I don't think it's strange that I don't read fiction. I've met plenty of other "creative" people who don't read fiction either. Nothing against other people reading fiction, I'm just not interested in it.
I watch movies and I'll watch TV shows, but if I'm going to spend dozens and dozens of hours reading, I'd rather read about something that's real. There's plenty of creativity in the real world. More than I'd ever be able to discover in 100 lifetimes.
I watch movies and I'll watch TV shows ... There's plenty of creativity in the real world
You realize that movies and TV shows most certainly do not constitute the "real world"?
Nobody says you have to read fiction. But it's really a shame to take the weaker forms of escapism the world has to offer you rather than the deeper, ecstatic ones, just because the latter are in book form.
I don't think he's taking "weaker" forms of escapism as he's taking shorter ones.
I still find his stance different as a lover of fiction, but I can't argue that a good book isn't also very time consuming, and if you allow that your time is precious, there are probably better uses for it.
I think TV shows and movies are weaker. Movies can't do what books can do because you don't create them in your mind as you consume them (or at least not in the same way).
But I can see why for some people, the basic realism of film might take them even further than a book and their own imagination. My original post sounded a bit more judgmental than intended.
He is most definitely not speaking like TV and movies are the real world as your quote seems to make out. I also tend to stay away from fiction other than the occasional short story and find that autobiographies and other forms of non-fiction offer a nice creative boost in their writing.
I will come out and say it: categorically dismissing fictional books as "not real" (and therefor uninteresting) is both strange and stupid.
Fiction can be as real as the author wishes to make it, as an endeavor to elucidate their ideas and insights regarding the 'real world' through the telling of a story. I'd never be so audacious as to state "I hate non-fiction, there's very little to learn from boorish, presumptuous, and poorly considered interpretations of the author's reality"
This sort of navel-gazing article is uninteresting and of questionable real-world value, reminiscent of breathless puff pieces on the (soon to be forgotten) luminaries of .com technology that were so popular in the mid to late 1990s.
It's not real. At best it is anecdotal. It's a story. It's imagination. It's entertainment. It's a very expensive form of entertainment when you value your time.
It's not about having the time or not, it's about what you choose to read when you do have the time.
The difference is that when you read fiction, you are in a world, a physical land that is entirely constructed by the mind of the author. The characters aren't bound by the same laws of physics that you and I are. When characters make decisions, the other characters react in the way the author wants, but real people may not react that way.
With nonfiction, there are rules. With fiction, there are no rules. In fact, you don't know what the rules are when you read fiction.
You know that quote about those who don't read history are doomed to repeat it? Well, there is a lot of history to read.
They're two different universes. One, fiction, is framed in a universe where we don't exist. The other, nonfiction, is in the same universe we all share here. In fiction, what goes up may not come down. If you shape your life or make decisions based on fictional ideas, they don't always apply in the real world. Sometimes they may, but mostly they do not.
Yes, you are right, lots of insights can be gained from fiction. I learned a lot reading slaughterhouse five. It's fiction, but it's also pretty real in a way. I learned a lot from 1984. I learn a lot from science fiction.
But there are is also a lot to learn and a lot of insights to be gained from nonfiction as well. Truth is stranger than fiction.
Think of it this way. If you only read fiction for the rest of your life, could you program a computer? Could you build a house? Could you understand quantum mechanics or any myriad other practical skills? Probably not.
This of course is my opinion, but if I had to choose between a future life of only fiction reading or a future life of only nonfiction reading, I would choose nonfiction. I think nonfiction is a better learning tool and a greater benefit to my life than fiction, because through nonfiction, I can learn facts that I can't learn through fiction. It's actually difficult and confusing sometimes to decipher truth from fiction.
Think of it this way. If you only read fiction for the rest of your life, could you program a computer? Could you build a house? Could you understand quantum mechanics or any myriad other practical skills? Probably not.
My practical skills are only useful in their relation to my human condition, both of which warrant exploration.
This of course is my opinion, but if I had to choose between a future life of only fiction reading or a future life of only nonfiction reading, I would choose nonfiction.
Fortunately for all of us, that choice is entirely unnecessary, and I've no problem suggesting that anyone who actually dismisses either fiction or non-fiction is demonstrating a remarkable, frightening lack of insight.
Do you believe the human condition cannot be explored through nonfiction? Would you entertain the idea that perhaps it may be possible to explore the human condition deeper and more profoundly through nonfiction than through fiction?
I think it's actually quite insightful to understand that.
Find me a fiction book more profoundly descriptive of the human condition than The Divided Self by RD Laing.
Do you believe the human condition cannot be explored through nonfiction?
No.
Would you entertain the idea that perhaps it may be possible to explore the human condition deeper and more profoundly through nonfiction than through fiction?
It's not a contest.
Find me a fiction book more profoundly descriptive of the human condition than The Divided Self by RD Laing.
You don't believe his book is an exploration of his own personal perspective on reality and meaning?
I believe it is a contest, because we have a limited amount of time on earth. If you could do either A or B and you believe B is better, then why would you do A?
Of course The Divided Self is his exploration of the topic, but it's sold in the nonfiction section.
I believe it is a contest, because we have a limited amount of time on earth.
Well, you have enough time to comment here. Is this really a better exploration of the human condition (or whatever it is you want to achieve through reading) than non-fiction books?
If you could do either A or B and you believe B is better, then why would you do A?
In reality, fiction and non-fiction are not mutually exclusive unless you're obtuse enough to make them so. They're not even clearly distinct in their value or purpose.
Using language like "obtuse" isn't really conducive to conversation. They are different. Yes, there can be facts in a fiction book and fiction in a nonfiction book, but they are categorized differently. Humans need groups to put things in and we put books into groups based on fact and based on imagination.
I'm actually doing about 5 things right now. Playing a poker tournament, chatting with my wife, commenting here, watching an animal documentary on tv, and designing a new feature for my web application.
I agree strongly with your stance on fiction, and am of a similar mind. I was surprised to see someone share it, especially a known "creative" personality, given the tight coupledness of fiction to the worldview and mass-cultural constellation of the technical profession.
Movies and TV shows are principally fiction, sure; I think the salient distinction that people who are prejudiced against "fiction" make is as to the realism and real-world viability of what is involved, i.e. the way that "historical fiction" might stand in contradistinction with Harry Potter-style "fantasy."
I, for instance, as an otherwise ardent nonfictionalist, enjoy Star Trek, but don't enjoy Harry Potter or Tolkien novels. Take that for what it's worth.
Do you not read fiction at all ever, or just not regularly?
I don't regularly read fiction, but I have about 3 novels that I've read in my lifetime that were absolutely spell binding, like the best movie * 1000. Never been absolutely tied to a book that you literally can't put it down until you finish it?
I don't read fiction at all anymore. Used to, but I have limited time for reading these days so I choose to focus on non-fiction. That's what I find the most stimulating and interesting.
You don't really get to see into the author's mind when you are reading non-fiction; it's all about the facts. With fiction, the author's creativity is not restrained by actual happenings. (Books like "1984" are worth reading, even if they are not a factual account of events that took place in 1984.)
So you can't tell the difference between how David Foster Wallace, William Langeweische, and Steven Levitt see the world by reading what they write? Or the difference between a conservative-leaning historian and a liberal historian? Come on.
You realize that DFW was primarily a fiction writer, yes? Sure we all like A Supposedly Fun Thing I'd Never Do Again, but Infinite Jest was his Magnum Opus, and was fiction.
Without getting into the Latrodectus Mactans Productions quiz to prove our geek/hipster DFW cred: I just picked three writers of nonfiction with both very different prose styles and very different worldviews, and I don't think you'd disagree with my point.
Sometimes you can get a good piece of non-fiction that's done very well. For instance, I recently read Newton and the Counterfeiter and found it excellent. In this case fact was far more interesting than any fictional account could've been. Furthermore, I was personally more interested in the outcome since the events actually happened. I get an interesting story, and learn history at the same time. Personally I couldn't ask for more.
Ditto. Except I do occasionally read some good short stories - particularly J G Ballard's. You can get some really mind-bending stuff in < 20 pages from the right authors. It's a shame the format isn't more popular. You can pick up insights and feelings that non-fiction rarely delivers.
I love that on hackerne.ws the poster/creator of the content you're discussing is far more likely to respond to what you're saying.
I've been a programmer (professionally) for 3-4 years now, been coding far longer than that and was wondering what your feelings were regarding CompSci degrees and the necessity (or not) of them.
Also, have you considered separating the "less is less" product and then creating the more "enterprisey" product as a separate entity and allowing your customers to upgrade within your product range instead of having in and out customer numbers?
I mention this as I think of companies that exercise pretty vigorous product differentiation (Microsoft's OEM versus Corporate licensing, Apple-anything) and your comment regarding not wanting to make your flagship product intimidating to new customers.
Just wondering what your thoughts were on those two questions, thanks.
Anyway, I think many "geeks" forget that you can read fiction for more than just the stories. The writing is usually more expressive, and reading that helps you become a better writer. That's why I read fiction, anyway. (OK, I like a good story, too.)
I read through this thread thinking the same thing (re: the arguing).
It was a fairly intimate article providing an insight into the habits and life of JF and I found it slightly disconcerting that people were so quick to criticise what seems to be a personal choice.
I think the peculiar bit is that he is conscientiously avoiding fiction rather than the practical fact of the matter that this is not an uncommon phenomenon as you rightly point out.
Maybe it's something about the online medium which is conducive to people making categorical statements or maybe that's just Jason's personality, but still I do find it odd.
Although I do agree with you that we've spent way too much time talking about it at this point...
I think it's a cost/benefit thing. You can probably watch a whole season of House in the time it takes to read one long book. I love fiction, but I certainly don't find his position hypocritical.
That surprises me too. When I've heard that remark in the past, it's always been from someone I could dismiss as being a silly snob.
What's the core of the argument? Is it that fiction is not intellectual enough? What about Milton, Shakespeare, and the profound insights they offer into the way people think? Is it not more interesting (and even persuasive) in that form than as a straight essay? What about science fiction, and the thought experiments it offers regarding our social and political systems?
What about films? Does Mr. Fried also ignore films that tell fictitious stories, or are they acceptable due to the reduced time requirement?
I'm pretty much the same way: fiction is just not usually interesting to me. That doesn't mean I'm reading tech manuals; it means I'd usually rather read history, essays, or something discursive on science than a story. And Shakespeare? Milton? Seriously?
There's fiction I do read (I took on Infinite Jest this summer, and I'm slowly reading Blood Meridian), but it takes effort to engage with it; nonfiction never does.
Yes, Shakespeare, Milton, Austen, Joyce, Kafka, seriously! Why the hell not? They're all incomparably more fascinating, stimulating, fun and mind-blowing than watching House, after all! (and I'm a fan of House).
I'm not trying to invalidate your perspective, but your rhetorical question suggests you really don't understand, beyond the point of your own preference, why people would read Shakespeare. That's incredibly bizarre to me.
My own perspective is that I'd rather lose a limb than swear off fiction for the rest of my life. I can't help feeling deeply sorry for people who can appreciate good literature but won't read it, for whatever reason - even if I understand how gratuitous and unwelcome this feeling may seem to them. It really is such an important part of what makes life worth living.
I'm honestly not aiming for hipster cred here (I haven't read Infinite Jest). Just another perspective.
Austen, Joyce, and Kafka I get. I think most people who read Shakespeare do so because they think they're supposed to, though. Seeing Shakespeare, different story.
There are a million things vying for our attention. We should invest it in things that we appreciate. There are also people who think fine wine is an important part of what makes life worth living, or marijuana, or Bach.
But Milton, you forgot Milton. I'm reading Paradise Lost. Maybe it is one of those things you're supposed to read, but it's genuinely really good. Like,
"to be weak is miserable doing or suffering: but of this be sure, to do aught good never will be our task, but ever to do ill our sole delight"
Agreed that it's a strange comment. It was about the only thing I disagreed with in that piece.
Surprising too. I often find more inspiration from fiction than non-fiction. Plenty of fiction work has factual elements of science and technology behind them; they are just stylized into a story. Often, it makes the reading more interesting.
How do you "disagree" with how someone else chooses to live their life? He's not clubbing baby seals.
Sorry; I'm really not "sticking up for Jason Fried" guy, it's just funny how we all get into this rut where everything that's posted here is a subject for critique. I'm as bad as anyone else. But, seriously? How he chooses to spend his spare time?
I would urge those who think fiction a waste of time to read Thomas Jefferson's letter[1] to Robert Skipwith. In particular: everything is useful which contributes to fix in the principles and practices of virtue.
I do not find it strange at all - As I get older, I've been reading non-fiction almost exclusively. Not at all meaning to dismiss the value of fiction, but due to time constraints, I'd rather read practical non-fic. that I can apply towards my career (business/marketing, technical, psychology, bios, etc.).
On the flip side, one of my best buddies who has an extremely technical career path reads non-fic. almost exclusively, save for tech manuals.
To each, their very own. Especially when it comes to reading material, music and food.
What difference does it make? People are used to weird errors, so it doesn't scare away "normal people" anymore than a fail whale would. People trying to break the code are not aided much by one filename and line number, either.
It's annoying to look at, and I wouldn't do it... but it doesn't really matter.
It's just a show of a lack of professionalism. I view exposing low-level errors as akin to spelling mistakes, typos, poor photo work, and other symptoms that show the content producers just didn't take the extra step to differentiate from amateurs.
I hate to beat the cliche, but just one of the reasons I feel happy when using most of Apple's products: they just scream that even the details were very much thought about.
Except the time my iPhone went into Chinese-language panic mode and started warning me that something completely arcane was happening and would only shut down after I took out the SIM.
There's a removable SIM caddy at the top that can be popped open with a paperclip or a key included in the iPhone 3G packaging. It's the battery that can't be easily removed.
Totally true. Two totally separate points I meant. He doesn't work in PHP and (unlike the site that this was originally posted on) he makes stable/scalable sites :)
No doubt, PHP is faster than Ruby in many instances.
I enjoy cooking, but I'm single, and I don't like to cook for myself. I go out often, but I don't like fancy dining experiences. I find people putting a napkin on my lap uncomfortable, and don't like worrying about using the wrong fork.
That's too bad, because very few fine dining places are about that stuffy service, use-the-right-fork nonsense anymore, and Chicago is an epicenter for creative new food. He should check out Moto, Schwa, or even Alinea; nobody is going to touch his lap.
Yup, I've enjoyed some of the great new-wave fine dining places in Chicago and other cities, but I almost always prefer a hole in the wall with great food. I'd rather eat at Club Lago or Club Lucky than a fancy Italian place. I love food so I'll check out any restaurant, but I just feel more comfortable in places like Lago.
* This is a PHPBB --- that's it, just a PHPBB --- that gives awards that are so authoritative in Chicago that very trendy restaurants (Kuma's, for instance) hang them in the window.
* As far as I can tell, no other city has anything like LTH, even NYC. The "LTH of San Francisco", for instance, is the CHOW message boards. No trendy restaurant has ever hung a printed-out CHOW message board comment in their window.
I want you to know, you've just ensured that I spend way more money on food in the next year than I otherwise would have. Even lowly Naperville has a great deal of good looking places listed on that forum.
Concern about getting a reservation has stopped me from going to a lot of places, but in reality all you do is call them up and ask them when the earliest you can get a reservation is, and they'll just tell you. It's usually nowhere near as bad as you think it will be.
The basic idea behind office hours is that if you can't make people work, you can at least prevent them from having fun. If employees have to be in the building a certain number of hours a day, and are forbidden to do non-work things while there, then they must be working. In theory. In practice they spend a lot of their time in a no-man's land, where they're neither working nor having fun.
I did enjoy reading that interview. It's always interesting to get insight into other people's way of working.
What struck me most about that interview was how it was written. How simple the wording is. It's clear to read, the language he uses is straight to the point and it's concise. I assume the interview as over e-mail. The sentences he uses are short and unambiguous. Plus they're easy to parse. I wonder how long it took to write that interview? If it just comes naturally or if he had to edit and tweak it a lot.
Really interesting question - how much do you need to interact with your coworkers to be effective? Can a company operate with all of its employees working remotely? For those of you that went to Startup School or have heard Tony Hsieh's talk from it, what do you think about the way 37signals employees work vs. Zappos where Hsieh encouraged managers to spend a lot of time outside of work with their team?
I thought about exactly the same thing. What is also worth considering, is if there is a lot of individual variation in the need to interact. In my experience many people are not the "self-driven" kind that are often considered ideal. What should one do with them? Even self-driven people are usually driven only to do some particular things, and these might not be the things that the whole company benefits most from.
I definitely agree that it probably varies for different people - that seems like the biggest challenge of being a manager. Which people do you have to micromanage vs. which people will create amazing things if you just completely leave them alone. What about with co-founders for a startup - do you believe that they should always work together since it's so important that they mold the vision/initial product together, or is there any room to work separately if both people are driven enough?
Jason,
With all of 37signals beautifully clean and minimalist design and function, I always wondered why your homepage http://37signals.com is so busy - a bunch of text with little whitespace, icons with cartoon word balloons, contrasting colored boxes on a white bg...
Seems like way more noise than signal. Did some A/B testing prove it superior?
"If a restaurant served more food than everybody else but lost money on every diner, would it be successful? No. But on the Internet, for some reason, if you have more users than everyone else, you're successful. No, you're not."
That seems like an important business principle that is often forgotten in reporting on Internet-based companies. Keeping revenue in mind can have some powerful effects on a company's future. Especially, the example is good because it focuses on making revenue by pleasing customers who could take their business elsewhere.
An interesting thing is that Jeff Bezos is the only investor in 37 Signals according to that article. Amazon.com was the poster boy for "Don't worry about spending money now, we'll be profitable one day" mentality. That said, most other dot com companies slightly misinterpreted this strategy. One thing that Amazon.com did differently than its counterparts which were also losing money was it pursued moderate and steady growth rather than exponential curve growth. I think we see a similar situation these days in startups. It's all about scaling up as fast as possible to millions of users. But here we have a company liked 37 Signals saying "don't worry about scalability, we'll get their one day, just throw more hardware at the problem". Scale eventually, has sort of been a 37 Signals tenet hasn't it? For all the companies pursuing functional this, and threaded-that, jumping onboard the latest greatest languages and platforms for scalability, 37 Signals and Rails is chugging along quite nicely. In fact, I bet they'd reply "What scalability problem?" if anyone were to ask, as they likely don't have one right now.
Going with the restaurant metaphor, it is a lot easier to get into profit if you have paying customers but they are losing you money, (Amazon) than if the customers are getting a free lunch. The scalability of the internet can really help with the first case while in the second it still isn't sure if you have a viable business model.
The way I work: Always turn error notification off on live and have a process scanning the error logs so I'm notified of it. This might also be my biggest hangup with using PHP.
I have PHP put up a nice error page for every error. With (very minor) trickery, you can even put up nice pages for fatal errors. Unless it's a database connection error, I have the site automatically email me a full stack trace and all other relevant details. You don't even have to turn off error notification in the PHP.INI file, you can control that from your script.
I believe your trickery involves capturing the output buffer and grep'ing for a fatal error, yes? We thought of doing that, but our site commands too much traffic for that to be a feasible option. If it's something less intrusive, I'm all ears.
You can't capture the output buffer on a fatal error; the script just aborts. You do have to wait till the end of your script to write your output otherwise this doesn't work very well but here is some (simplified) code:
The errortemplate.html file is a static HTML file that can contain anything you want. Ours is themed up just like any other page on our website. When a fatal error is triggered, the text %error% will be replaced with the fatal error text. We place that into a form using a hidden textarea so our users can submit it to us.
Plus, they chop your day into small bits, so you have only 20 minutes of free time here or 45 minutes there. Creative people need unstructured time to get in the zone. You can't do that in 20 minutes.
That bit reminded me of pg, because it's something he said too and because of the writing style.
I live about two miles from my office. I drive there most of the time. I should bike more, but I saw someone on a bike get hit two years ago, and it really freaked me out. I figure I'm better off driving.
So not only is he needlessly adding to global CO2, but also to the number of cars on the road. A shame. 2 miles from the office is less than 10 minutes by bike...
You're a hypocrite, and you're playing a part. "Look at me, look at me. I'm an environmentalist! I'm a good and unselfish person!" But really, you're just looking for an excuse to lash out at someone. I know this because I do it all the time.
Did you know that the #1 reason people buy Priuses is because they like to distinguish themselves as "environmentalists"? If you Really cared about the environment, you would work hard to actually accomplish some change, instead of wasting your time ridiculing someone over the internet.
I don't care about helping the environment right now. And I enjoy ridiculing people on the internet. At least I'm honest.
I don't quite see where I 'lashed out'. I merely said it was a shame. I never professed to being an environmentalist, I just thought it was a shame that someone with a 2 mile journey to work is unable to feel like they can use an appropriate form of transport. If anything, I am making a comment about the city he is living in and the facilities, or lack of facilities, that it provides.
I do work relatively hard to accomplish change. I cycle over an hour a day to and from work.
But then I'm talking to someone who 'doesn't care about helping the environment right now' which makes me very, very sad to think someone can feel like that. I feel sorry for you.
I cycle to and from work, in London, 14 miles a day round trip. If it's driving rain I take the train.
Keeps me fit, costs me nothing and I get to the office feeling great. It's quicker than any other mode of transport save for maybe a motorbike. Almost carbon neutral, other than the production cost for the bike I suppose.
My point is that although Jason is not a shining beacon of sustainable living such as yourself, by living close to his workplace - and often working from home - he is not exactly the raging consumer of carbon resources that you make him out to be.
I wonder how much energy is being consumed in providing you with a shower when you get to work. I mean.. you are showering after a 7 mile bike ride.. right? ;-)
Jason gave his reason why he doesn't bike to work in the article. It's not like "I prefer driving because I want to contribute to global warming and increase our dependence on foreign oil."
Have you taken into account what kind of traffic he probably would get into when riding a bike? I live in San Francisco and I would like to bike everywhere I go. I actually hate driving or riding the bus. But there are too many cars in the city that I'm afraid I'm gonna get hit.
I used to bike to work when I was living in San Diego but it's because the roads I took didn't have many cars in them.
There's some sad game theory (?) at work here that leads people to 1) drive cars because cyclists get maimed by car drivers 2) then bigger cars because smaller cars get wrecked and 3) finally humvees. Ultimately, it's probably a bit of a loss for everyone.
I live in his general neighborhood and used to work down the street from him. The roads in the area have been on and off messes the past few years (littered with potholes and generally torn up), but they're improving, and his general commute is full of bike-laned roads if you know the lay of the land.
I'd recommend biking if he can get over the accident he witnessed. It's almost always quicker than driving in the city and can be surprisingly less stressful.
Asking someone not to drive 2 miles to work everyday is a "radical political viewpoint"?
I don't know if you're being radically political, but you seem to be evangelizing that other people should live in the same way you do. A lot of people don't want to.
What's crazy is that it's not rational at all. Has he never witnessed a serious car accident? He is no doubt aware of the local and global environmental impact of doing something as selfish as driving two miles to work and back most days, and yet I get modded down for pointing this out.
Well at this point I think you're just getting -'d for whining about being -'d ...
Be that as it may - I'm not certain what the mortality statistics are on cars vs bikes. I would prefer to avoid accidents in either modality.
I found it uncharitable of you to attack Fried after he admitted what is a personal (and yes, perhaps irrational) reason for avoiding cycling to work. Rather than lambasting the man, you could have proposed alternative solutions that would accommodate his instinct for personal survival and your concern for the larger biosphere.
For example, filling up an efficient car with co-workers and/or using public transportation are ways in which to travel on four or more wheels while minimizing emissions, no?
I'm downvoting you because driving a car 2 miles to work every day really isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things. It especially isn't worth criticizing when global warming isn't the topic. It seems as though every eco-nut focuses on the greenhouse effect of transportation and ignores every other source.
For instance, do you eat meat? If you do, then you're responsible for more greenhouse gases than the typical car driver.
Do you have kids? If yes, then shame on you! Think about the effect those kids will have on the planet!
