"Economics isn’t the world; it’s a model of the world. Often it’s pretty close to the world, sometimes not. It deals in a particular part of life. Literature is also a model, but not a model that tries to generalise. It also deals in particular parts of life. They are, in this way, complements. If literature isn’t giving Noah what he wants, that might be more of a reason for him to read it." To this I would add the aphorism "All models are wrong, but some are useful." If economics has utility, then literature surely does as well.
Also: “People wonder why the novel is the most popular form of literature; people wonder why it is read more than books of science or books of metaphysics. The reason is very simple; it is merely that the novel is more true than they are.”
I've heard similar thoughts from people who strictly read nonfiction and avoid fiction to "learn something", but I haven't heard this specific take about unrealistic literary characters being dangerous to readers looking to understand the world.
"The best literary authors are typically incredibly skilled at making up fascinating fantasy people. But this skill is extremely dangerous, because it can give the reader a false impression of what human beings are like."
This kind of made me go "hmmm" because Noah often veers off track from his econ writing into geopolitics, which he has zero background in and it sometimes shows, and now cultural commentary, with a massive following reading his posts as gospel. This take, for example, involves no journalism/investigation/expert opinions, just his own ideas thrown against the wall. If a novel is dangerous then so is a random Substack, and I don't think he wants to go there.
Noah is quite wrong about Ahab. On average real people are not like Captain Ahab, for obvious reasons, but many real people are more like Captain Ahab than standard economic theory would predict.
And certainly many people have some Ishmael in them. One of the interesting parts of Moby Dick is working through what happens when an Ishmael-type agent interacts with an Ahab-type agent.
I don't think this is right. Purely descriptive work is something like "fact", but that's a minority in economics. Most academic economics is statistical or theoretical modeling, which is closer to "truth" than "fact".
Economic modeling is an abstracted interpretation of data—facts—sometimes collectively true, sometimes extremely misleading. Great literature is more or less the opposite, spinning the truth from the pretend regardless of its “subjunctivity” (degree of realism)
I haven’t read all the comments, but I admire the charity in your argument.
I believe that we read to learn, or that when we read we learn. Of life, people, society, custom, conduct, etc. We grow as we read. It’s analogous (but surely superior) to the human interest in soap operas.
We read for other reasons as well and I agree with the dimly recalled injunction that, every now and again, one should read a textbook.
It’s all compatible in my view, but I generally read fiction (anything that is written is, after all, fictive in a sense). Thank you, Henry.
Agreed. Including The Fountain Overflows: the child is so clear about the behaviour of adults. And reading surely is about pleasure, not utility. We can be carried away by the music of the prose, and forget utility.
Regarding Noah Smith and his comments on literary fiction. We come to fiction / literary fiction for a lot of reasons but certainly one of them is precisely the same reason we listen to great music or stand before a great painting. We want an experience of some kind. An experience of beauty…sonic beauty, visual beauty, narrative elegance. Beautiful storytelling that transports. Something that shows us, as James Baldwin has said, ‘the doom and glory of knowing who you are and what you are.’
What he wrote is the perfect example of the illiteracy of the average contemporary pundit and college graduate - and of course he's a lost cause, the suggestions won't do him any good, even if he does read them.
My name is Pamela. My mother was reading the book when she was pregnant with me. Not exactly fiction. It was based on letters between a servant and her parents asking their advice . She was frightened. The Master of the house was making sexual advances. She fought off so successfully, he married her to get his wicked way. The subtitle of the book is Virtue Rewarded.
"Economics isn’t the world; it’s a model of the world. Often it’s pretty close to the world, sometimes not. It deals in a particular part of life. Literature is also a model, but not a model that tries to generalise. It also deals in particular parts of life. They are, in this way, complements. If literature isn’t giving Noah what he wants, that might be more of a reason for him to read it." To this I would add the aphorism "All models are wrong, but some are useful." If economics has utility, then literature surely does as well.
Yes agreed
Also: “People wonder why the novel is the most popular form of literature; people wonder why it is read more than books of science or books of metaphysics. The reason is very simple; it is merely that the novel is more true than they are.”
―G.K. Chesterton
I've heard similar thoughts from people who strictly read nonfiction and avoid fiction to "learn something", but I haven't heard this specific take about unrealistic literary characters being dangerous to readers looking to understand the world.
"The best literary authors are typically incredibly skilled at making up fascinating fantasy people. But this skill is extremely dangerous, because it can give the reader a false impression of what human beings are like."
This kind of made me go "hmmm" because Noah often veers off track from his econ writing into geopolitics, which he has zero background in and it sometimes shows, and now cultural commentary, with a massive following reading his posts as gospel. This take, for example, involves no journalism/investigation/expert opinions, just his own ideas thrown against the wall. If a novel is dangerous then so is a random Substack, and I don't think he wants to go there.
Noah is quite wrong about Ahab. On average real people are not like Captain Ahab, for obvious reasons, but many real people are more like Captain Ahab than standard economic theory would predict.
And certainly many people have some Ishmael in them. One of the interesting parts of Moby Dick is working through what happens when an Ishmael-type agent interacts with an Ahab-type agent.
Yeah exactly so
He is confusing fact with truth
Certainly one part of it yeah
I don't think this is right. Purely descriptive work is something like "fact", but that's a minority in economics. Most academic economics is statistical or theoretical modeling, which is closer to "truth" than "fact".
Economic modeling is an abstracted interpretation of data—facts—sometimes collectively true, sometimes extremely misleading. Great literature is more or less the opposite, spinning the truth from the pretend regardless of its “subjunctivity” (degree of realism)
I haven’t read all the comments, but I admire the charity in your argument.
I believe that we read to learn, or that when we read we learn. Of life, people, society, custom, conduct, etc. We grow as we read. It’s analogous (but surely superior) to the human interest in soap operas.
We read for other reasons as well and I agree with the dimly recalled injunction that, every now and again, one should read a textbook.
It’s all compatible in my view, but I generally read fiction (anything that is written is, after all, fictive in a sense). Thank you, Henry.
Agreed. Including The Fountain Overflows: the child is so clear about the behaviour of adults. And reading surely is about pleasure, not utility. We can be carried away by the music of the prose, and forget utility.
I think it’s both. Yes the child in that book is amazing.
Then there's Michael Suk-Young Chwe's "Jane Austen, Game Theorist"... Maybe something in there you can both agree on!
Love that book
Though I read far less fiction that I once did, this essay is an inspiration to reconsider my reading practice. Thanks for that!
Good!
Thank you for this post. You're always fun and instructive to read and this is one of your best. So insightful.
Oh thanks :)
Agree, even when I don’t’ agree with Henry, I enjoy the reading.
And this time I agree 100%
High on his own supply!
Regarding Noah Smith and his comments on literary fiction. We come to fiction / literary fiction for a lot of reasons but certainly one of them is precisely the same reason we listen to great music or stand before a great painting. We want an experience of some kind. An experience of beauty…sonic beauty, visual beauty, narrative elegance. Beautiful storytelling that transports. Something that shows us, as James Baldwin has said, ‘the doom and glory of knowing who you are and what you are.’
Maybe nothing more to see here other than another frustrated Bayseian economist getting his priors on the human condition invalidated thru fiction
What he wrote is the perfect example of the illiteracy of the average contemporary pundit and college graduate - and of course he's a lost cause, the suggestions won't do him any good, even if he does read them.
I love Noah’s writing but he was a bit, uh, narrow in his perspective here. This is a perfect pitch for how and why to widen it.
Suspend disbelief or watch the news.
I was wrong about Samuel Richardson's Pamela. According to Co Pilot, he claimed to have found genuine letters but didn't.
My name is Pamela. My mother was reading the book when she was pregnant with me. Not exactly fiction. It was based on letters between a servant and her parents asking their advice . She was frightened. The Master of the house was making sexual advances. She fought off so successfully, he married her to get his wicked way. The subtitle of the book is Virtue Rewarded.