Previous Entry | Next Entry

fiction is important. dammit.


cross-posted from Tribal Writer

1

Most aspiring fiction writers don’t read enough fiction, which is like a fighter going into the ring with one hand tied behind her back. The game is over before it started. I’ve written about this before – Reading is the Inhale, Writing is the Exhale: Developing Writer’s Intuition – and posted about it in various places and forums over the years, and I always encounter resistance (generally from aspiring fiction writers who don’t read enough).

But this isn’t surprising, since the culture itself delivers deeply mixed messages about the importance of fiction. Parents tell their kids to read books, because we all know that reading is good for you, and makes you smarter, but when the kids look to the parents to see what the parents are doing, they are…generally not reading novels. (They might even be trying to ban the novels that they’re not actually reading.)

Part of this has to do with the way reading is taught in schools, which often works to destroy the very pleasure principle that drives us to do what we do. Studies have shown that extrinsic motivation (offering someone a reward, such as a prize or a good grade) tends to destroy intrinsic motivation (the desire to do the activity simply for the sake of doing the activity), which worsens performance instead of improving it.

And part of this has to do with the fact that the culture doesn’t really understand the point of reading fiction. We prize efficiency, productivity, quantitative results, and ‘being busy’. Fiction seems too self-indulgent, so we tend to say, I just don’t have the time for it. (We do, however, have the time to watch hours of television a day, or go shopping, or aimlessly surf the Web, but whatever.)

We tend to say: I like to read books that actually teach me something.

Because in the end, what does fiction actually do for us? What’s the ROI? It’s not like it actually teaches us anything, or improves our lives in some measurable way…right?

2

The irony is that we are hardwired for narrative. We consume stories. We hunger for them, we gobble them up, we look for more. Television shows were invented solely to keep enough of us in one place long enough so that advertisers could sell us stuff that we don’t need and were doing fine without. Stories can be scripted – like LOST – or unscripted – like THE BACHELOR, or when Brad dumped Jennifer for Angelina, it doesn’t matter.

The brain is a funny thing. It doesn’t always distinguish between reality and the simulation of a reality. On some level, the brain doesn’t even distinguish between your friends and your favorite imaginary characters. (This might be why, when the 1980s show FAME killed off Nicole, I broke down and bawled like a baby. I was maybe twelve or thirteen at the time. This might also be why, in Victorian times, crowds swarmed the docks when the boats came in carrying the latest edition of Charles Dickens' serial novel. They cried out, “Is Nell dead?” and when the answer came back ‘yes’, there was weeping and hysteria.)

In fact, when you read about a character performing an action, your brain responds as if you were performing that action yourself. In so doing, your brain absorbs that experience as if it were your own and files it away in that repository of knowledge it can draw on in the future.

There is a survival benefit to this.

Say I’m a caveman, and you’re a caveman, and you come back to the cave one day saying, Dude! I ran into this huge hulking beast with teeth that are like THIS BIG and it seriously tried to eat my head, and I had to run up into a tree and hide until it went away and I needed to piss like a racehorse. Maybe I’ve never seen such a creature before, or even known that it existed, but by absorbing your story I absorb your experience and thus enlarge the field of my own. The next time I leave the cave, I know to keep my eyes peeled for the huge hulking beast, and to hide in a tree if it attacks me.

Even our fascination with celebrities – the stories of their lives – can be traced to evolutionary advantage. Humans are social animals, and it seems to be the way of things for the less powerful to study the powerful, and for the powerful to ignore everybody but their peers. By studying those who influence and rule us, we could figure out how to navigate their routines and personalities so that we could, maybe, poach a mate or steal some food or copy their tactics or in some way advance our own situation.

Narrative organizes information and allows us to remember it. It’s also through narrative that we impart meaning and value to events. In this way we do more than tell stories; we co-create the very reality that we live in. As any number of self-help books will tell you, if you want to change your life, you have to change yourself, and if you want to change the way you see yourself, you need to change the story that you tell yourself about yourself. Either your story empowers you – or it dooms you (a.k.a ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’).

We can not only use stories to transform ourselves, but to change others: to impact the way they see the world, to alter their own co-created reality.

Because here’s the thing. We are not the rational creatures we would like to think of ourselves as being. If we made rational decisions for rational reasons, Americans wouldn’t be nearly so overweight, addicted, or in debt as we are (and we are more these things than we’ve ever been in history). Our neocortex – that top layer of brain that enables self-awareness – is a relatively recent development. Our limbic brain (the middle, mammalian brain that runs on emotion) is much older and our reptilian brain (the bottom, primitive brain that runs on instinct) is older still. They’ve had a lot more time to figure out how to get what they want, which means our so-called ‘rational’ brain often gets co-opted, manipulated and overruled.

So in order to truly get through to another person, you have to enlist their emotional as well as their rational brain.

You have to charge your argument, your ideas, with emotion.

What better way to do this than through stories?

– to be continued —

image by Sophie Phelps

follow me on twitter

Comments

moschus
Feb. 21st, 2011 04:54 pm (UTC)
Fiction could teach people to be cruel and closed-minded? I'm sorry, but do you actually *read* fiction? The very act of reading engages multiple parts of the brain (and also encourages brain plasticity, particularly important as we get older) and forces you into the viewpoint of someone other than yourself; reading expands empathy, it doesn't restrict it. (Also there's a difference between fiction and *propoganda*.)

Smoking and drinking are actually on the rise among teenage girls. The fact that we're an overweight, in-debt nation: sugar is an addiction, as is shopping (a process-oriented addiction), and the Internet has exploded sex addiction* (also a process-oriented addiction) which is closely linked with computer addiction. Work addiction tends to be applauded in our culture. Not to mention that I write this as I sip my Starbucks, which benefits nicely from caffeine addiction.

*anyone who doubts that this is actually an addiction has never been exposed to it, or to the price these addicts and their family members pay for it
rahkan
Feb. 22nd, 2011 07:31 am (UTC)
I think I read a fair amount of fiction, at least enough to think that fiction can effectively induce a variety of mental states and attitudes, not all of which might be beneficial (at least from my point of view, though perhaps not that of the author...)

To make an extreme case, if one reads a steady diet of white supremacist literature like the Turner Diaries, then I doubt one's open-mindedness will increase.

Probably you won't agree with me that fiction can be harmful, but mine is not an uncommon viewpoint. As less extreme examples than the above, Don Quixote and Northanger Abbey are at least partly about mocking the silly mindsets that can be caused by overconsumption of certain kinds of stories.

To say that fiction can't have a negative effect is to devalue the importance of its content. While I would never condemn a person for reading what he or she wants to read, I have certainly felt, in my own life, that I've on occasion suffered harm from novels. For instance, I really love books that contain the pornography of oppression, like Aravind Adiga's White Tiger or Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. But I often think that by presenting scenes of oppression that are far divorced from my own time and place, these books make me complacent about the oppression in modern America. Perhaps I would care more about the injustices I can see if I had not been made so vividly (and perhaps falsely) aware of how much worse things can be.

To use your own example, what if the caveman told his friend a story about a fruitful land that lies just across the desert. If his friend started walking through the desert, and the land did not exist, then he would have died because of a story.

Edited at 2011-02-22 07:37 am (UTC)

About Me

I'm the author of three published novels: the dark fantasies BLOODANGEL and LORD OF BONES (Roc/Penguin) and the YA supernatural thriller UNINVITED (MTV/Simon&Schuster). I also have stories in the MAMMOTH BOOK OF VAMPIRE ROMANCE 2 and ZOMBIES: ENCOUNTERS WITH THE HUNGRY DEAD. I'm working on a psychological thriller called THE DECADENTS. I am divorced, with sons, and live in Bel Air.

Page Summary

Latest Month

August 2011
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow