Why should I read fiction

>>8784501

Because it's filled with great stories that are beautifuly told.

I think by now if you don't find joy in story telling, then you probably never will.

Why do you need a reason?

As a writer even I can admit film does what we do better and it's really come into its own the past twenty years. Though there's equally no reason you should watch film.

You only should if you want to. There's nothing wrong with you if you don't.

>>8784507
>film does what we do better
you must be a really terrible writer

>>8784512
There's no question that a capable film maker will create work more engaging than an equally capable writer. It's a more complete medium.

One day something will come along that's more complete than film in regards to drawing consumers in and it will overshadow film.

>>8784504
I'm afraid you are right and that I'm missing out.

>>8784501
>non-fiction
>philosophy
wat

File: 1383773688519.png (625KB, 1200x1826px) Image search: [Google]

625KB, 1200x1826px

Non-fiction is largely just as fictitious as fiction.

>>8784571
Alright, I've read the Bible and Also sprach Zarathustra but that's about it on the philosophy-literature divide.

>>8784501
>No Bentham

I feel the same way for the most part, OP.

Whenever I read genre fiction lately, I feel like the author just wrote the novel in the hopes that it will be noticed and adapted into a movie.

I don't really care how the hero guy ran through the gunfire while the guy next to him got shot down and cried out or how the elfen battleblade gleamed in the blue light of the moon as it was drawn on the foggy hills of the Darkmoor.

It's just like meh, what the fuck ever.

Then again, I don't even really watch movies because I do not give a shitting fuck about any of that garbage in any form.

>inb4 no fun allowed

Rest assured, I'm still a typical virgin, it's just that videogames are my consumer trash of choice. Needless to say though, I don't play for the fucking narrative.

What, in your mind, separates fiction and non-fiction? In both cases what you get is an expression of a singular mind.

We read fiction for entertainment. This is the same entertainment that might be given from a painting: it can move us to tears, fill the soul, cause us to laugh, etc.

From there, you have any number of notions of what separates good from bad fiction. But the common agreement is that good fiction -- fiction worth reading -- looks at the world in unique ways and in such detail that everything imaginable has been subtly considered. Thus, if non-fiction focuses on the details and stories of our "real" universe, then fiction focuses on the details and stories of its own universes.

>>8784501
because fiction reflects the human condition more than non-fiction.

>>8784580
this

>>8784603
read >>8784613
go interact with people and fiction will make sense

>>8784604
Both genres can be very similar, I agree. I just read non-fiction for fun and fiction is a drag for me, somehow.

>>8784557
Vidya? it can, in theory, have everything a film has plus interaction.

>>8784557
Literature works through your intellect. Film works through your eye's retina. How is that a deeper medium, again?

>>8784727
Well, I'd say that while books can offer a broad story through words alone and your imagination, seeing someone make a pretty well made version of said book with beautiful visuals, a voice and face to the characters and, in some cases, a score that really drives the themes and emotions home
For instance, I read The Assassination of Jesse James before the movie and was like "goddamn this is sad" but I actually teared up at the end of the movie.
It had less of the book's dialogue and was still almost 3 hours long iirc but it sacrificed length for succinct storytelling and themes
Keep in mind I'm talking about a good adaptation though, there are probably dozens of terrible adaptations for every good one

>>8784512
kek, good post