Do you enjoy reading fiction or nonfiction ?

[refujiunderground]

i don't like reading at all. it's not interesting to me and i'm not patient when it comes to it. i just want to know the main point or what happens in the end. not really interested in finding out all the details. screw that.

 

[star-warrior]

I recently read Janny Wurt's Initiate's Trial, a fantasy fiction.

 

[SuperNatural]

Sex stories....

 

[pat grimshaw]

I believe in the maxim

If a book is not worth reading a second time, it was not worth reading.

 

[Scealle]

Depends on the mood. Sometimes fiction sometimes non fiction.

 

[cgymike]

Mostly fiction since the non-fiction out there is pretty much news on the net for me but I guess there are still some non-fiction subcategories like biographies that are occasionally worth a read. Also some of the "Dummies" books are useful intros. The other category might be nature or travel books (though most of these are strictly speaking a mix of fiction and non). But, looking at my Kindle selections it's almost 100% fiction though my bookshelves are more mixed. Wonder if the advent of e readers has meant more people read fiction?

 

[ravenstar]

I tend to read fiction. I like the escape it provides. I do read non-fiction for research and I'm always tempted by a true crime story, there's something about them that keeps me coming back.

 

[pat grimshaw]

^ I guess escaping with fiction is safer than escaping with booze

 

[Kulindahr]

I believe in the maxim

If a book is not worth reading a second time, it was not worth reading.

Except when it was so worth reading that touching it again lessens the experience. That's true of novels where the ending brings such a surprise that, once you know it, the rest of the book becomes lessened on a second read, because the tension and excitement generated by approaches you now know were wrong have been neutralized.


I read both, but only so long as they make me think.

 

[pat grimshaw]

.....That's true of novels where the ending brings such a surprise that, once you know it, the rest of the book becomes lessened on a second read......

You'll have to give an example of that to convince me. Because I can't think of a worthwhile novel which gets its worthiness from a plot device.

 

[Kulindahr]

You'll have to give an example of that to convince me. Because I can't think of a worthwhile novel which gets its worthiness from a plot device.

What "plot device"? ? ?

 

[pat grimshaw]

… the ending brings such a surprise….

I think an author devising a plot in order to surprise the reader is a 'plot device'.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think an author devising a plot in order to surprise the reader is a 'plot device'.

I think your grasp of literature is thin.

 

[pat grimshaw]

I think literature is more than plot.

I was hoping you'd give an example to illustrate your point back in #35. I hope you're not thinking of 'who-dun-it's as literature.

 

[Kulindahr]

I can think of three books right off, but they're in storage and I don't recall the titles. My favorite involves one where archaeologists are searching for a missing ancient treasure while scientists are trying to solve a geological mystery, and the two searches converge on the same thing. Only someone really into physics would have a chance at guessing the ending, which also catches almost all the characters off guard. Another one involves the seventh son of a seventh son, and if I say more I'll ruin the book, but once the ending comes, reading it again is pointless (Swerve might disagree with me there, maybe; he'd know what book I mean). These books almost always involve some concept that in retrospect seems not quite obvious, but the only possible explanation, one that surprises even the characters -- I recall one where the entire mystery of deaths and structural failure on ships and other phenomena made no sense at all, until the hapless hero stumbles on the answer almost too late, at which point it all makes perfect sense -- and knowing that answer ruins the book for future reading. In a way the thrill of the books depends on challenging the reader's worldview without him knowing that's happening, so once you've reached the end and your worldview has adjusted, the thrill is gone.

A parallel occurs to me with long-distance hiking. The first time on a trail is almost always the most exciting. But like with books, some trails are a great hike but not the sort that makes you want to come back, while others are like my reaction to certain amusement park rides: I get off, and sprint for the starting line again.

 

[pat grimshaw]

^ Hmmm I'll need awhile to think on that.

 

[birddog7]

Non fiction. Especially technical stuff...

 

[Kulindahr]

^ Hmmm I'll need awhile to think on that.

I will admit that except for those few (I haven't encountered many), my favorite novels get read and re-read. I could name a number of Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, Tom Clancy, and other authors some of whose novels I've finished, had a beer, rolled over, and started back on page one.

But this brings to mind that there's a set of novels in between those that are too good to read again, a kind I have awe toward the authors for: the ones where when read the second time, knowing the outcome/answer, it becomes effectively a different novel: almost everything has a different perspective or flavor. You can't really re-read the novel, but the author built it so well that it reads beautifully as a different story.

 

[Kulindahr]

forgot to add that i do like some sci-fi...DUNE being my favorite

DUNE I've read several times just as an example of where someone fires off an absolute classic of a novel... and never matches it again. I've found I can only enjoy the other books in that basket if I haven't read the original thing in ten years, because otherwise they totally pale in comparison.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm going to drop in a word for a very narrow genre: historical scholarly fiction. It's not quite science fiction, though it generally involves science. Often a story is in "answer" to the question of "What if so-and-so hadn't investigated X?", or "... had discovered Y instead?", or "... had learned Z before he thought of X (or Y)?" They can be entertaining to the non-scholar, while being absolute barn-burners for people who understand the scholarship involved (e.g. one where archaeologists made a discovery which seemed to totally overturn everything known about ancient Egypt -- I was riveted).