> These days, I’m much less worried about this admission, in part because the alternative I have gravitated towards has given me greater personal satisfaction and, I hope, insights: history.
We have been taught the history of colonialism in school, for many, many years. I don't think I understood what colonialism was, or what it was like to be colonized. Until I read fiction in my adult life. You could know the historical facts by heart, but to get a sense of what something was like from a subjective point of view (which is also a kind of knowledge), I don't think that fiction and history are comparable.
I also knew some history about slavery, I also watched movies about it, I thought I knew the salient points about slavery, until I recently read Frederic Douglass, the narrative of an escapee from slavery[1]. Yes, it's not fiction, but I got some insight into what it was like to be a slave, from within, and I don't think I would have ever gotten this kind of insight through history, facts, whatnot.
The author clearly underestimates the power of fiction, even as a vehicle of knowledge.
That resounds with me: reading fiction is a great way to share the life of other people. Some prefer movies for this, but it's only after ready novels that I've sometimes thought of people as if I had met them in real life. As a teenager, there were days where most of my thoughts went to Piotr Bezhoukov, Lev Mychkine, Rogojine... I was partly living in 19th century Russia.
There's another way to discover history through fiction, which is to read old books and try to understand the author's point of view. For instance, going on with your example of colonialism-slavery, I remember reading "Gone with the wind": I was astonished by the author's racism. Not a slaver's racism, but the permeating belief that Black people where inferior people, a kind of a big children, with big feelings and little intelligence.
I've also learned to be wary of history books, which are sometimes very imaginative (like the tale about about José Figueres in the OP's excerpt) and other times bent to suit the author's beliefs. If I'm really interested in the subject, I usually search for multiple sources.
Some historians are much better at putting you in the shoes of people by picking the right anecdotes. I like when podcasters put the situation before you and asks you "what would _you_ do?" (Fear and loathing in New Jerusalem, about the founding of Israel, all of Hardcore History).
Some other books are stories of specific people, and put you close enough to their life to share their feelings. "Gay Berlin" is a good example.
I must agree with you that fiction is much better at this, but it might be easy to associate complete fiction with how things really were. I canonised what happens in Grapes of Wrath as history, but those characters are fictional.
Thing is, one should read lots and lots of fiction until his mid-20s at the latest, if he/she leaves the “reading lots of fiction” part after that timeframe then it would have already been too late.
Back to your example, reading non-fiction after you had turned 30 (let’s say some historiography) would have made you more aware that basing one’s perception of a specific past historical phenomenon on one work of fiction is very problematic, you’re practically adopting that person’s whole worldview, with all the pluses and the minuses that come with that.
For example reading authors like Douglass doesn’t account for not “explain” how come the abrupt end of slavery was not the best thing ever in the short to middle term for lots of Black people from the US South, we need history books in order to try and make sense of that (interspersed with some sociology, economic history, anthropology and oral history accounts that we were lucky enough to put onto written form).
> Thing is, one should read lots and lots of fiction until his mid-20s at the latest, if he/she leaves the “reading lots of fiction” part after that timeframe then it would have already been too late.
I tend to disagree with the author and i dont think it is wise to limit yourself in whatever you want to read. Choosing the next book is one of the best things about reading. It took me a while to learn this. I often got stuck in a classisc which eventually stopped me from reading. Choosing carefully what to read, also not beeing „influenced“ by others, was a complete game changer to me. Beeing open to whatever you feel like reading is key.
In this vein, I would unequivocally recommend How to Talk about Books You Haven't Read. Also, I’d recommend a book which seems self-nullifying, How to Read a Book.
> Bayard's most popular book, How to Talk about Books You Haven't Read (Minuit, 2007), is a bestseller in France in which he engages in a study of the different ways of not reading a book, and recommends solutions to be able to talk about it anyway. Assuming that some readers have a terrifying understanding of reading, he tries to make them feel free from guilt for not having read canonical literature. The essential thing in culture being to have an overview, he claims the possibility of having a perforated and incomplete culture. Pierre Bayard has renewed this system in Comment parler des lieux où l'on n'a pas été, a work in the second degree again, in which he reviews the authors who have spoken of places they have not visited.
> Moreover, humour is a fundamental element of his writing. In How to Talk about Books You Haven't Read, the narrator teaches the way not to read, which is a joke because he himself is a great reader. For Pierre Bayard, humour has an analytical function. It allows you to mark a gap between yourself and yourself, and therefore to distance yourself from what you read.
I loved the book, though more for its humour and observations about culture, than for any sort of practical advice about what to read or not. Incidentally, the title of the book apparently had a question mark in the French original which was removed in the translation, which changes the meaning / expectations somewhat (from philosophy to how-to).
I too loved the book; I wasn't previously aware of the trailing question mark! That does change the meaning a bit. I think being literate is more of a social expectation in France, from the little I have studied the language and followed its society and social movements from afar. I also appreciate the French aptitude for both navel-gazing and self-deprecating humor, which is what I felt that the book was winking at, though I only read it in English translation; thankfully, the wit and charm of the title's conceit shone through.
It's much more important to get into the habit of reading consistently and at high rate! Then worry about where you point your newly developed reading skills. Most people just don't read consistently.
The hardest thing to convince new students who join my group is that every single day they need to alternate between reading at least one paper in their field or at least one random paper from somewhere else, and spend some time reading a book. Record everything into a bib file. Once you develop this habit you will end up with a massive bibliography by the end of say 5 or 6 years. Over 20 years of doing this I've read 1000 books (1 per week) and thousands of papers. Our more fun research projects have all come from random connections between ideas that never would have occurred to me without this broad knowledge base.
I've been reading two hours a day consistently for the past half year. I generally read with purpose and settled into a daily routine of reading a book on business, a book on programming, and a book for fun. It works for me.
I also found that non-fiction is more interesting than fiction. Fiction needs to be believable, non-fiction doesn't. Non-fiction captures a complex, layered reality with characters that are often at odds with others and even themselves. Sometimes they randomly died off, sometimes they show up again in unexpected places. A fiction author would have to be an absolute master to create such a complex world.
A fiction author would have to be an absolute master to create such a complex world.
I suggest looking into some better-known fiction writers from the past, as my experience has been entirely the opposite to yours. I find good fiction to be infinitely better at creating complex realities, whereas nonfiction tends to all operate from the same contemporary pseudo-omniscient viewpoint.
I happened to be listening to this podcast this morning, which is actually about the exact topic of fiction and history:
I was going to say the same thing. This is why I like Fantasy and Science Fiction genres. They both stretch your mind with new ideas by combining what is known and possible today with what could be possible or might just be fun conceptually to explore.
I find that good fiction stretches the mind to explore new ideas that non fiction can’t do since it is rooted in reality and known facts.
I find that i try to juggle one fiction book and one non-fiction book at a time. There are times when my mind wants to be rooted in reality, fact, and true history. But then sometimes (even within the same reading session) I may switch to fiction to let my mind wander in new ways which sometimes results in ideas and conceptualization in my real life brought by the fiction exploration.
Non-fiction can't sincerely deal with the one of the realest substances of individual reality: thoughts and their movement. The most substantial fiction in my experience is the one that knows how to deal with internal life.
I also read multiple books at once, with almost the same mix as you. Business, history, and fun (usually science fiction). It works well for me, because no matter how good a book is, you sometimes need a break.
"The man who led the armed uprising that caused the Costa Rican civil war won, abolished the army, voluntarily stepped down as dictator after 18 months, served two much later terms as president, and at 65 years old stood on the tarmac with a machine gun until a plane’s hijackers surrendered."
Wow! Stuff you will discover on HN.
Never knew about José Figueres Ferrer, but his story and 20th century history of Costa Rica seems fascinating and worth further exploring :)
> at 65 years old stood on the tarmac with a machine gun until a plane’s hijackers surrendered.
That's a funny story. In fact, too funny and hardly believable...
According to a NYT article from the time of these events, the 4 hijackers accepted to release their hostages after a promise that they would get a plane back to their country. The hostages were released as planned, but then the hijackers where met by 200 armed soldiers and the President, himself armed with a submachine gun. Two of the hijackers were killed.
https://www.nytimes.com/1971/12/19/archives/president-says-n...
The tale where an old man with a machine-gun forces hijackers to surrender is more striking. Who cares if it seems impossible? Some newspapers (LA Times, Time) even propagated this, and now it's in Wikipedia-en, but not the Spanish version.
I think the NYT is a better source and its story is much more plausible. But the showdown is less funny and flattering. The President broke his promise. He did confront the hijackers, but he was protected by 200 soldiers, and the 4 hijackers had already surrendered.
He ordered the army to shoot tear gas at the plane and shoot out the engine and tires, catching the plane on fire. Then he agreed to get the hijackers another plane in return for the release of the hostages. When the hijackers debarked the army started gunning them down.
That's not remotely the same story as "the president stood on the tarmac with a machine gun until the hijackers surrendered", a fabricated fairytale version.
Sorry I don’t know enough about you or the country.
I am from another part of the globe.
I do understand people might take it at face value and run with the idea. But also Ilive long enough to understand hostage situations are not what you see in the movies. Anyone who can read between the lines should know better.
I do understand it was also his marketing of tough guy. But still I have to say if he was down there with the troops it still checks my mark. If he ordered to shoot hijackers right there like 10 meters away and not from cozy office it still counts as tough guy for me.
His recent "Notes on [...]" series describing different countries in West Africa is full of interesting stuff. The latest entry, on Ivory Coast (officially Cotê d'Ivoire), was posted here a few days ago and I've been enjoying working back from there.
The House of Government begins with this line: "This is a work of history. Any resemblance to fictional characters, dead or alive, is entirely coincidental."
This surprised me because I have a similar attitude.
The one exception is I do read some fiction, but even then it’s rarely by living authors. Inherently, contemporary fiction has the same transient problem that the news does. So by and large I only read fiction by dead authors. If it’s still in print years / decades / centuries later (and people are still talking about it) there’s a much higher probability that it’s good (assuming it’s to my taste).
Reading for pleasure is one of the great joys of life. It’s a far more intense multimedia experience than, say, watching a movie. My only real problem is that I have to use a timer to force me to stop.
My reading is almost entirely history as well, for somewhat similar reasons to the article.
Another thing I like about reading historical non-fiction is that in the modern world it is almost alway possible to dig in deeper on anything you read. There are different more detailed books/articles on the subject, often internet accessible primary documents, etc. and this ability dig deeper and deeper on a subject just cannot exist for fictional worlds.
Just want to share my love of history. The majority of books that I buy are historical, whether near or distant. Those that aren’t still have a historical component.
The master and commander books by Patrick O'Brian are great also, well researched descriptions of naval warfare during Napoleon's wars.
The best historical fiction I've ever read, and the audiobooks by Patrick Tull are also really good.
I think they are just about middling historical fiction, compared to War and Peace or even Ivanhoe or Gore Vidal's novels about American History like Burr.
This feels like a good rule of thumb to me for nonfiction: read authors who are Ph.D. working for many years who are writing about their work, as opposed to journalists who jump from subject to subject with each book they write.
Funny you mention "Thinking, Fast and Slow." If you read this book, you need to do your research on the "replication crisis." I dropped a link to an LW discussion on the topic below. Otherwise, I agree with you. Even every day news articles can throw you off.
That book, similar to most of the other "popular psychology/economics", could be a three page pamphlet that would cover all the ideas. The rest of the book is just endless repetition of that with countless anecdotes to make it seem like data and hard science.
This is funny - you mention two opposite cases and in the end give an example to one of the cases without explaining to which exactly. Is it on purpose?
The GP probably does, but it is kind of funny that they chose a really bad example of an expert. In light of the replication crisis, "Thinking - fast and slow" has been heavily criticised, and rightfully so.
In my opinion, it belongs more in the pop-sci category more usually written by non-experts.
This book is a good illustration of why it's better to read history. Most of the research in it failed to replicate and with incredible arrogance the author tells you that "you have no choice but to accept that the major conclusions of these studies are true" refering to priming research - thinking of Florida makes you walk slower, that kind of thing.
> I find that history contains many more surprises than authors can get away with in fiction.
There are however some brilliant authors that combine the two genres, sometimes more on the site of history, sometimes more on the site of fiction. Some random recommendations: Tolstoi: "War and Peace", Solzhenitsyn: "The Red Wheel" cycle, Yourcenar: "Memoirs of Hadrian", Brecht: "The Business Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar", Foote: "The Civil War: A Narrative" (non-fictional narrative history).
Linked from "Why books donʼt work" - https://andymatuschak.org/books/ - "Books are easy to take for granted. Not any specific book, I mean: the form of a book. Paper or pixels—it hardly matters. Words in lines on pages in chapters. And at least for non-fiction books, one implied assumption at the foundation: people absorb knowledge by reading sentences. This last idea so invisibly defines the medium that it’s hard not to take for granted, which is a shame because, as we’ll see, it’s quite mistaken."
Most books and articles mention a bunch of other books, so if a mentioned book seems interesting, I'll download it from Anna's Archive and put it on my ereader. Then those books mention and refer to other books in turn and soon you have a lot of good reading material. This turns into a never ending roll after a while. I always read a few books simultaneously, and if a book starts to suck I jump pages or chapters or finally delete it.
As for history books mentioned in TFA, they are basically fiction. No category has more lies and propaganda than history, but the older the more closer to truth. And if you read a history book from a hundred years ago, at least you learn something about how people thought a hundred years ago. I wouldn't touch a recently written history book. On top of being full of lies, they're also incredibly boring and materialistic.
We have been taught the history of colonialism in school, for many, many years. I don't think I understood what colonialism was, or what it was like to be colonized. Until I read fiction in my adult life. You could know the historical facts by heart, but to get a sense of what something was like from a subjective point of view (which is also a kind of knowledge), I don't think that fiction and history are comparable.
I also knew some history about slavery, I also watched movies about it, I thought I knew the salient points about slavery, until I recently read Frederic Douglass, the narrative of an escapee from slavery[1]. Yes, it's not fiction, but I got some insight into what it was like to be a slave, from within, and I don't think I would have ever gotten this kind of insight through history, facts, whatnot.
The author clearly underestimates the power of fiction, even as a vehicle of knowledge.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_of_the_Life_of_Frede...