It's a rare piece of fiction that has me interested enough to read. Off the top of my head, the only fictional books that I enjoyed enough to remember are "Catcher In The Rye", a few by Philip K. Dick and William Gibson, the Illuminatus! trilogy, Ham on Rye, Fear And Loathing... uh.... Nothing else is springing to mind except "The Fuckup", which I read basically for the title and cover design (but I did enjoy the book, too).
― scaredy cat, Saturday, 21 June 2003 17:37 (twenty years ago) link
― jamie carr, Thursday, 23 October 2003 17:35 (twenty years ago) link
What about non-fiction narrative? Duh, I don't think its existence was even mentioned in this book I was looking at.
good point. what is fab about a non-fiction book like CV Wedgewood's "The King's Peace" is the way it cracks along with the pace of a novel ONLY IT'S ALL TRUE.
― DV (dirtyvicar), Thursday, 23 October 2003 21:51 (twenty years ago) link
― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Friday, 24 October 2003 10:55 (twenty years ago) link
― Rockist Scientist, Wednesday, 24 December 2003 18:42 (twenty years ago) link
― RS £aRue (rockist_scientist), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 23:37 (nineteen years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 23:37 (nineteen years ago) link
― scott seward (scott seward), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 23:51 (nineteen years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 23:53 (nineteen years ago) link
― caitlin oh no (caitxa1), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 23:55 (nineteen years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 23:56 (nineteen years ago) link
ned total OTM for me w/r/t mathz.
― Richard K (Richard K), Thursday, 24 March 2005 00:03 (nineteen years ago) link
― scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 24 March 2005 00:17 (nineteen years ago) link
― Ken L (Ken L), Thursday, 24 March 2005 00:25 (nineteen years ago) link
― scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 24 March 2005 00:29 (nineteen years ago) link
― What we want? Sex with T.V. stars! What you want? Ian Riese-Moraine! (Eastern Ma, Thursday, 24 March 2005 02:01 (nineteen years ago) link
― scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 24 March 2005 02:41 (nineteen years ago) link
― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Thursday, 24 March 2005 02:42 (nineteen years ago) link
― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Thursday, 24 March 2005 02:43 (nineteen years ago) link
― scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 24 March 2005 02:51 (nineteen years ago) link
Maybe you were just high?
― RS £aRue (rockist_scientist), Thursday, 24 March 2005 02:52 (nineteen years ago) link
― scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 24 March 2005 02:57 (nineteen years ago) link
― Ken L (Ken L), Thursday, 24 March 2005 03:05 (nineteen years ago) link
― Casuistry (Chris P), Thursday, 24 March 2005 03:19 (nineteen years ago) link
My girlfriend tends to prefer nonfiction. Lately she's been enjoying Jonathan Franzen's Freedom but also says she can't wait to get back to "learning something."
It seems like a lot of people who dislike fiction think it's a waste of time to read about a made-up world. But to me this suggests a weirdly puritanical attitude that reading should always be educational. Aren't the inherent pleasures of fiction -- a well-drawn character, an expertly constructed narrative, a beautifully crafted sentence -- sufficiently enriching? Or does the preferrer of nonfiction not even recognize them as pleasures?
I'll admit, though, that in some ways I identify with the PoNF. For one, I like my novels to have a bit of social realism or cultural commentary in them. And in addition to the pleasures outlined above, part of why I do read fiction -- which is almost always of the "literary" bent -- is to become conversant with certain cultural works. Which is probably more foolishly dutiful, in a sense, than reading merely to learn stuff about the world.
― Zsa Zsa Gay Bar (jaymc), Tuesday, 21 December 2010 15:47 (thirteen years ago) link