I see little point in reading about fiction characters doing fiction things that have no bearing on anything. If a writer can show insight about something else while writing about big robots, then I am more interested.
Sparky Prime wrote:
This is just honestly something I cannot understand about you Dom. I mean you're basically saying here that you don't like fiction in general because it's fictional. You're missing the whole point to reading a fictional piece if your only interest is insights into something else within the story.
It is not a question of disliking fiction because it is fictional.
it is a question of economizing my reading effort. If a novel runs about 300 pages, then it will take even a fast reader time to finish. (I am not a fast reader.) It is a question of wanting more for the investment than simply a recounting of fictional characters doing something that really does not matter. Even if an event sticks in the context of the story, it still has only so much value.
It is not unreasonable to want a writer, who theoretically traffics in ideas and concepts, to demonstrate some kind of insight about...well....something. Fiction can be a good way to depict a scenario or a question. Of course, for the depiction to be worthwhile, it should have some credibility. In this sense, believable characters are needed. (Solutions offered by cartoon scientists with degrees in knowing everything rarely offer anything beyond a convenient resolution to the story. Of course, how the solution is used, and what is said about it, can be interesting.)
Writing and reading fiction can be an example of intellectual "play". Many of the play behaviors exhibited by animals build useful survival behaviors to be used later in life. The same principle applies in fiction. Reading/writing a scenario/question can lead to understanding that is applicable elsewhere. In some cases, seeing such a story can be useful just by virtue of showing that a situation is not unprecedented. (The more organizations I have worked for, the more my appreciation of "Dilbert" grows. In fact, I once found myself wishing an office I worked in made that much sense.)
Stories can also be used to illustrate the cases for or against "big" ideas. But, there is huge difference between illstrating an idea and giving directives. For example, in AHM, McCarthy offers few actual solutions to the problem of an organization having little direction or purpose beyond "well, they should have one". Having been through business school, (I changed my direction a few times), I can say that those courses offer little in the way of easy answers. But, McCarthy shows insight into the problem, if not the solution.
Another example of a story illustrating a principle is "Ender's Game". Card does a fantastic job of showing the utility of empathy and ruthlessness. I do not know what studies there were on the subject when he wrote "Ender's Game" 25+ years ago. But, I have seen articles consistent with the idea recently. (Of course, The same thing was presented in "The Art of War" thousands of years ago.)
A good way to look at it might be that fiction is good way to present and apply ideas in a way that has no real consequence. Think of it as a sort of intellectual testing range.
Polemics and preaching are different things. As good as Ralph Peters' nonfiction is, his novels read like chunks of (low-pitched) action stories mixed in with actual idea. (He has reasons for doing this. Regardless of how much I agree with his ideas or reasons, I find his methods flawed.)
I read/watch plenty that does not meet this standard. "Family Guy" is mostly farts and doody jokes. (And, I love me some farts and doody.) I was reading "Dark Avengers" before I got the idea of what Bendis was doing. I read other comics just to see how writers will handle certain directives, or even to try to figure out what market a publisher is aiming for.
Dom
-calling you out sparky.
