/lit/ - Literature

The second question is stupid and I know you're just playing around, but to answer the first one it's because I find most of it very dry.

>Would you seriously rather fill your head with the rambling thoughts of shut-ins and schizophrenics than immerse yourself with real, useful knowledge?
...Yes

Fiction ironically tends to contain more knowledge about life than non-fiction.

Facts don't tell you how to live OP.

>>8715360


duh, idiot

>>8715611
Agreed. Reading certain fiction authors has vastly improved my life, or at least my outlook on it.

The problem with non-fiction is that you always need other perspectives -- because any particular book will have its own slant (even if it's a small slant), which will need to be balanced by other takes.

With fiction, singular takes are the entire point.

Non-fiction is great. I've read the entire David Attenborough series, along with some stuff about ancient Minoan and Cretan civilization, and a whole book on native lichens and mosses. And some shit on art history but that was for university and was mind-numbingly tedious.

>>8715360
Because it's boring

>>8715360
I predominantly read non-fiction.

But I do like non fiction.

I tend to alternate between the two with every book. Keeps a good balance for me.

>>8715360
I read about 90 percent non-fiction. Wish we talked about it more here.

>>8715611
You are a fucking moron if you really think that.

'non-fiction' is a euphemism for popular, 'accessible' versions of dry academic topics. Its a waste of time.

>>8715360
>Would you seriously rather fill your head with the rambling thoughts of shut-ins and schizophrenics
Isn't that what non-fiction is?

>>8717170
The non-fiction in bookshops is shite and literally pseud. If you want to read teh real stuff you have to go to a college library and/or internet sources.

>>8715611
Knowledge.. more like reframing of emotional responses to life's challenges.

And of course it has to be backed by authority bias. Highbrow. Muh Classics.

This is non-fictional knowledge btw.

non-fiction is just as fictitious as fiction

>>8715376
tbqh ive been getting into non-fiction, and some books are very good. I recommend "the right stuff" by tom wolf

I would never have guessed non-fiction can even provide a target before this thread.

Judging from the replies you equate it to popsci, pophis etc. and that is not real knowledge (tm)?

>>8717228

Pop-anything will sacrifice facts and thoughtful writing in favour of entertainment. Those books are written to sell well and have few other considerations.

Serious non fiction already has a captive market of academics and college students so they don't have to whore themselves as much, although I'm sure it still happens. I'm also fairly sure that the market for serious books has suffered just like the market for all books has suffered.

The college student who might have spent a weekend reading Foucault or Barthes now spends it marathoning netflix.

What use is "information" without developing any skills of discernment to be able to process and use it? Without that it's just pumping your head with trivia and thinking that makes you smart. It's appearance with no substance.

>>8717281
Not to mention most non-fiction is pop filler garbage. That without a bullshit detector is really bad news.

>>8716122
>Wish we talked about it more here.
You have every other board on 4chan for that. Read some art theory? Go to the art board. Read history? Go to the history board. Read about physics, biology, or economy?...etc

>>8715360
One day you'll realize language as it is aesthetically grasped is the only possible gateway to "real, useful knowledge"

PLEB!