, and the Diary of Anne Frank. There are modern classics like the Book Thief to consider as well. The distinction that you're probably trying to make is pulp fiction and not pulp fiction.

 

I agree with most of what you have to say, I just think that's a silly way to separate things.

 

You're right, I was buying into the article's own terminology, which I don't actually think is valid because it sets the best of the thing the author's for against the most common of the thing the author's against. "Young Adult" is a marketing term created for a genre that encompasses many of the greater works of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and it's really only been seen as a social and cultural problem since the term itself gave defenders of "real" literature something to focus on.

[BigJKO]

I just bought a house, so that totally makes me an adult. Ok?!

[osmosisch]

Why? Says who? You?

I can only say that I always end up happier when I do.

[Griddlelol]

I don't think I will consider myself an adult until I can talk to a random child and they do as I say without question. Pretty sure that's the test. So far it's not going well. Probably because I look about 18 when I'm 25 (I still get ID'ed if I want to buy alcohol, something my friends find amusing). 

 

Mid twenties to early thirties is a funny age. You're not really in a defined boundary of young or old, and so it can easily swing both ways. I spend time with people who smoke and drink a lot, and spend time with people who are all about work and sorting out their mortgages. It's a weird age. Teenagers think you're too old, 40s+ think you're too young. 

[Twig]

I can only say that I always end up happier when I do.

I can say that I definitely don't always end up happier. But happiness is not the measurement I would use.

 

Do you represent every individual in the world? Is that why everyone should do it?

[miffy495]

I don't think I will consider myself an adult until I can talk to a random child and they do as I say without question. 

 

You will never be an adult.

[osmosisch]

I can say that I definitely don't always end up happier. But happiness is not the measurement I would use.

What would you use?

[Twig]

Nothing in particular. There is no unit of measurement for this sort of thing. Least of all happiness. If all I cared about was happiness, I wish I'd go back to the way I was five years ago.

 

Now answer my question.

[osmosisch]

OK, thanks.

[Twig]

Wow. Wow.

[sclpls]

More infantilizing than not reading anything at all, though? That's usually the split, not between Hunger Games and Joyce. Isn't there something in the basic act of reading fiction that is more uplifting than the supposed difference between reading YA fiction and the classics?

 

I also take issue with the idea that simple pleasures are somehow inferior than more complex ones, because I feel that says more about our zeitgeist than the actual functioning of the human psyche. Ascetics live on bread and water, gourmands on exotic feasts. Neither really reflects on their emotional and intellectual maturity independent from their own reasons for doing so. Actually, for a more personal example, I have a bad sweet tooth and eat a lot of candy. Given the choice between chocolate and any other kind of food, I will eat chocolate. I don't eat it exclusively, but it dominates my "pleasure" eating to a conspicuous degree. I don't see how it infantilizes me to make the choice to indulge in a simpler pleasure like that, not unless it damages or inhibits me in some substantive way.

 

The diet metaphor thing is an interesting thing to me. If it were accurate as a metaphor I think that would be a point in reading a diverse amount of literature's favor only because some diets are in fact better for you than others. Even if some of the moralizing around diets is inappropriate/wrong (i.e. someone is lazy if they don't eat correctly, etc.) it is still nonetheless the case that people will be healthier/feel better from certain diets than others. You can also take it a step further and say that people's bodies are different, and therefore not all diets are appropriate for all people, and people's reading habits ought to be the same.

 

All that being said, I don't actually think reading habits are the same thing as eating habits so it isn't a comparison I would put forth.

 

The argument I would make for reading stuff beyond young adult fiction is pretty simple. YA fiction is fiction that a lot of people of different age groups can appreciate. There is some fiction that I think can only be fully appreciated as you get older. For example, lots of people have a bad experience reading The Scarlet Letter in high school when it's used as an introduction to symbolism. However most people I know that have read it as an adult, either for the first time or rereading it, end up loving it. Fiction can cover a lot of topics that younger people can't appreciate. While I wouldn't describe it as some sort of failing if someone never read any of that stuff (there's not enough time in a lifetime to read everything worthwhile) I would think of it as unfortunate the same way people can miss out on all sorts of good stuff.