JB is 100% correct. Fiction is way more fun. If you could chose between a fictitious life or the life a real life person, you would have to chose fictitious. You could fly for god sakes!
If I had come across this dangerous dilemma a few years ago I would have said non-fiction, mostly because the little free time I had to read, I wanted to learn from it..... but these days I definitely choose fiction for every reason imaginable.
I'm not strong into make-believe. I like cold, hard, truth. Even daydreaming of a world where you can fly, travel through time, or speak your own made-up language, is all a waste of time for me. I can do nothing with that information.
What I love about this "game" (in quotes because I take it more seriously than that) is that the dilemma implies a question, but you ultimately fill in that blank yourself. It's a preference, somehow, but does the Decider have your book tastes in mind, or want something deeper, more existential?
I think it's the latter. And that's why it's complicated.
First, think about the scenario Russell poses: if you had your way and could become a fictional character, then it wouldn't be fiction anymore, and you'd disappear or revert to your previous state of flightlessness or start the level over or something.
On the other hand, I think JB's right about nonfiction being partly fiction itself. I'd even take it a step further, to its postmodern conclusion: if "nonfiction" is what's "real" or "true", it's a real slippery slope. And since human perception is notoriously flawed and easily misled, and widely divergent on even the most basic questions, it's hard to see where there's even room for meaningful "truth" or "nonfiction". May not exist. Buddhists for centuries have held this view, that what we see and hear and experience are ultimately no realer -- no less fictional -- than what we dream.
Decider, you really are blowing my mind with this one. Is fiction even real? Is nonfiction anything but a fiction? Is anything truly all fictional or all nonfiction, or is everything a mix?
Wow. This is indeed a dangerous dilemma. I've gone back and forth a thousand times in my head already.
Right now I think I have to say non-fiction. If I tried to offer an explanation I'd only start doubting my answer again, so before I change my mind: non-fiction.
10 comments:
Fiction.
It's everywhere. Even nonfiction works are a little bit fiction. Plus, let's face it: it's more interesting.
A no-brainer.
JB is 100% correct. Fiction is way more fun. If you could chose between a fictitious life or the life a real life person, you would have to chose fictitious. You could fly for god sakes!
If I had come across this dangerous dilemma a few years ago I would have said non-fiction, mostly because the little free time I had to read, I wanted to learn from it..... but these days I definitely choose fiction for every reason imaginable.
Nonfiction.
I'm not strong into make-believe. I like cold, hard, truth. Even daydreaming of a world where you can fly, travel through time, or speak your own made-up language, is all a waste of time for me. I can do nothing with that information.
Negative, I know.
What I love about this "game" (in quotes because I take it more seriously than that) is that the dilemma implies a question, but you ultimately fill in that blank yourself. It's a preference, somehow, but does the Decider have your book tastes in mind, or want something deeper, more existential?
I think it's the latter. And that's why it's complicated.
First, think about the scenario Russell poses: if you had your way and could become a fictional character, then it wouldn't be fiction anymore, and you'd disappear or revert to your previous state of flightlessness or start the level over or something.
On the other hand, I think JB's right about nonfiction being partly fiction itself. I'd even take it a step further, to its postmodern conclusion: if "nonfiction" is what's "real" or "true", it's a real slippery slope. And since human perception is notoriously flawed and easily misled, and widely divergent on even the most basic questions, it's hard to see where there's even room for meaningful "truth" or "nonfiction". May not exist. Buddhists for centuries have held this view, that what we see and hear and experience are ultimately no realer -- no less fictional -- than what we dream.
Decider, you really are blowing my mind with this one. Is fiction even real? Is nonfiction anything but a fiction? Is anything truly all fictional or all nonfiction, or is everything a mix?
I'm going to have to get back to you on this one.
Wow. This is indeed a dangerous dilemma. I've gone back and forth a thousand times in my head already.
Right now I think I have to say non-fiction. If I tried to offer an explanation I'd only start doubting my answer again, so before I change my mind: non-fiction.
How about fiction BASED on non-fiction??
That would take care of some of these issues.
OK, I think I've got it.
I'm going with fiction, since I believe it ultimately covers both.
As we used to sing in kindergarten,"... merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily / life is but a dream."
How about Historical Fiction?
The answer: Fiction
Post a Comment