Like any literature, fiction can be of high quality and can be trash. Besides a lot of fiction is based on events which really happened only the names or some situations can be of fantasy.
Having said that reality beats fiction by far, we live in a planet where real things happen so often to raise the question of how much room is left for fiction. Unless people are in a escapist mood and want to evade reality. Such an approach will bring after a while to a sad awakening.
I'm just about done with Cowen's Create Your Own Economy. Part of his argument, I think, is that our interiority has never been more relevant--the way we organize our mental lives goes up in status as our lives are increasingly compartmentalized and whittled down into smaller and smaller 'bits' of culture. Even if fiction--especially the best fiction--helps each of us only a tiny amount in connecting these spheres, then it is worth a shot.
But if I improve over time, will it be because of the fiction? Who knows! It is a fun one to ponder. Our quest goes beyond reading.
Regarding the progress aspect at the end of the essay, I did notice that Cowen's book, while excellent underrates, his audience in a few places. Because he wrote the book in 2009 and this is now 2024, we as a culture have made progress in how we think about some of these issues. Autism included (a bit part of the book is examining our mental framework for variant neurologies in a given population). So, we are better readers, better travelers, now than back in good old 2009.
What a great book! Agree with you and think it's a very good book to read these days. I think that is the one that was re-titled The Age of the Infovore, which is my favourite of his books that I have read. I can't remember him underrating the audience, but things have changed a lot. (It was pre NeuroTribes?) It's impressive how much it holds up. He uses the Pessoa quote about buying little dreams at one point which I love.
didn't realize that it was retitled! ha I've got a library copy of the old one.
Yes that quote!
Sooo impressive how it all holds up. I wasn't thinking of anything like how he refers to a particular group, but rather how he over-explains a few times (not a habit that I associate with Cowen). A very very minor critique. His only crime imo was to spell a few things out about neurodivergence that wouldn't require an explanations nowadays.
Great discussion. Fiction’s value cannot be reduced to mere entertainment or a way to “fill up time.” This perspective overlooks the profound ways in which fiction enriches individuals and societies. It serves as a bridge to empathy, allowing readers to inhabit lives, perspectives, and experiences different from their own. Through this imaginative exercise, we develop a deeper understanding of the human condition, fostering emotional intelligence and compassion.
Moreover, fiction challenges us to grapple with complex ideas, moral dilemmas, and societal issues in ways that non-fiction often cannot. It provides a safe space to explore existential questions and confront uncomfortable truths, enabling us to think critically about ourselves and the world. Writers like George Orwell, Toni Morrison, and Gabriel García Márquez have used fiction to expose injustices, question authority, and reimagine historical narratives, influencing social and political change.
Fiction also enriches our inner lives. It teaches us to find beauty in language, nuance in characters, and meaning in ambiguity. Far from being passive entertainment, engaging with well-crafted fiction requires mental effort, reflection, and an openness to new interpretations. It also helps us make sense of our experiences, offering solace, insight, and sometimes a map for navigating life’s complexities.
While not every work of fiction aspires to be life-changing, the cumulative effect of literature on humanity is undeniable. Dismissing fiction as frivolous ignores its ability to shape thought, inspire action, and connect people across time and cultures. It is not the fault of fiction if some works are superficial; it is a testament to its greatness that it has the potential to transcend mere entertainment and profoundly affect our lives.
I actually feel that this is a major difference between my parents and me. They never read much so they never learned to examine and question their emotions, so they are quite emotionally immature and unaware of this. I think I am somewhat more mature, and more aware of when I do fail.
I'm a big reader of fiction. It entertains me, helps me think, and makes me a more imaginative person. But I don't think fiction and literature foster empathy or moral development. A compelling example is the Auschwitz commandant, a well-read, learned man who, during the day, sent countless individuals to their deaths yet returned home to play beautiful piano music for his children.
History is full of figures who contributed significantly to the arts yet were responsible for atrocities—leaders involved in wars, genocides, and oppression often had rich cultural lives. Psychological research supports the idea that empathy and moral reasoning are complex and not really influenced by exposure to literature or art.
Roger Scruton has a good take on this topic in Culture Counts. The fiction we read (unconsciously) primes our intuition on how we should think about and respond to situations. When this type of situation comes up in our lives, these stories influence our attitudes and behaviors. Thus, culture and values are passed down in large part via the stories and literature we have imbibed, for better or for worse. Scruton of course laments the postmodern attack on values and norms - of literature but not limited to literature - as a deliberate disruption of the transmission of Western culture, values, and worldview to the next generations.
This is such a fascinating topic and a lovely piece. The blessed un-generalizability of it makes it one that will never quite be resolved. I do appreciate and respect Gwern's views on this, though I'm coming from a very different place, in that I seem to trust people more in their interpretive processes, if not their outcomes (which is likely a huge pitfall). To take on one of his points: I believe that studies on the effects of priming have been proven to be at most romantic and at the very least over-exaggerated since the days of Daniel Kahneman. I'm more in favor of a sort of Borgesian "re-enchantment with a few caveats" when it comes to how the imagination has been conceptually siloed, commodified, and compartmentalized to portions of daily life that accommodate ascendant "scientized" frames that implicitly postulate a future optimum state.
Anyhow, thinking in these terms led me to the idea that, taking the premise at hand seriously, it would probably be a case of "proper dosage" for fiction to be "medicinal" or "poisonous." However, of course, it's tough to pinpoint moments of intentional edification, or even deliberate and effective didactic-ism, in any comprehension metrics that postulate unambiguous monophonic meaning from often polyphonic structures. It might be even more difficult, in contrast, to identify points of accidental edification in narratives that have no pedagogical intent; that is, except through exploring the inherent presuppositions, such as a certain level of literacy, specific cultural exposures, the requisite partial (at a minimum) suspension of disbelief, and the ability to "parallel process," among other factors that help "metabolize" a novel somewhere close to on its own terms. That's not even really getting into the muck: the human penchant for pattern recognition and the ability to see narratives (and faces) where none exist.
I think (or think I think) that these studies sometimes come along due to legitimacy crises in quantified social sciences and the humanities, as they are often revealingly preoccupied with the practicality and "usefulness" of reading fiction. The worst examples of it that I've seen have demonstrated a dehumanizing abjection that masquerades as a celebration of literature's value, as such value is conceived based on what it does (for "us," the implied and highly suspicious Royal We) rather than what it is in and of itself, a compromise between intrinsic existential qualities and measurements in service of retroactive justification.
As far as looking to poetry for critical thinking skills, I suppose this lends credibility to certain forms of value in terms of reading and understanding as decryption processes, whether it's through the determination of an unreliable narrator based on various clues or simply utilizing explicit context and symbolic order to glean what a study could absurdly call "conclusive meaning." I really appreciated your third footnote, as the poor design of the effort is abundantly clear due to precisely the lack of mind's-eye-to-face alignment that you point out.
The last thing I will mention is a study that I recently heard cited anecdotally: the less legible that a font is, the more critical attention and comprehension from the reader. This tells me that, though much of the quality and intent of one's attention to the reading are fixed in advance, there are aspects of the text's representation itself that show the importance of timing ("knowing when and how to be disagreeable matters an awful lot," a la Aristotle on anger) as well as the pace and rhythm of one's "digestion" of reading material that can catalyze a real reciprocal process of engagement and integration, relatively speaking, on and off the page.
I wrote about this article in my latest article. You entirely misrepresent and fundamentally misunderstand the research on literature and theory of mind. I argue that your refusal to engage seriously with scientific research is an example of the hostility towards scientific approaches to the study of literature that is the norm among literary scholars and other devotees of literature.
Thanks. You'd make more progress with this if you weren't so hostile, and if you didn't get so speculative. You couldn't be more wrong about my attitude to science, for example. If writing a long article about these studies isn't engaging seriously I don't know what is. My assessment of them isn't as wide of the mark as you say, and if you weren't so rhetorical we could actually have a discussion about this! The idea that a lab test based on reading some passages and looking at photographs of people's eyes can be generalised to the level you are talking about is hugely speculative. The claim under review is that prolonged reading of the humanities has major long-term benefits, not that passages selected with fairly broad criteria make you better at judging facial expressions.
Like any literature, fiction can be of high quality and can be trash. Besides a lot of fiction is based on events which really happened only the names or some situations can be of fantasy.
Having said that reality beats fiction by far, we live in a planet where real things happen so often to raise the question of how much room is left for fiction. Unless people are in a escapist mood and want to evade reality. Such an approach will bring after a while to a sad awakening.
I'm just about done with Cowen's Create Your Own Economy. Part of his argument, I think, is that our interiority has never been more relevant--the way we organize our mental lives goes up in status as our lives are increasingly compartmentalized and whittled down into smaller and smaller 'bits' of culture. Even if fiction--especially the best fiction--helps each of us only a tiny amount in connecting these spheres, then it is worth a shot.
But if I improve over time, will it be because of the fiction? Who knows! It is a fun one to ponder. Our quest goes beyond reading.
Regarding the progress aspect at the end of the essay, I did notice that Cowen's book, while excellent underrates, his audience in a few places. Because he wrote the book in 2009 and this is now 2024, we as a culture have made progress in how we think about some of these issues. Autism included (a bit part of the book is examining our mental framework for variant neurologies in a given population). So, we are better readers, better travelers, now than back in good old 2009.
What a great book! Agree with you and think it's a very good book to read these days. I think that is the one that was re-titled The Age of the Infovore, which is my favourite of his books that I have read. I can't remember him underrating the audience, but things have changed a lot. (It was pre NeuroTribes?) It's impressive how much it holds up. He uses the Pessoa quote about buying little dreams at one point which I love.
didn't realize that it was retitled! ha I've got a library copy of the old one.
Yes that quote!
Sooo impressive how it all holds up. I wasn't thinking of anything like how he refers to a particular group, but rather how he over-explains a few times (not a habit that I associate with Cowen). A very very minor critique. His only crime imo was to spell a few things out about neurodivergence that wouldn't require an explanations nowadays.
Great discussion. Fiction’s value cannot be reduced to mere entertainment or a way to “fill up time.” This perspective overlooks the profound ways in which fiction enriches individuals and societies. It serves as a bridge to empathy, allowing readers to inhabit lives, perspectives, and experiences different from their own. Through this imaginative exercise, we develop a deeper understanding of the human condition, fostering emotional intelligence and compassion.
Moreover, fiction challenges us to grapple with complex ideas, moral dilemmas, and societal issues in ways that non-fiction often cannot. It provides a safe space to explore existential questions and confront uncomfortable truths, enabling us to think critically about ourselves and the world. Writers like George Orwell, Toni Morrison, and Gabriel García Márquez have used fiction to expose injustices, question authority, and reimagine historical narratives, influencing social and political change.
Fiction also enriches our inner lives. It teaches us to find beauty in language, nuance in characters, and meaning in ambiguity. Far from being passive entertainment, engaging with well-crafted fiction requires mental effort, reflection, and an openness to new interpretations. It also helps us make sense of our experiences, offering solace, insight, and sometimes a map for navigating life’s complexities.
While not every work of fiction aspires to be life-changing, the cumulative effect of literature on humanity is undeniable. Dismissing fiction as frivolous ignores its ability to shape thought, inspire action, and connect people across time and cultures. It is not the fault of fiction if some works are superficial; it is a testament to its greatness that it has the potential to transcend mere entertainment and profoundly affect our lives.
Thank you for your insights. I was grappling with trying to form a response and you have said it beautifully.
I actually feel that this is a major difference between my parents and me. They never read much so they never learned to examine and question their emotions, so they are quite emotionally immature and unaware of this. I think I am somewhat more mature, and more aware of when I do fail.
I'm a big reader of fiction. It entertains me, helps me think, and makes me a more imaginative person. But I don't think fiction and literature foster empathy or moral development. A compelling example is the Auschwitz commandant, a well-read, learned man who, during the day, sent countless individuals to their deaths yet returned home to play beautiful piano music for his children.
History is full of figures who contributed significantly to the arts yet were responsible for atrocities—leaders involved in wars, genocides, and oppression often had rich cultural lives. Psychological research supports the idea that empathy and moral reasoning are complex and not really influenced by exposure to literature or art.
i don't think the old nazi thing proves very much, but yes I agree, not even reading philosophy seems to affect moral reasoning very much
Roger Scruton has a good take on this topic in Culture Counts. The fiction we read (unconsciously) primes our intuition on how we should think about and respond to situations. When this type of situation comes up in our lives, these stories influence our attitudes and behaviors. Thus, culture and values are passed down in large part via the stories and literature we have imbibed, for better or for worse. Scruton of course laments the postmodern attack on values and norms - of literature but not limited to literature - as a deliberate disruption of the transmission of Western culture, values, and worldview to the next generations.
ah not familiar will look it up (though generally not a fan of his work)
> At some point we have to accept that there are limits on what empirical research can tell us.
Isn't agnosticism the most appropriate stance in reaction to that?
This is such a fascinating topic and a lovely piece. The blessed un-generalizability of it makes it one that will never quite be resolved. I do appreciate and respect Gwern's views on this, though I'm coming from a very different place, in that I seem to trust people more in their interpretive processes, if not their outcomes (which is likely a huge pitfall). To take on one of his points: I believe that studies on the effects of priming have been proven to be at most romantic and at the very least over-exaggerated since the days of Daniel Kahneman. I'm more in favor of a sort of Borgesian "re-enchantment with a few caveats" when it comes to how the imagination has been conceptually siloed, commodified, and compartmentalized to portions of daily life that accommodate ascendant "scientized" frames that implicitly postulate a future optimum state.
Anyhow, thinking in these terms led me to the idea that, taking the premise at hand seriously, it would probably be a case of "proper dosage" for fiction to be "medicinal" or "poisonous." However, of course, it's tough to pinpoint moments of intentional edification, or even deliberate and effective didactic-ism, in any comprehension metrics that postulate unambiguous monophonic meaning from often polyphonic structures. It might be even more difficult, in contrast, to identify points of accidental edification in narratives that have no pedagogical intent; that is, except through exploring the inherent presuppositions, such as a certain level of literacy, specific cultural exposures, the requisite partial (at a minimum) suspension of disbelief, and the ability to "parallel process," among other factors that help "metabolize" a novel somewhere close to on its own terms. That's not even really getting into the muck: the human penchant for pattern recognition and the ability to see narratives (and faces) where none exist.
I think (or think I think) that these studies sometimes come along due to legitimacy crises in quantified social sciences and the humanities, as they are often revealingly preoccupied with the practicality and "usefulness" of reading fiction. The worst examples of it that I've seen have demonstrated a dehumanizing abjection that masquerades as a celebration of literature's value, as such value is conceived based on what it does (for "us," the implied and highly suspicious Royal We) rather than what it is in and of itself, a compromise between intrinsic existential qualities and measurements in service of retroactive justification.
As far as looking to poetry for critical thinking skills, I suppose this lends credibility to certain forms of value in terms of reading and understanding as decryption processes, whether it's through the determination of an unreliable narrator based on various clues or simply utilizing explicit context and symbolic order to glean what a study could absurdly call "conclusive meaning." I really appreciated your third footnote, as the poor design of the effort is abundantly clear due to precisely the lack of mind's-eye-to-face alignment that you point out.
The last thing I will mention is a study that I recently heard cited anecdotally: the less legible that a font is, the more critical attention and comprehension from the reader. This tells me that, though much of the quality and intent of one's attention to the reading are fixed in advance, there are aspects of the text's representation itself that show the importance of timing ("knowing when and how to be disagreeable matters an awful lot," a la Aristotle on anger) as well as the pace and rhythm of one's "digestion" of reading material that can catalyze a real reciprocal process of engagement and integration, relatively speaking, on and off the page.
Loved this! Put simply, fiction produces inspiration and imagination
To indict fiction is to condemn imagination and execute creativity. That I cannot abide by.
I wrote about this article in my latest article. You entirely misrepresent and fundamentally misunderstand the research on literature and theory of mind. I argue that your refusal to engage seriously with scientific research is an example of the hostility towards scientific approaches to the study of literature that is the norm among literary scholars and other devotees of literature.
https://open.substack.com/pub/eclecticinquiries/p/why-do-literary-people-hate-science?r=4952v2&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Thanks. You'd make more progress with this if you weren't so hostile, and if you didn't get so speculative. You couldn't be more wrong about my attitude to science, for example. If writing a long article about these studies isn't engaging seriously I don't know what is. My assessment of them isn't as wide of the mark as you say, and if you weren't so rhetorical we could actually have a discussion about this! The idea that a lab test based on reading some passages and looking at photographs of people's eyes can be generalised to the level you are talking about is hugely speculative. The claim under review is that prolonged reading of the humanities has major long-term benefits, not that passages selected with fairly broad criteria make you better at judging facial expressions.