There is a sense in our modern culture that fiction must equate lying, and ergo, it is bad and indulging in it is faintly if not overtly wrong. I’ve seen this cropping up in the whole books for boys debate, again, and it is by far from the first time I have seen that argued. I have had people tell me, in my role as a librarian years ago, that they gave up fiction when they ‘grew up’ and only read non-fiction as it was true. Boys, then, who leave off reading fiction because they don’t care for the books offered to them, and prefer the far less agenda-driven non-fiction books on dinosaurs, trucks, and many other topics, meet with the tacit approval of these adults to ignore fiction. Only… they don’t leave fiction entirely. Fiction drives video games, and boys consume those massively. It’s books, specifically, which get the opprobrium (yes, yes, I am aware of the long-running and largely basis to smear video games as promoting senseless violence, subtly different and I’m not qualified to speak on it as I can’t even play Stray without being wildly upset when my cat character dies.)
Personally, I read and write fiction for entertainment. Mine and others! This does not mean, though, that I am unaware of the hidden benefits of telling a story, and of taking a story in. If we separate all books into two sections, as Oatley describes in his exploration of literary criticism stretching back to Aristotle, of history and poetry, we have books which cover the facts, the dry bones of the world around us. Poetry, which encompasses what would become the stories we label fiction, is then the breath of soul into that world. Fiction is the emotion, the humanity, and through stories we can experience the potential of the facts which surround us actuated into actions and consequences… in short, we can explore the universe without any risk, until we have discovered the path forward for us. The characters model actions we might take, and through a tale, we can sound out what the results of those actions may be for us.
Through reading fiction, and using our minds to step into the shoes of characters in situations we may never have been in, and probably never will be, readers can expand their empathy, their ability to put themselves into the shoes of a real person when they interact with someone, shall we say, unpleasant. Empathy modeled in fiction thus comes into the real world and is a social lubricant in interactions with people around us. There is a study on this, as well, and it points out that while the stereotype of a bookworm is someone who wants to retreat from society preferring the company of books, the reality is that a reader is somewhat better equipped to deal with society than a child (or even adult) who has been brought up with no instruction in social niceties. One of the other observations made in the paper caught my eye: “an ability to see oneself in a story and simulate the experiences described is more important for predicting the reading behavior of men than women.” Which they point out may be hard-wired behaviour, or culturally embedded. Either way – men and women approach reading differently, something to keep in mind as a writer when considering your audience.
Fiction may also increase the ability of the reader to deal with this lonely world of ours. There is a direct link between the non-fiction reader and feelings of loneliness and disconnection. Narrative fiction readers, on the other hand! “Reading narrative fiction was associated with more social support and reading expository nonfiction was related to less social support and more stress.” Whether it is the empathy adapted from reading stories about others, or even considering the characters themselves a form of parasocial support, the reality is that human beings do not do well with loneliness. Feeling alone can lead to depression, low self-esteem, and ultimately can become a factor in early death. I’ll say that again – particularly in the elderly, being lonely is a factor in the mortality rate, as well as in increased mental and physical illnesses. Am I saying – or any of the study authors, for that matter – that if you don’t read it’s bad for your health? Well, maybe. Certainly it is indicated that reading narrative fiction is going to improve your mental and even physical health.
There’s even one more factor that can come into play in the connection between health and fiction – this study is looking at the ability of a doctor to empathize with his patient, and to be able to extract a better picture of the health of that person than AI can do, in the time when there is a temptation to replace the human with the machine because of cost savings. “There is concern that stressing on the hard sciences may be weeding out more empathetic and caring candidates who can be better healers.” The paper goes on to say that using AI as a tool to replace some of the rote memorization might actually give doctors the time and mental space to indulge in empathy for their patients. Moreover, “the quality which will distinguish the best from the rest in the time of AI will be empathy. Human empathy is something that AI and machines cannot simulate.”
All of that, in a story! Fiction is a place where a reader can take up the human experience, can improve their emotional intelligence, can hone their empathy. Through those difficult and incalculable skills, the fiction reader improves their social support, which carries them through times of illness and gives them a reason to live – even so tenuous a grasp, perhaps, as waiting on the last book of the series to come out! – all of this, because they picked up a book and lost themselves in an author’s imagination for a short while.
We who write, then, are not liars for a living. We are, instead, the storytellers who weave wisdom with wit, show that love can win through, that joy has a place in this bleak world. We can keep the black dog at bay for another day, and perhaps that is enough. We are purveyors of hope.
Bibliography:
Oatley, K. (1999). (PDF) why fiction may be twice as true as fact: Fiction as cognitive and emotional simulation. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232509401_Why_Fiction_May_Be_Twice_as_True_as_Fact_Fiction_as_Cognitive_and_Emotional_Simulation
Ong, A. D., Uchino, B. N., & Wethington, E. (2015, November 6). Loneliness and health in older adults: A Mini-Review and synthesis. Karger Publishers. https://karger.com/ger/article/62/4/443/147575/Loneliness-and-Health-in-Older-Adults-A-Mini
Medicine, D. of C. (2020). Empathy in the time of artificial intelligence: Fiction not … : Medical Journal of dr. D.Y. Patil university. LWW. https://journals.lww.com/mjdy/_layouts/15/oaks.journals/downloadpdf.aspx?an=02098603-202013020-00001
Schutter, N., Holwerda, T.J., Comijs, H.C. et al. Loneliness, social network size and mortality in older adults: a meta-analysis. Eur J Ageing 19, 1057–1076 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-022-00740-z
Peterson, J., Oatley, K., & Mar, R. (2009). (PDF) exploring the link between reading fiction and empathy: Ruling out individual differences and examining outcomes. York University. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228803316_Exploring_the_link_between_reading_fiction_and_empathy_Ruling_out_individual_differences_and_examining_outcomes
Mad Genius Club 
32 responses to “Fiction: What is it good for?”
Need more caffeine. I saw the heading image and immediately flashed to James Thurber’s story about the gent with the unicorn in his garden.
Saunters off for more tea.
Story is universal 😀 and tea sounds good.
Same, I was like: Thurber would totally approve of the Unicorn in the Liquor Cabinet!
”Don’t count your nuts before they’re cracked.”
The wife learned that lesson.
I remember a male coworker saying he never liked to read in school because they never let him read about sports, just boring things. You couldn’t convince him to pick up a book if you paid him to.
My younger brother and others of his generation came out of school barely reading for pleasure. It’s only in the 30+ years since they have picked up the habit,But for decades if he was on a plane for example then he would just pick up a paper and a pen for the crossword.His friend only started reading fiction because he would read to his kids.
No idea what happened in the 2-3 years between us. Mind you for school reading the only books I can remember where 1984,Romeo and Juliet and Lord of the flies.Thankfully I was already well into reading by then.
I have seen comments that people are reading less non-fiction, I dont know if that’s accurate
Very old claim. Goes back to Plato. “Poets are liars.”
Aristotle’s counter-claim was that fiction was more philosophical than history because it could remove the confusing accidents and instead demonstrate the principles on which history, or life, is based.
GKC famously wrote that fairy tales don’t teach children that dragons exist. Children instinctively know that dragons exist. Fairy tales teach children that dragons can be defeated.
Stories can also be used to “teach” children that vampires are their friends, or that the hungry wolf outside is their friend and won’t eat them, and should be let in. Or that a 90 pound woman can walk up to a 20-pound man and knock his block off without resorting evil, evil firearms.
Think back to that singing contest between Sauron and Finrod and remember the lesson: Sauron can sing too.
That alone is sufficient reason for levelheaded, sane folks to support fiction: leaving the field the the enemy to corrupt as they choose is not a good strategy.
I meant 200 pound man, not 20.
I think back to that episode of Peppa Pig that was banned in Australia because it said “spiders are our friends”.
… which can really get you killed in Australia as in nowhere else. Snakes, too.
Also, Jordan Peterson, who knows more than most about human psychology and mental structure tells us (in various places) that story is the basic form of learning.
You may note one of the citations is a paper he co-authored. It’s excellent.
“My father was a writer. He used to say that artists use lies to tell the truth, while politicians use lies to cover the truth up.” – Evie Hammond
That’s from ‘V For Vendetta’, a powerful piece of fiction.
Fiction is understood by both the writer and the readers to be a made-up story told for entertainment. Not exactly the truth, but not intended to deceive, either.
Good fiction can also educate, enlighten and provoke thought in ways boring facts rarely do. Nonfiction is limited to merely rehashing what has actually happened; fiction allows speculation about what will happen, what might happen, and what almost certainly won’t happen, but allows us to examine life under radically different conditions. It invokes the most powerful words in existence: What if? What if a man built a time machine? What if we made contact with aliens? What if we discovered principles of physics that allowed new methods of transportation, energy production and medical treatment? How would that affect our world, and our lives?
All of our scientific and technological progress began with somebody asking, “What if?”
Fiction is an excellent way to introduce history and science to someone. The whole problem I see with the way reading is taught is that they try to push “deep” literature that they want to dissect and interpret. They should be pushing fun reads, then transition to the harder texts after the kids want to read.
I find it a bit amusing, the idea of boys liking “factual” texts because they’re supposedly not agenda driven. Considering the nonsense that’s been put out like there being as many female Viking warriors and men…because there were some likely ceremonial weapons found in some tombs.
Not that I can fault boys for shunning fiction, considering the stuff being put out now has no relation at all to continuity, logic, or sense in terms of human interaction.
Oh gads, yes. I look at all the YA stuff on the end-caps and center tables at the regional B&N and shudder. The male protagonist (if there is one) is either abused, gay, depressed, or scum. Or he’s second fiddle (or even third trombone) to the females. Ick!
I’d rather read about actual guys doing guy stuff than slog through that [manure]. Heroic kings and warriors, great inventors, explorers, astronauts, those men did things and changed worlds. Unlike the boys in so much YA fiction, and other fiction.
Just make sure you’re reading real history and not politically correct history. Of course a girl can beat you up: they found an axe in a tomb once, dontcha know?
I tried reading some YA at both local public libraries and the last remaining local B&N, and was bothered less by the subject material – though it had little to recommend it – than by the writing itself. It just felt so drab and lifeless. I literally couldn’t tell the difference between one writer’s book and the other; it’s like the exact same person, or maybe computer program, is writing them all.
What’s the phrase I’ve heard used? ‘Beige prose,’ I think?
I like overwrought, purple prose like in the old pulps.
I don’t know about ‘overwrought’ but I like prose that has some life to it, and that seems unique to the author. Few people would ever mistake HP Lovecraft for Andre Norton, just to give one example.
I’ve given out some advice to try to encourage it. And I do my best myself.
OTOH, I have gotten a complaint that writers shouldn’t care about dangling modifiers, but instead blame the readers for not following the story. . . .
On a side-note, ironically enough one piece of fiction that really opened my eyes to elements of reality was George R.R. Martin’s first three Ice and Fire books (for a while I defended GRRM against charges of nihilism because I was sure that while he was setting up a conflict by having really bad things happen, he was also setting up some real heroes who would turn things around – then the next books came out and the show demonstrated his slide into true nihilism, but that’s neither here nor there).
Those three books demonstrated realpolitik in sharp terms, and drove home that while some of the people in charge were hypocrites and the knights didn’t follow the code they were supposed to, Westeros was still a lot better than the likes the Dothraki, and an invasion from the east would be a nightmare. Westeros’ people just needed to live up to their ideals.
The story also have a stark picture of the lives of women outside of a modern or western setting. Reading the first three books I came away with the idea that, yes, this civilization had to be defended.
Contrast with what’s put out today, I can only call it demoralization in intent.
funny, they won’t read fiction, but watching tv and movies and streaming shows is juuuuust fine…
Now you’re getting into the difference between reading and visual mediums, which is a whole nothing topic that can be discussed.
I still hold that the worst thing that happened to Star Wars was a shift from stories outside the movies being primarily novels and comics to the current focus on shows. There was a time when the only new Star Wars you would get was in novel form, so if you wanted to check in on what was happening in the Galaxy far far Away you had to (gasp!) read. That’s where the scientific – sci fi – elements of the universe came into play, and created logical expectations. A fleet being manufactured and stuck in ice? Readers would never accept that.
You see the same thing in the outcry over how the Game of Thrones show ended: people who were familiar with the books knew the distances involved, and armies and travel simply couldn’t happen like that.
And the Battle of Pelennor Fields in Return of the King? It was written to be completely accurate as in medieval military maneuvers.
Ah, the difference in reading and video… that was yesterday’s essay on why you need to read text. https://cedarlila.substack.com/p/saccade-f55
Thanks! I’ll read it over first chance I get!
You might be distracted by a visual medium and be tempted to let some illogical things slide, but much less so in a written medium. I remember arguing with a writer I was beta reading for about her WIP. I couldn’t get it through her head that, no, in a setting like she was describing a member of a noble House would NOT publicly break ranks and agree with a rival’s argument, even if the rival were the book’s heroes and good guys. The son might agree and argue with his father in private, but not publicly. She just didn’t understand that in the kind of situation she was setting up, that simply would not happen.
They demonstrated the situation perfectly in The Godfather. Look at the reactions. Everybody knew Sonny had screwed up by speaking out of turn like that, and it’s what led to the Turk trying to assassinate Vito because he thought he could make a deal with Sonny once Vito was out of the way.
Just read it through. Unfortunately most of my “reading” these days is through audiobooks on drives or during mundane tasks. If I didn’t have my audiobooks, I’d get no reading done at all. What’s that mean for my eye muscles?
I have to mention a counter argument from L. Jagi Lamplighter’s Substack, her post “Is Reading Misleading?” raises some interesting questions about the real value of reading fiction and the danger of simulated experiences, because not all stories are good or healthy.
Another counter example is the YouTube vid and essay: The Kids who Read, that argues that a lot of the people causing problems today had initially based their identities around being “the kid who reads,” and being seen as intelligent by their (left wing) teachers and librarians for reading big “chapter books.” Reading for them being a mark of status.
The writer/YouTuber relates the point where he started to get suspicious: when he read Atlas Shrugged and his left wing teachers and librarians reacted with disapproval. So reading a 200-page book made him smart, but somehow reading a 1,000-page book that references Aristotle made him stupid?
But so many of the people who have messed up the world have based their identities around being smart, which began with being the Kid who Reads (reads the appropriate narratives of course).
Which could be why some people who don’t like what these people are doing now shun reading.