Why do you prefer reading Non-Fiction?
Join LibraryThing to post.
I read non-fiction because I enjoy hearing about real people , doing real things in real places. Often times non-fiction truth is more compelling than fiction.
I wouldn't say that I prefer non-fiction. Whether I'm reading fiction or non-fiction depends on my state of mind, what's going on around me, etc. Sometimes I have both fiction and non-fiction books going at the same time.
I like non-fiction because I like to learn, and to expand my mind without the use of hallucinogens.
I read non-fiction because the truth really is stranger than fiction.
That said, I do read fiction as well, I just generally prefer to stick to the classics. Even then, I try to complement my reading with some non-fiction so I understand what was actually happening.
I don't prefer it... I read both fiction and non-fiction.
Fiction allows me to let my imagination fly; non-fiction grounds me and allows me to learn new things (not that you cannot learn from good fiction).
I'm always reading at least one fiction and one non-fiction book at the same time. I generally read non-fiction to understand something better. Fiction is more an adventure into the unknown.
I don't necessarily prefer non-fiction...but I do find I'm reading more of it as I get older. Generally, I read about 120 books a year and about 1/3 of those are non-fiction -- but last year, I was closer to 40%.
I find I learn as much from fiction as from non-fiction, and that both can be equally entertaining.
I am a member of a non-fiction book club, and a second book club that reads mostly non-fiction.
I agree with lilithcat (the last sentence!) and AnnieMod. Good fiction allows you to learn about social interaction, psychology, history, etc. in a way which non-fiction cannot convey as well.
I think that I read more nonfiction than fiction/ I don't understand why it is not equally true that:
Good nonfiction allows you to learn about social interaction, psychology, history, etc. in a way which fiction cannot convey as well.Robert
Truth is stranger than Fiction. Also, fiction is primarily about how one feels about things, but I prefer to focus on how the world actually works. Fiction is all about empathy and emotional meaning, purpose and values. I prefer to learn about the infinitely complex nature of reality. This is an outward look rather than an inward look. History tells us more about human nature than psychology. The Past is Prologue.
I agree that truth is stranger than fiction. Also, history tends to repeat itself. I think that its interesting that people hundreds of years ago have many of the same problems we do today.
@ Mr. Durick
You're completely right. It is equally true. All I wanted to say is that I don't think fiction to be as unneccessary as some non-fiction-fans believe it to be.
Having just perservered through The Strange Demise of British Canada, I would add that nonfiction can be educational and informative AND written in an engaging style!
I'm a very curious person and there are a lot of subjects that interest me. Why waste my time with something that isn't real when I could be learning about awesome things that are?
Read both fiction and non-fiction, but find that non-fiction can bring fresh angles and perspective to history, current events, and the ordinary (or not-so-ordinary) life. Fiction can be a gateway into the world, but non-fiction educates us about the world and how it came to be. The best non-fiction offers insight on the ways in which we can improve in the future and enact change.
I read both fiction and nonfiction, but my library tells me I'm way over on the nonfiction side. I know one thing: as I've gotten older, I've become less interested in made up stories and more interested in how the world works, if such a thing can even be captured in books. Who knows? Maybe eventually I will stop reading altogether.
I think real people are usually more interesting, so biographies take the place of fiction in my collection, most of the time. When I do read fiction I like it to either be "pulp" style action adventure or the more interesting, quirky crime fiction. Like The Mentalist, for instance.
I read both fiction and nonfiction -- I usually have at least one of each type book going at any time. I try to keep something of a balance between the two most of the time. I like AnnieMod's explanation from post #4:
Fiction allows me to let my imagination fly; non-fiction grounds me and allows me to learn new things (not that you cannot learn from good fiction).
I'm much more likely to keep non-fiction books after I read them, so I can refer back to them; I rarely feel the need to hang onto a fiction book for long after reading, unless it has made an unusually significant impression on me.
I like to pick up good techy books if I can, the other day I was tempted by Wang - Statically Indeterminate Structures, ... bringing back past memories of an exam paper where one question came up of this sort, inadvertently.
What I need today though is a good book on vcr faults. I got a copy of Shakespeare in love to watch for my literature theory class and my player has stopped working. Past experience with librarians on this matter doesn't leave me hopeful.
I don't prefer non-fiction, but I do usually enjoy it when I get round to reading a non-fiction book. It's getting round to it that is the problem, as when I'm choosing what to read next the novels are jumping up and down shouting pick me and pushing the non-fiction out of the way.
I have read 1 and a bit non-fiction books this month; one was for an online book cluib, and the other was selected for me by the Go Review that Book! group.
I really like both. Some fiction, e.g. mysteries, I read for escapism. However lately I've had some incredible fiction/non-fiction interplay happening. Read Gene Sharp's From Dictatorship to Democracy and then The Army of the Republic: A Novel by Stuart Cohen. In my interpretation, the novel played out the principles presented by Sharp. Then i read Nothing to Envy, the non-fiction about North Korean everyday lives, and that fit the topic also. Fascinating reads.
Now I'm on a mind candy mystery binge.
I don't exactly prefer either, but I know that if I could only ever read fiction for the rest of my life I would be unhappy, whereas if I could only read non-fiction I would still be quite content.
I'd always rather know about the real world than any fictional one. It goes beyond me that people become obsessed with the geography and language of Tolkein's Middle Earth but seem to have no interest in our own geography or history!
I've never been much of a fiction reader, aside from murder mysteries (UK: crime) - most literary fiction doesn't interest me.
Can't read everything. Time limited. 80 years. I hope. Made choice. Got to go. Read some more.
I read non-fiction because ‘You Can't Make This Stuff Up.’™ and it's so funny or tragic or momentous what happened; the characters & drama, ideas well put.
further to 20, vcr has been replaced (£15), successfully, thanks to someone who donated the very same model to Oxfam.
Fiction can have an experience-taking or hypnotic effect.
Source: via MargaretAtwood, LitChat on Twitter.
science fiction for the sol
Image: “The eclipse from space. Bonus: Milky Way.”
via dweinberger, kdawson on Twitter.
[me: “a normal floating point between zero & one”]
* added link to “Elon Musk During Liftoff” from SpaceX
via NewtonMark on Twitter
I'm inclined to agree with PennyDreadful4: "Why waste my time with something that isn't real when I could be learning about awesome things that are?"
Not that all fiction is a waste of time--some is very good and sometimes I want a light read simply for entertainment. But there are so many fascinating things I could be reading about that I don't often pick up a made-up story when I could have a true one.
The best non-fiction is when it's written like fiction. I used to love picking up a Ludlum novel and travel along with Bourne, but now, especially with Wikipedia and the internet in general as a companion, I find it much more fascinating to pick up a book like Misha Glenny's McMafia.
I tend to prefer non-fiction for the learning aspect. If I could be a professional student, I would!
I'll add, though, that when I do read fiction I prefer it to be somewhat realistic/plausible. For example, I love Arthur Hailey's books, because he obviously did the research to support his stories (I have enough personal knowledge of a couple of the fields he's covered to recognize this). Charles Dickens may have contrived characters, but his stories were at least plausible. On the opposite side of things, too many authors just are completely unbelievable. (Futuristic fiction, naturally, gets a pass, since none of us knows what the future will bring.)
A few have commented that truth is stranger than fiction. I agree entirely, which is one reason I don't bother with fiction any more.
Truth empowers non-fiction.
> 33 bookcasejim:
I couldn't agree with you more about how reading certain books with the Internet at hand can make them more fascinating.
This first happened for me when I was re-reading The Children of Pride a few years ago (originally published in '72, and at that time marketed as "a Gone With the Wind saga"--but it's not that at all). It's a collection of letters among a religious family in South Carolina before, during, and after the Civil War, headed by a Rev. Jones.
I had enjoyed it about 35 years ago, but all these years later, I decided to check into some things. For example, to see via Google Maps what the sea islands off S.C. (where one of their plantations was) actually look like, to check out the church where the Rev. preached--and found a recent photo of it--tiny, but still standing although almost invisible within the forest trees now growing around it.
Another thing, I found the publication of the Rev. Jones's son's thesis published at Princeton on his theory about the archeological findings of ancient American Indian artifacts in mounds near his home--although his theory was wrong.
And best of all, I was utterly charmed by an expression they used often, especially in prayers: "no more forever," which I had never heard before. After a long and unsophisticated search on the Internet, I had found "no more forever" in a sermon of an Irish preacher in the early years of Protestantism. Also, it turned out that "no more forever" is famously attributed to Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce as his concession that his people would fight "no more forever" against Americans (although I noticed a recent disclaimer that this is not actually true...)
Anyway, I find fascinating things still, using the Internet with my reading--although I don't actually bother with most books. But you comment brought back delightful memories.
37 I'm with you. That's one reason I like reading ebooks. I can just click for definition or other info. It is so great.
.38 Oh, I hadn't realized that you can get other info using ebooks. However, I'm still a physical book fan, as much as I love the Internet findings. (The glare is a problem for me.)
>39 The glare is a problem for me.
No glare with a non-backlit e-reader.
I'm a paper book person since I collect old stuff. Besides I love snooping through book stores. . . that's part of the fun. I hope this doesn't unleash a flood of off topic stuff. . . the human mind does like to wander!
Now, why do I like to read non-fiction? It's areas I'm interested in although many writers in my areas are more just fact collectors so they get browsed very quickly.
Some are way too flowery(is that a word) and embellish the subject way too much. The classic example of that is Lucius Beebe, in my humble opinion. I'm sure a lot of us would love to have been on some of his trips but the writing does get a bit over the top!
Bill Middleton could tell a story, create the right sequence of events, show the relationships and cover topics I like as well as write a great paragraph! It doesn't hurt that he was a good photographer as well.
I'm with you 100%. I've been known to leave yellowed, crumbling pages (from old disintegrating books) in airport wastebaskets, wherever I roam. In the Marketing world they'd call us not early adopters, but laggards.
By the way, in addition to CD I've (get this) cassette player in my car. I troll the local libraries looking for gems on cassette before they are tossed in the garbage. I'm like some naturalist looking for an endangered species...
Sa'. This is a bit off subject but I consider myself an 'electronic luddite'. I use a cell phone for a phone(?!) and send messages with email. LT is as close as I get to social media!
I'm now in the process of converting cassettes and reel to reel audio to digital for my museum so we don't lose the material!
Anyway. . . off to an auction to get more 'old stuff' related to where I live from the estate of the person who got me hooked on the paper books that have that wonderful smell and I don't mean mildew! We can continue this on email if you like!
All fiction is fantasy. The problem is you depend on the experience of the author in his representation of life. His experience is necessarily limited (and what does a 20-year-old novelist know about life?) In most cases, he's not giving you real experience. He's giving you the idea of an experience, the idea of a feeling, the idea of how a person might think, feel, or act. A reader who has experienced real pain, for example, can't possibly believe most of what goes on in fiction for real pain. All fiction is fraud. It is a lie. Just a story someone felt compelled to make up. An escape from the world of actual thought and feeling.
I can't figure out why someone would consider, say, Crime and Punishment, one of their favorite novels. What emotions are evoked in you that would lead you to admire such a depressing novel? Do you consider faux-depression giving you faux-depression a mark of wisdom or profundity? Or horror books or the books about serial killers. Are you really that interested in what serial killers think and what grisly things they do? If so, why not watch a documentary about the real thing? Why you would want to do so is another matter…
Am I the only one who thinks there is something very wrong with Stephen King? Where does he get this stuff, and why would I want it inside my head?
Many years ago in graduate school a professor told me that as I grew older I would lose interest in fiction. We all do, he said, and some English professors even left the profession because of it. Whatever compelled them to read fiction in the first place no longer existed. I wondered if that was because the complexity of real life would eventually overtake the oversimplification of make-believe life as reflected in literature, fiction, even poetry. Whatever compels people, and I include myself, to read fiction could simply be a function of being chronologically, experientially, or emotionally immature.
re: switching from fiction to non-fiction...
I've mostly seen the opposite, at least in the older women I know. They read lots of non-fiction up through their 30s and then gradually switch almost entirely to fiction after that.
With fiction it's not all unrealistic or unbalanced though. There's plenty of fiction that does accurately represent everyday life and emotions and normal human events. I think it's more that there's SO much that it's harder to sift through and find the truly excellent novels. A good, realistic novel is not an escape at all, and even the most fantastical stories are still full of human emotion that can be very affecting. I'm personally more affected by true stories about real people, and don't understand the strong attachments people my age feel toward fictional characters, but they certainly don't escape from thought or feeling when reading.
Everything I've read says that novels were initially (mostly) viewed as very low-class things, which is why the ones that have lasted remained so moralistic for so long, to show that novels could be improving and were appropriate for all classes. Before novels were popular though, it's not like most people were reading histories or science texts instead, the focus was on poetry and the Bible.
mabith, I'm over sixty and my interest in non-fiction has only increased with age. In fact, I had a long discussion on this growing interest with my best friend (since we were eight years old) just a week ago. (Although I also like literary novels.)
Almost everything I read in non-fiction wasn't known about or researched in detail when we were in school, whether biographies, history, science. Fascinating stuff.
I don't prefer reading non-fiction. I enjoy both. And I'm with those who feel that you learn as much about life and, especially, gain insight into human nature and emotions in well-written fiction as in non-fiction. Or more, actually. In the meantime, all non-fiction depends upon the research skills, integrity and organizational abilities of the author, too, as well as his or her judgment in terms of how to understand, interpret and present the information at hand. Only to the extent that these things are done well do histories present us with reality. Memoirs, of course, while non-fiction, are subject to the memories, interpretations and agendas (agendi?) of their writers.
I've read some histories of World War One, but I've never read one that I thought presented the realities of life in the trenches better than All Quiet on the Western Front.
This is a "to each his/her own" question, surely, but I'm seeing a lot of generalizations here that don't jive with my own experience. I also love Crime and Punishment, which I've read twice. I enjoyed it better the second time because I was much older (around 50) and could recognize much more clearly how well it was depicting human nature. Plus, even in translation, the writing, sentence-by-sentence and paragraph-by-paragraph, was terrific. Depressing? Maybe, but so are a lot of the histories I read.
Easier to pick up & put down. Always learn something new in areas that interest me.
As many have already said in this thread, many times the truth is actually stranger than fiction. Especially in our current political arena. The amount of books available detailing the political struggle in this country right now between conservative verses liberal agendas is staggering. And that’s where I concentrate the majority of my reading now, not only in books, but as far as newspaper and magazine articles go as well. I do occasionally read fiction too, but when I do it’s usually futuristic topics with at least some political slanting due to my strong interest in current politics.
@52 I am big on what you could call "true brain stories" and books about the rise of consciousness.
I have a few reasons I prefer to read non-fiction: I find they take longer to finish (since comprehending philosophy or physics is much more mentally demanding than a romance novel); I like learning new things; the flabbergasted looks people give me when they notice just what it is I am reading; I think I may have burnt myself out of them via the sheer quantity of romance/scifi novels I used to read; and I prefer fiction in other forms of media (like movies and TV). Although this is not to say that I am opposed to reading a good fiction book every once in a while.
I love reading non-fiction because we live in a fascinating world and I love to read about it. I do read fiction, sometimes, but I think real life is entertaining enough to not need made up stories. Often we don't remember our past and non-fiction is a great way to learn about people, places, weather, and events many people have forgotten about. Like many people have already said, my favorite kind of non-fiction are ones that read like fiction.
I agree with #55, and have just realized that my favourite fiction reads like non-fiction. By that I mean the characters and situations ring true and I can identify with them.
>55 just realized that my favourite fiction reads like non-fiction. By that I mean the characters and situations ring true and I can identify with them.
That's funny, I'm pretty much the opposite. Most of the little fiction I read is fantasy. If I'm going to read something made up, I want it to be totally made up, dragons and beasts and crazy worlds.
I like non-fiction because you can learn to improve quality of life. I am fan of self-help and spiritual books.
>58 I'm also big on the self-help books. I am constantly aware of my shortcomings and want to improve. I don't know that the books help a lot but whenever I start one, there's always hope.
I actually prefer reading fiction and can find just as much value and truth in works of fiction as I do in non-fiction. I tend to agree with Stephen King that "fiction is the truth inside the lie." Also, I remember information better when it's presented in a fictionalized format; I remember much more information about a certain period in history from a historical fiction novel than I do from a non-fiction history book. I find I stay the most engaged with non-fiction works when I'm reading a nonfiction graphic novel. I joined this group to stay abreast of quality non-fiction titles and to acquaint myself with non-fiction works in general.
What truth or fact is Stephen King conveying to you in his novels? Cujo, for example, the demonic dog. How can I take such a thing seriously? What's true about it?
I would assume that King is talking about the characterizations of the people in his novels and their reactions and attitudes. I've never read one of his books, however, so I don't know how well he succeeds at that.
It doesn't seem from the quote that King was necessarily talking about his own fiction at all, but about fiction in general. That said, I agree with mabith's assessment. I haven't read King either, but I like the quote. As to Cujo, just guessing, but fear of the unknown and of the supernatural are rather strong elements of human nature and human history. Truly.
This topic is not marked as primarily about any work, author or other topic.