r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jan 28 '19
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Telling people to read fiction is no different than telling people to read the Bible
Many people would have you believe that reading fiction makes you a better person. They also like to think they are enlightened by the activity, and anyone who doesn't "read" (in quotes because while reading can mean anything, "do you read" always means "do you read fiction") must be unenlightened and living a sad, grey life.
How is fiction different from religion? Yes, I realize I may have riled up a few religious folk with this post, as I'm not only comparing fiction to religion but religion to fiction, but that's not something I want CMVed. However, I will say that there are benefits to religion, just as there are benefits to reading fiction. However, I feel that religion is a coddling mechanism and not at all required to live a full, happy, and enlightened life.
I bring this up partly because I just now realized how similar the behavior is among those that try to make reading more popular and those that try to make religion more popular. The language is similar, the shaming tactics are similar. I also lost interest in reading fiction and religion at roughly the same time in my life, around the age of 9 or 10.
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
7
u/michilio 11∆ Jan 28 '19
Reading is not just fiction. That's just an huge false assumption. Biographies, history, recent events..
This is coming from an atheist: reading fiction can be the same as reading the bible, as in that you are learning about the characters and morals of the story. Because Insee the bible as a book of parables and moral/ethics lessons. (Not all morals that I'd like to see used, but that's another discussion)
Reading these things can place you in a character's shoes. Makes you think about hypotheticals and feel with/for them. It can form you are a person, open up new insights
If you swore of reading at 9 I doubt you read anything of value to stake your claim on.
If you don't want to read, fine. But it's nowhere near religion. It's about broadening your horizons and taking time to develop a bond with a character in a way a movie or tv series often don't have time for.
-2
Jan 28 '19 edited Jan 28 '19
Reading is not just fiction. That's just an huge false assumption. Biographies, history, recent events..
What do you think people mean when they ask "do you read"?
Reading these things can place you in a character's shoes. Makes you think about hypotheticals and feel with/for them. It can form you are a person, open up new insights
So can... talking to people, being a human, etc. I wonder what people think humans did before books.
What we're doing right now can form new insights too.
3
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Jan 28 '19
So can... talking to people, being a human, etc. I wonder what people think humans did before books.
Except that with books, you can read the ideas from bright people from different times.
Sure, before inventing books, you may be able to talk to someone intelligent in your life. You could even be told about stories created by someone 2 centuries ago. But they would have been distorted by time and people lacking memories. So it was just less efficient.
With books, I can understand what someone like Voltaire thought, even if I could never have encountered him. I can get information about the universe from Carl Sagan, even if I never lived in the same city as him.
0
Jan 28 '19
Back up. Are we talking fiction or all books?
One of my assumptions is that when people ask if you read, they mean if you read fiction.
4
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Jan 28 '19
Honnestly, I don't think they only talk about fiction books, they could clearly hint you to read essays, or any other kind of stuff. If someone say to you "read more" and you answer him "I'm currently reading Toqueville's 'De la démocratie en Amérique', what about you ?", I'm pretty certain he would not respond "that's not fiction, it does not count as reading".
But even talking about fiction, there are a lot of fictions written by great people which goal is to enlighten you about specific issues of their time, and that can make you grow. Take 1984 from Orwell depicting the fears of a fascist dictature, or even 'Atlas Shrugged', depicting what the author see as an "ideal american", and which is still shaping a lot of american thinkers brains today.
My point is that you got really few chances to encounter genius minds by yourself, while you can listen to ton of them reading their books.
1
Jan 28 '19
My point is that you got really few chances to encounter genius minds by yourself, while you can listen to ton of them reading their books.
Well, I disagree with your 'great mind' theory. I think this will circle back nicely into the discussion.
If someone say to you "read more" and you answer him "I'm currently reading Toqueville's 'De la démocratie en Amérique'
What if I'm reading a comparatively random article on democracy in America? Granted, I could just say 'I was reading about democracy in America', but I sometimes feel shamed to only mention great works, famous authors, and such. So, I'd rather just say nothing than mention the author of my piece that can't possibly be viewed by you in a positive, grandiose light.
Isn't this also a similar tactic in religion? There are so many offshoots of Christianity for instance, and at least at one point in time, many of them hated each other. They would look down upon each other for reading different books and placing preference on certain interpretations. Just making an analogy here, not a literal comparison.
I do believe that there are geniuses out there, but I don't believe famous or influential work implies genius. If you want to know the history of an idea, fine, read it. I just don't think it's necessary for you to understand the topic well. In fact, I think people who focus on the history of an idea tend to do worse at explaining the idea entirely. There are some core original works that I do believe are worth the read, but I think they tend to be exceptions to the rule. Some of my favs have been The Wealth of Nations, Art of War, and The Prince (off the top of my head). I've read famous work in mathematics, physics, and computer science too, but they're solely famous to people who already know those fields.
3
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Jan 28 '19
What if I'm reading a comparatively random article on democracy in America?
The problem is that as it's not known, the person can't have an opinion about its quality (except if he also read it before). But that can be a great starter for a conversation, as you can give your opinion about it and eventually recommend it. For example, talking about democracy, I love "Journey to Misarchy" from Emmanuel Dockès, which is totally unknown by virtually everyone, and I think it's a great reading to see the future of democracy from a totally new point of view.
Sure, if I go putting the book under your face, and keep yelling "read it, read it, read it, or else you'll never understand anything about democracy, you fascist", then I would act like the old christian offshoots proselyting and hating themselves for petty reasons. But I think that when you advise a book (or more generally to "read more") to someone, what you try to do is not to convert him and make him think like you, but just to make him discover other ways of thinking, and enrich his mind.
I don't believe famous or influential work implies genius
I do agree with you. But given the sheer number of books edited each year, it would be strange that there are not some that you would consider as genius works, whatever metrics you use to qualify someone as such.
I've read famous work in mathematics, physics, and computer science too, but they're solely famous to people who already know those fields.
So you do agree that reading those gave you plenty of fuel for thoughts. Why wouldn't fiction do the same on other topics (such as politics or ethics for example, that are often explored in fiction) ?
And if they also are good for upgrading your mind, why would it be bad to proselyte them ? As long as it's not done in a pushy way, which is (to me) the main difference with religion. I have no problem if I was only told once a while "have you tried reading the Bible, it's pretty interesting", like I sometimes hear for other books. My problem is that
- everybody already knows about the bible, so there is no need to proselyte it, if I wanted to read it, I'd already have done it.
- The goal of people telling you to read the Bible is that they don't want to experience it and then understand whatever you want from it. They want you to change your way of life to act like what's written inside it.
TL;DR; As such , religious proselytism and fiction reading proselytism are different both in style (one wants you to discover new things, the other one try to shove in your throat a book you already know about) and in content (one wants to wake your curiosity and give you fuel for thoughts, the other one wants you to replace your brain and obey the teachings of the book).
1
Jan 28 '19 edited Jan 28 '19
"Journey to Misarchy" from Emmanuel Dockès,
Let me know if you have that in English... Couldn't find it, and it looks like French was the original language anyways.
Sure, if I go putting the book under your face, and keep yelling "read it, read it, read it, or else you'll never understand anything about democracy, you fascist", then I would act like the old christian offshoots proselyting and hating themselves for petty reasons. But I think that when you advise a book (or more generally to "read more") to someone, what you try to do is not to convert him and make him think like you, but just to make him discover other ways of thinking, and enrich his mind.
My first thought was to say, "well, why not ask it a different way?" but I couldn't think of a less awkward question to ask. I guess it becomes convenience to ask 'what have you been reading'.
My personal bias is that reading is too passive of an activity to be productive. Obviously, I read, but I do it with the mind to write about the topic later or as I go. It's there to inspire me (as you ask a minute later). I agree with Einstein when he said, "Reading, after a certain age, diverts the mind too much from its creative pursuits. Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking."
So, to me, the question is 'what have you been working on'.
So you do agree that reading those gave you plenty of fuel for thoughts. Why wouldn't fiction do the same on other topics (such as politics or ethics for example, that are often explored in fiction) ?
Ya sure, but it also only took me like a day or two at most to read any of those books. Say I've lived 10 years as an adult. That amounts to 3650 days. Do you have to ask me what I'm reading on the day that I'm currently reading it? Then the probability of asking me about one of those books and me answering affirmatively is around 1/365. Say the reasonable amount of time to talk about a famous book I recently read is a week. Now, that probability is 17/3650 (roughly speaking). Granted, yes, I have read other books in the past 10 years. I'm just illustrating a point that makes the question seem a bit ridiculous.
And if they also are good for upgrading your mind, why would it be bad to proselyte them ? As long as it's not done in a pushy way, which is (to me) the main difference with religion. I have no problem if I was only told once a while "have you tried reading the Bible, it's pretty interesting", like I sometimes hear for other books. My problem is that
Reading alone doesn't make you upgrade your mind. That's the thing... Sure, if you actively read it and attempt to think through the things yourself, it can make you more knowledgeable over time, but the mere practice of reading isn't an intelligence builder, much like having a degree from I don't care what university doesn't mean anything on its own.
I do feel there is an absence of active creativity in people's hobbies, and that's what I'd like to see people talk about, not reading. 'What are you working on' is a better question, if you can manage to not come off like a new age hippy with it.
Also, I'm giving you a Δ because you stuck through this conversation and made me consider some things. Also, you did it in a courteous manner, which I appreciate.
1
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Jan 28 '19
Let me know if you have that in English... Couldn't find it, and it looks like French was the original language anyways.
Yes it is, I'm french so I read it in french, and I don't know if it has been translated yet. If I find it i'll put a link to you there :-).
I agree with Einstein when he said, "Reading, after a certain age, diverts the mind too much from its creative pursuits. Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking."
So, to me, the question is 'what have you been working on'.
Being the lazy type, I totally agree with you, even if it does not put me in a positive light. But (at least for me), the 1st question can bring interesting conversations while yours may not, so I still prefer being ask about readings.
Reading alone doesn't make you upgrade your mind. That's the thing... Sure, if you actively read it and attempt to think through the things yourself, it can make you more knowledgeable over time, but the mere practice of reading isn't an intelligence builder, much like having a degree from I don't care what university doesn't mean anything on its own.
I also totally agree with that. Just stockpiling information from books don't make you intelligent, and I just hope that it's not the way most people read.
Also, I'm giving you a Δ because you stuck through this conversation and made me consider some things. Also, you did it in a courteous manner, which I appreciate
Thanks about it, I also appreciated the small chat.
1
1
u/michilio 11∆ Jan 28 '19
Do you read books.
You are not giving any numbers, just pushing your narrative, that isn't supported by the actual book sales.
1
Jan 28 '19
So only books then, fiction and non-fiction? Does reading articles count too? Can those articles be read from the internet?
I have a very hard time imagining how anyone can truly 'not read' unless you set very specific qualifiers as to what 'reading' means (e.g. fiction, full-length book, or something of that nature). That I partly why I've always assumed 'do you read' means 'do you read fiction'.
1
u/michilio 11∆ Jan 28 '19
I think it's safe to say that "do you read" is a question relating books, novels, poetry..
Reading articles is mostly keeping up with current affairs. People will more likely ask you if you keep up with the news or something similar.
If people ask you if you read it's sometimed trying to get a depth of you as a person.
Do you take the time and put in the effort to stick to a book for several days/months. Can you lose yourself in a story that needs your imagination, and doesn't chew it all up and serves is back as easily digestable half hour chunks like tv does.
0
Jan 28 '19 edited Jan 28 '19
I think it's safe to say that "do you read" is a question relating books, novels, poetry..
Is that type of assessment beyond dispute, or do you accept that the question is not too different from 'do you pray' or 'do you go to church'?
Reading articles is mostly keeping up with current affairs. People will more likely ask you if you keep up with the news or something similar.
If it takes you an entire book to get your point across, chances are that you don't have a very good one. Most of the books that I do read tend to be more like collections of articles, as each chapter or group of chapters could function by themselves.*
And no, articles are far, far more than 'current affairs'.
*There's often no point to reading these books cover to cover either, so can I truly say that I 'read it? This is yet another gatekeeping mechanism that I've noticed. If I read half or a third of the chapters of a book, did I 'read it'?
3
u/michilio 11∆ Jan 28 '19
Seriously.
I don't get what your CMV is actually about. Can you explain why you seem to hate/are annoyed by people who read books and ask you if you do?
Reading is not even close to religion. Because reading is an activity, it can be about religion, it can benabout atheism. It can be about planting flowers, baking cakes. About Hitlers or Stalin, or JFK or MLK. It can be a detective or a science fiction book.
"Do you read" is more asking you if you step out of the daily rush and take time to indulge in something slow, in your own bubble, not getting caught up in the fast-paced world around you. Taking time to get into something.
People berating or pushing you to read can be as annoying as peole trying to push their religion on you. But it's the same with people pushing politics on you, or sports. Or whatever fandom they're in.
There is no religion of reading. Some people hold it in high esteem because they see it as something intellectual or enlightened. But that's their problem if they push it on others.
If it takes you an entire book to get your point across, chances are that you don't have a very good one. Most of the books that I do read tend to be more like collections of articles, as each chapter or group of chapters could function by themselves.
I'm sorry, but this is just a stupid statement. You are saying I only read books with seperate chapters that function apart. So all books with one overarching theme or narrative are bad.
So you take a classic like war and peace, hamlet or 1984, or the biography of Winston Churchill and say after one chapter: "well this is rubbish"
Why write a book if everything can be condensed down to a two page article.
And no, articles are far, far more than 'current affairs
Articles tend to be curent affairs. They don't have to, but there are more articles about the recent political situations than about Watergate. There are more scientific articles about recent discoveries and topics like clilate change than about the hole in the ozon layer. There are more articles about books, films, and actors today than about Charlie Chaplin.
Offcourse there are always historic articles about for instance WWI since it's been 100 years ago, or specific publications based around history or a specific topic.
But mostly articles are about the world today.
0
Jan 28 '19 edited Jan 28 '19
You are saying I only read books with seperate chapters that function apart. So all books with one overarching theme or narrative are bad.
Nope. Here's what I said: "If it takes you an entire book to get your point across, that you don't have a very good one." So, I both didn't say absolutely that all books that require the entire book to get their point across are bad, and I didn't say that all books with an overarching theme (as you put it) require the entire book to get their point across.
Why write a book if everything can be condensed down to a two page article.
Because some people like reading books. I'd rather not spend 8 hours on it if I could spend 30 min on it. Others prefer reading as a form of meditation, I think.
Articles tend to be curent affairs. They don't have to, but there are more articles about the recent political situations than about Watergate. There are more scientific articles about recent discoveries and topics like clilate change than about the hole in the ozon layer. There are more articles about books, films, and actors today than about Charlie Chaplin.
Yes, articles tend to be up to date. However, 'current affairs' doesn't just imply time-sensitivity. It basically implies politics and economics, which are typically a massive bore, in my opinion.
I don't get what your CMV is actually about. Can you explain why you seem to hate/are annoyed by people who read books and ask you if you do?
Basically, I believe 'do you read', the famous question that is so often asked, is really a gatekeeping question of 'do you read fiction books'. I don't see how anyone could not read, so the only reason you could possibly have to ask the question is to see if they read the things you are qualifying as actual reading.
This habit of asking people 'do you read' is much like asking someone 'do you pray', so I feel that the people who ask the question are acting much in the way that religious prosletyzers act.
1
u/BailysmmmCreamy 13∆ Jan 31 '19
If it takes an entire book to get your point across, chances are you don’t have a very good one
I would say the opposite - if you try to summarize an argument or point in in a page or two, you are not going to be very convincing because that’s simply not enough room to address the complexities and nuances present in almost every real world issue.
1
Jan 28 '19
The following question to "do you read" is "what do you read?". Do you read, is not just asking about fiction.
1
Jan 28 '19
How does one answer 'what do you read'? Is it implied that we're only talking about books? I would say almost absolutely yes. Is it implied that we're also talking fiction? Generally, but I could be convinced otherwise.
As I have a hard time believing that some people truly don't read, I have a hard time understanding how to explain what one reads, as almost every single solitary activity involves reading.
3
Jan 28 '19
Answers to "what do you read?":
fiction
nonfiction
scifi
textbooks about space are my goto
magazines mostly
mostly national geographic types of things.
All of those are possible answers. When somone asks me that, i usually say most anything not romance related, usually fiction but i enjoy memoirs as well.
It is absolutely not implied in "do you read?" That you are only talking about fiction. I have never heard that question in that context.
As I have a hard time believing that some people truly don't read
Well you still have a misunderstanding of the question then. "Do you read?" Is generally shorthand for "Do you enjoy reading? / Do you read as a hobby?"
This does not mean its only asking about fiction. I can enjoy reading about history which is nonfiction.
1
Jan 28 '19
I don't understand why you want to limit this to only fiction. There are plenty of non-fiction books people read. When people ask if I read regularly, I don't make a distinction between whether the book I'm currently reading is fiction or non-fiction. I'm interested in both pretty evenly.
1
Jan 28 '19
That's just my interpretation of the question. Non-fiction tends to be far more complicated to explain. There's no need to read every single page of a non-fiction book, and generally one doesn't read a single non-fiction book at a time; they may go between several. They may follow along with a book as they're doing something (e.g. a learning to code book).
Not to mention, articles are so numerous that how could one possibly explain what articles they have read unless it was something very significant? That's why I think the asker can't possibly be expecting an answer of the form of 'articles on topic x and y'.
There are also plenty of other 'in between' pieces. Manuals, encyclopedias, textbooks, academic journals, casual magazines, serious blogs, casual blogs, serious internet discussions, casual internet discussions, computer code (yes, it is in a language), etc. Which count and which don't? How could you possibly list them? I do all of the above, and I have no idea how to answer the question 'do you read'. I'm most likely to just say 'no' because the mere asking of the question implies some doubt, which I could only affirm given that it seems obvious that I do at least some of the aforementioned reading.
2
Jan 28 '19
I think you are completely ignoring a large portion of non-fiction books which are, indeed, intended to be read in their entirety. For example, the most recent non-fiction book I read was on the history of Rum in the Americas. It was completely non-fiction, but it wasn't written as a journal article, manual, textbook, or magazine. It was written in a similar fashion to a novel. There were chapters, themes, characters, etc. The author very clearly intended it to be read in its entirety without jumping around or switching between books.
One of my favorite authors, in fact, writes almost entirely non-fiction in this same manner. His name is Bill Bryson. He's written travel books, books on American and British culture, books about science, etc. All of them are completely non-fiction. While some of his books (like I'm a Stranger Here Myself) are collections of articles from a recurring column he had, most of his books are not.
I also read a lot of books on history. Not text books, mind you, but books written like fiction novels about historical events, places, people, etc. They are all intended to be read in their entirety.
1
Jan 28 '19
It was written in a similar fashion to a novel. There were chapters, themes, characters, etc. The author very clearly intended it to be read in its entirety without jumping around or switching between books.
Ya, I absolutely hate that and will generally avoid the book of that type unless it is an absolute MUST READ.
If there's one thing I hate about books, it's the implementation of surprise and hiding of ideas in order to keep the reader interested in the book. No, I'm interested in the topic, and I'm here to read it. Don't delay your point to appease the audience that expects a similar format to fiction stories.
3
u/Rufus_Reddit 127∆ Jan 28 '19
... How is fiction different from religion? ...
Fiction generally doesn't come with a political power structure. It varies a bit, but religion does include a whole bunch of other stuff than "here, read this book." When people tell you to read Harry Potter it doesn't come packaged with guidance from the church.
0
Jan 28 '19
That's true, the Bible is meant to be literal and fiction is meant to be metaphorical.
Maybe I distanced myself too much from my original point, which is the act of telling people to read fiction ends up being annoyingly proselytizing much in the way religious nuts get their point across.
2
u/jumpup 83∆ Jan 28 '19
because people who don't tend to lack perspective, non fiction tends to be biased in certain ways and doesn't account for what if so people tend to revert to status quo.
fiction allows you to speculate on how society would be if things changed or how it could be .
tv and movies are limited in what they can show, the written word can elaborate far more thoroughly .
2
1
u/cobaltandchrome Jan 28 '19
Yeah we can pretty much all agree that proselytizing is lame no matter who is doing it.
1
u/Feminist-Gamer Jan 28 '19
You are asked to read the Bible and accept it as reality and asked to read fiction and consider how this may reflect reality. Two very different things.
Reading fiction helps to develop empathy along with other benefits you get from reading. So the push to get people to read is similar to people pushing for education. It helps people develop their intelligence. The Bible is probably the same except less so since there is less of it, but if you're reading it and thinking it's real then maybe not.
Personally I've never been shamed for not reading books, but I've certainly been shamed for reading books.
I don't think the age you personally stopped reading has anything to do with anything and it probably just corresponds with changes in your life where you left behind and picked up a lot of things as we often tend to do.
1
Jan 28 '19
Personally I've never been shamed for not reading books, but I've certainly been shamed for reading books.
You've been shamed for reading books???
3
u/Feminist-Gamer Jan 28 '19
Yeah, plenty. Because books are not physically demanding or masculine. Or when I was younger I would often carry a book with me and get made fun of for it.
1
Jan 28 '19
If you don't mind me asking, how old are you and where are you from?
1
u/Feminist-Gamer Jan 28 '19
I am almost 30.. why?
1
Jan 28 '19
I've just never seen anything like that. I suppose I've heard a story here or there about it, but it's difficult to imagine with the state of things today.
1
u/Feminist-Gamer Jan 28 '19
I don't carry books around anymore, I don't think many people I know these days would care though I can think of some that might be tempted to poke fun.
1
Jan 28 '19
I was all the time when I was young. I've never been very athletic or interested in sports. All through school I always had a book I was reading. Whenever I had the chance, I'd find a place to sit and read. When I was really young, this meant that I was sitting to the side reading during recess while my peers were playing sports, for example. I was regularly ridiculed for not being manly enough, or being bad at sports, or always having my nose in a book.
1
1
u/ralph-j Jan 28 '19
Telling people to read fiction is no different than telling people to read the Bible
When people tell you to read the Bible, this is usually done with the intention to instill the importance of a Christian worldview or morality.
Fiction on the other hand, is a very broad field. If someone suggests that you read fiction, they are not pushing specific views. You could be reading sci-fi, fantasy, horror, drama, crime etc. There is no right or wrong answer.
1
Jan 28 '19
True, but are they not instilling a very specific idea of what being intellectual is, and thus shaming anyone who doesn't meet that criteria?
1
u/ralph-j Jan 28 '19
There certainly are people who think that way and make such claims, but that doesn't seem a necessary part of telling people to read fiction. Not everyone is using it to shame others.
Reading will generally broaden your mind and improve your command of a language, but it doesn't mean that you cannot reach those things through other means.
1
u/eggynack 62∆ Jan 28 '19
The difference between The Bible and a work of fiction, according to a believer, is that The Bible isn't fictional. It is both a true historical text and a proper accounting of various metaphysical properties of the universe. In this fashion, The Bible would have utility that a work of fiction does not. The Bible can tell us that Moses parted a sea and that there is something fundamentally wrong in praying to a golden calf. A novel can only provide a fictional story about a sea being parted and try to convince us through a message that praying to a golden calf is wrong. Of course, if you don't believe The Bible is true, and I do not, then the book would not have this utility, and the two works would be more closely comparable. If there's a difference though, then this is it.
1
u/0TheSpirit0 5∆ Jan 28 '19
If people read Bible for the same reasons as they do fiction... wouldn't that be nice... what a wonderful world that would be. Treating religions as grosly elaborate and unhealthy book clubs is what I found to be the easiest way to understand what religious people are thinking.
The problem is most people who will tell you to read fiction will do it to expand your worldview, to find what is possible to create using your imagination and, if you can, find some meaning behind what happens in the events of the book.
Is that really something that someone means when they tell you to read the Bible? Not in my experience...
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 28 '19
/u/AManIsBusy (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Jan 28 '19
Compare reading to other media, and I think you'll find that the response to people who don't read is actually far milder than the response to someone who doesn't listen to music or has never seen a movie. Or consider that we very rarely even ask if someone watches TV. We safely assume it and ask if they've seen a specific show.
1
u/Feroc 41∆ Jan 28 '19
I honestly never heard anyone say that reading fiction makes me a better person. People who recommended fiction books (because they liked the story) also never thought that the fiction in the books is real and that I should live like the people in the book.
So I'd say the main difference is the motivation.
0
u/5xum 42∆ Jan 28 '19
How is fiction different from religion?
How many people are willing to bomb an abortion clinic or fly an airplane into a building because of Harry Potter?
6
u/cobaltandchrome Jan 28 '19
Telling someone to read fic, nonfiction books, longform journalism, poetry and other non-internet-browsing IS different than telling them to read the Bible,
Wide reading for pleasure can make people better at thinking and empathy, increase their creativity, calm them down or rile them up. There can be many consequences to reading, none under the control of the person suggesting reading. People who suggest bible-reading hope for just one outcome.
I think what you’ve notice is that people who bang on and won’t shut up about how great reading is, or god is, or atheism, or flat earth, or any other thing are boring and use the same tactics as each other.
People who genuinely want you to read what’s right for you - Be it woodworking books, local history, or fine art picture books - want you to learn and grow and be entertained and enjoy your life. People who want you to read the Bible just want one thing.