is reading fiction beneficial?

[zelticgar]

I'm personally against fiction. It encourages creative thought and induces enjoyment. All of which has clearly resulted in a general lack of intelligence across society. Its a scourge that needs to be wiped off the planet!

[The King in Black]

Look dude, it's either this or going Hannibal Lecter on every person you meet

[Jo498]

By itself, it certainly won’t make you more intelligent, no more than watching TV, playing video games, or talking to people.

 

There is a tiny fraction of literature that may make you a better person. For instance, you might look to read fiction that puts you in the mind of people that don’t share your values or experiences. However, I’m quite sure that this is not representative of literature—most people seem to read about characters that they can emote with, connect with, see themselves in, etc. So I guess that on average, fiction has an ethically and intellectually corrosive effect on you: you get better at rationalising yourself to yourself because you read well-planned fictional accounts that support your values and decisions. Basically, lies about how things ought to be. This is the very appeal of most fiction.

I doubt that. (Maybe I misunderstand  most of this statement, including your qualifier "on average" because "on average" fiction is crap because 90% or more is crap and drags down the average.)

Great fiction manages very frequently (and this is one of its great appeals) to put you in the mind of people that do not at all share your values and experiences and despite of that fact you can connect with these characters.

(As a lot of great fiction is from earlier times even works that are not extraordinary, broaden the horizon because one experiences rather different values at work.)

But characters like Raskolnikov or Humbert Humbert let you share, often sympathetically, the mind of a murderer and a lover of very young girls, respectively.

 

It might still have an ethically corrosive effect (because one has a hard time condemning Raskolnikov or Humbert as decisively as one "should" although I tend to think that both the psychological insights as well as the evoking of both compassion and repulsion make up for that possible effect) but it certainly gives one new perspectives rather than simply amplify values, positions and experiences one already had to begin with.

 

And because humans have told stories a long time before they shared non-fiction-knowledge in systematic written down ways, we learn a lot of things from many domains much easier if they come with a story.

[Joe Abercrombie]

Well I've made my living writing it, and I wouldn't have written it if I'd never read it.

 

So it's certainly been beneficial to me...

[maarsen]

I had a high school English teacher  who once told our class that you can't read too much. Of course, one girl in the class pipes up, "What about Maarsen? He always has his nose in a book." The teacher sighed  and said "There is something wrong with that boy." 

 The only good thing about my obsession with books was it superseded my obsession with the opposite sex. Is the world a better place for that? The jury is still out.

[wolverine]

I doubt that. (Maybe I misunderstand  most of this statement, including your qualifier "on average" because "on average" fiction is crap because 90% or more is crap and drags down the average.)

Great fiction manages very frequently (and this is one of its great appeals) to put you in the mind of people that do not at all share your values and experiences and despite of that fact you can connect with these characters.

(As a lot of great fiction is from earlier times even works that are not extraordinary, broaden the horizon because one experiences rather different values at work.)

But characters like Raskolnikov or Humbert Humbert let you share, often sympathetically, the mind of a murderer and a lover of very young girls, respectively.

 

It might still have an ethically corrosive effect (because one has a hard time condemning Raskolnikov or Humbert as decisively as one "should" although I tend to think that both the psychological insights as well as the evoking of both compassion and repulsion make up for that possible effect) but it certainly gives one new perspectives rather than simply amplify values, positions and experiences one already had to begin with.

 

And because humans have told stories a long time before they shared non-fiction-knowledge in systematic written down ways, we learn a lot of things from many domains much easier if they come with a story.

 

Totally agree with that statement.  A teacher convinced me to read Of Mice and Men in high school for my book report and it certainly had an effect on me for the better.  There are many examples in fiction that I feel have made me more open and a better person.

[Lies And Perfidy]

At the very least, good fiction can introduce you to the supposition that there are more important things can being "a productive member of society," and that's an idea well worth its weight in ink and paper.

[YellowDogJen]

Well I've made my living writing it, and I wouldn't have written it if I'd never read it.

 

So it's certainly been beneficial to me...

 

And because of you, I've learned some geography. I am looking at maps of Northern Europe to see how they coincide with the Shattered Sea. Thanks, Wert!

 

Thanks, Joe!

 

Lots of people have mentioned that as fiction readers, we encounter and ponder themes and issues. Sure - I agree, and that's important. I agree that fiction readers also improve their comprehension skills, vocabulary, and their own writing skills.

 

But I wanted to add that I learn stuff about the world, because things mentioned in books I read pique my curiosity enough to compel some research into real world "facts". For instance, Uprooted got me to look up all sorts of things about Poland - including how they make cool tree cakes on a rotating spit. That kinda thing happens to me all the time! (Fiction + internet = knowledge)

 

So yes! Reading is beneficial!

[Happy Ent]

(Maybe I misunderstand  most of this statement, including your qualifier "on average" because "on average" fiction is crap because 90% or more is crap and drags down the average.)

 

But by that definition “watching TV” is also beneficial.

 

I thought I was pretty clear. Yes, reading great books (fiction or nonfiction) is obviously beneficial. (I doubt it increases your intelligence, but it has all kinds of other positive effects on your thinking and feeling.)

 

But reading [i]per se[/i] is neutral, and reading [i]on the average[/i] is probably just as brain-shrivellingly self-congratulatory as most of the other things we do for leisure (otherwise they wouldn’t be leisure, I guess.)

[sologdin]

most books are both aesthetically and politically awful; most books accordingly melt brains. the question becomes the quantum of damages to the brains aforesaid, as it is doubtful that same were completely unmelty prior to reading bad books.

[Richard Writhen]

Fiction reading sharpens the mind's eye. Thus more conceptual, outside-the-box thinking is possible. That's what Martin is saying with his "sword needs a whetstone" line ...

[maarsen]

most books are both aesthetically and politically awful; most books accordingly melt brains. the question becomes the quantum of damages to the brains aforesaid, as it is doubtful that same were completely unmelty prior to reading bad books.

Well that clears up one mystery. I always thought those stains on the bedsheets were from nocturnal emissions.

[Kat]

Reading anything that's reasonably written and edited will make most people into better writers and communicators, so there's that.

[aceluby]

 

But by that definition “watching TV” is also beneficial.

 

I thought I was pretty clear. Yes, reading great books (fiction or nonfiction) is obviously beneficial. (I doubt it increases your intelligence, but it has all kinds of other positive effects on your thinking and feeling.)

 

But reading per se is neutral, and reading on the average is probably just as brain-shrivellingly self-congratulatory as most of the other things we do for leisure (otherwise they wouldn’t be leisure, I guess.)

 

Not all leisure activities are created equal.  Even average fiction is more beneficial (even if it is self-congratulatory) than average TV or video games.

[Eponine]

I don't see that it currently personally benefits me in any way except helping to fill up my free time. When I was younger, it probably helped me to build my vocabulary, but that went well beyond diminishing returns.

Honestly, it would have probably benefited me more to have spent some of that time I spent reading cultivating a taste for TV (which is frequently a connecting conversation topic), and almost certainly benefited me more based on my personality and inclinations to have spent a good deal of that time on teams or with peers. For various reasons, I was a somewhat isolated child and I had more freedom in reading choices than in being allowed to watch tv or have freedom of choice of friends, so I gravitated toward that.

I think HE's opinion is interesting, especially in regard to junk nonfiction. It seems to have the main effect of giving people a false superiority complex and an inflated sense of their own intelligence.

But I may be unusual for someone who reads a lot insofar as I hate writing and would never want a job that involved a lot of written communication. So I can see how reading of all kinds could be more beneficial to someone whose work and hobbies depended on their writing abilities.

[Jo498]

I thought there was pretty decisive evidence from cognitive science that reading per se is beneficial for some cognitive skills. It might not improve raw intelligence and it might mess up your values but it does improve certain cognitive skills. It also often trains a sort of patience and perseverance with long and/or difficult (depending on the reader's age) books. In a world where people need fresh stimuli every 3 minutes this kind of patient concentration on something that does not beep and blink is really getting difficult for many people.

 

(Sure, playing video games will also improve some skills, e.g. reaction time for visual stimuli. But I seriously doubt that these are beneficial for anything except getting better at fast paced video games.)

 

And of course there might be some "diminishing returns" (except for the fun reading provides). (Although the reading/writing skills I encountered with college students seem to show that quite a few of them in their early 20s are far away from the domain where their reading/writing skills can be improved only marginally....)

But this is a) true of almost everything and B) the wrong perspective for almost everything.

[Gasp of Many Reeds]

I want to hear your opinions on this. is reading fiction books good for you?

No. Now get your nose out of that book and return to expending your existence in menial drudgery :P

[Eponine]

It also often trains a sort of patience and perseverance with long and/or difficult (depending on the reader's age) books. In a world where people need fresh stimuli every 3 minutes this kind of patient concentration on something that does not beep and blink is really getting difficult for many people.

 

And of course there might be some "diminishing returns" (except for the fun reading provides). (Although the reading/writing skills I encountered with college students seem to show that quite a few of them in their early 20s are far away from the domain where their reading/writing skills can be improved only marginally....)

But this is a) true of almost everything and B) the wrong perspective for almost everything.

 

I think it's an important perspective for almost everything, not as a reason to cut your schedule into 15 minute optimal skill building segments (unless you really get off on that kind of thing), but to be mindful about our assumptions about how we spend our time. 

 

As someone who grew up reading more than watching TV or interacting with peers as much as I wanted, I think there are different kinds of patience and perseverance. I can concentrate on a book or on written words for a long time. But I have trouble sitting through an hour-long TV show without being distracted - and that also translates to my enjoyment of more "highbrow" things like speeches and plays. Unless it's really captivating, I have trouble focusing on verbal instruction, sitting through something like Shakespeare is like torture for me, and I am not particularly good at following conversations that I'm not all that engaged in, although that's something I actively work on as I feel that giving my conversational attention is about politeness not just preference. While I think that different people do inherently learn differently, I also believe that learning to focus on what you're hearing and seeing are just as valuable skills as having the attention span for a long book, and I believe that these abilities can be improved with practice. 

[The King in Black]

most books are both aesthetically and politically awful; most books accordingly melt brains. the question becomes the quantum of damages to the brains aforesaid, as it is doubtful that same were completely unmelty prior to reading bad books.

 

Just once, I'd like to see you go about an entire day just posting YOLO as a response to everything man.

[SpaceChampion]

Narrative fiction expands your empathy.  People who read become more empathetic, which improves social relationships, so has a society-wide benefit.  Even if it is "bad fiction".  Presuming most of the bad fiction is not anywhere near as bad as the worst of the Sad/Rabid Puppy shit.