Knowledge is power. I’m sure we’ve all heard that line before. It’s clear then that non-fiction and useful forms of literature such as encyclopedias and maps are powerful.
If someone were to horde a huge collection of textbooks, including all the ones still in print, we may consider it a huge consolidation of power, where those who have access to this private library are more powerful than us common folk who can only afford to own so many books. Subscribers to JSTOR and Elsevier are quite lucky in this regard.
If that’s the case, then what about fiction? What about Stephen King? Shakespeare? The Great Gatsby? What about a huge library of snugly fireplace literature, best enjoyed with a hot beverage?
Perhaps owning a library of non fiction is to owning a library of fiction is what owning a hospital is to owning a gym?
Fiction allows us to learn the lessons of mistakes without having made them ourselves
Non-fiction does this too, history provides many examples of what not to do.
fiction can pose questions and thoughts in ways that non-fiction never could.
Like, for example, Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein. do you think it would have been cool of her to pursue the questions posed in that book- humanism, the nature of life, sapience and the power of creation; the hazards of science and morality of research gone amok- or do you perhaps think maybe posing it as a story raised induring questions?
What about The Day The Earth Stood Still, written at the start of the Red Scare- and questioning the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction?
How about the plethora of books looking at sexuality under the guise of fantasy? do you think, through the years, those authors would be safe? Or any of the fantasy and scifi, or the speculative fiction that dares ask ‘what if…’ around some uncomfortable topics? Like freedom.
Non-fiction explores what is. Fiction explores what could be. Both are necessary.
Yes, it can be very powerful. Look at what the writer of the Bible has achieved or Ron L. Hubbard.
deleted by creator
Sure is. To give some examples, Jules Verne wrote fiction, but his vision greatly influences our world to this day. Asimov and his works are probably one of the most influential on discussions around AI and ethics of AI. Werner von Braun and Korolev were both inspired by the work of Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (though I guess this was equal amount of research and speculative ideas). The list goes on…
Literature is only really powerful if you can apply the knowledge in some productive means. You can download the entirety of publications available on Elsevier, but will only ever be able to utilize a tiny fraction given time, skill, and education constraints. You might argue that having access to a host of literature and being able to distribute said power to people able to use it accordingly might make you powerful as well, but then again, you’re more of a mailman to the ones actually wielding the power. With the caveat that you could selectively restrict access.
Fiction on the other hand has no real-life impact, but is easier to be understood by all, and might in turn spur you into action or inaction, channel creative energy, or at worst, allow you to pass time without boredom. Certainly a different level of power, but not to be dismissed either.
deleted by creator
Fiction I think is much more important than non-fiction. It explores the human condition and the nature of reality. It’s been shown that people who read fiction more are more empathetic. The reason is clear - reading puts you in the mind of another. It allows you to visualize their perspective.
This is not only good generally because empathy makes the world a better place, it’s even good in a machiavellian sense because the better you understand humans the better you can manipulate them.
There’s a quote by Twain I believe where he says something like “Fiction is much more real than non-fiction. Reality doesn’t have to make sense, but fiction does”
