Uh oh, starting at your section “Well OK so what about nonfiction” and the GEARS STARTED A-TURNING
Why haven’t more fiction and nonfiction authors teamed up? Similar to how a dry historical time period that is covered in something like “SAINTS” can be written in a more creative and ENTERTAINING way so people don't feel as turned off to it?
Why can we do this but even better with the top 5, 10, 25, 100 business books? Finance books? Relationship books? Etcetera - why not pair a book with the primary objective of teaching about productivity or business with a more creative fiction author, and now allow those priorities to become secondary, significantly increasing their effectiveness because those very things will become an INEVITABILITY by virtue of the entertainment value the creative fiction writer brings to it as the new primary focus? They will get in the hands of more readers, and thus in their heads, and finally in their actions.
BUSINESS IDEA BABY. Partnership formed. Umbrella company called something likes “Books Reimaged” and we get permission when relevant and re-author and re-release important nonfiction books in a way that is more palatable and entertaining to the general public.
This message is a binding contract, thus sayeth I. You can help rename the umbrella company to something better since, ya know, you’re the creative one.
OH NO I READ THE NEXT PARAGRAPH
Now scale it to tv shows and movies. Uh oh.
—
As usual, I am loving how this particular series makes my brain think and feel. That’s right, my brain has feelings thankyouverymuch.
Keep ‘em coming!
(Apologies for the rant. Migraine + no sleep = some crazy pours out)
I would argue that the reason that most people would choose Instagram over Moby Dick is that Moby Dick is objectively bad fiction. I mean, switching from a traditional 18/19th century framed story to Shakespearean soliloquys in the middle of your story because you started reading the bard is fine for a rough draft. But for the final cut of a great work of fiction? Pick a lane. Please.
I think your analysis about how non-fiction sometimes edges out streaming media because it's not entertainment, and thereby can sometimes win out despite inducing less dopamine or whatever.
I actually do read fiction regularly, but usually not the "great" works of fiction, and especially not the 19th-century, paid-by-the word authors. I managed to make my way through The Brothers Karamazov, sometimes enthralled, but often tired and the slow and aimless plot. I hit random asides in Les Mis about how the author doesn't think there should be monasteries in that day of age, and just put it down. I realized that his issue that he had writers block but had to write X words for his serial was not a problem with my attention. It's just bad writing.
I absolutely have space in my day (or rather evening) for reading, but I have come to realize that a lot of white might have great ideas or themes is packaged in what I believe to be pretty crappy story telling. It's verbose, rambling, and immersion breaking. I do much better with folktales, ancient poetry, or 20th century novels, or the rare 18th and 19th century writers that are trying to fill space (Jane Austin) for example. A lot of times, I lean into pulp over "great" literature precisely because it's better designed for me (helping me forget distractions and immerse myself) rather than targeted at rich upper class in the 18th/19th century pre-TV that was trying to kill time, it didn't have enough distractions.
Ideally, the perfect book would do both. Immerse you in narrative without bloat or editorializing, while hitting you with deep human insight. But I'll be honest... I generally take the immersion over the insight when push comes to shove.
Uh oh, starting at your section “Well OK so what about nonfiction” and the GEARS STARTED A-TURNING
Why haven’t more fiction and nonfiction authors teamed up? Similar to how a dry historical time period that is covered in something like “SAINTS” can be written in a more creative and ENTERTAINING way so people don't feel as turned off to it?
Why can we do this but even better with the top 5, 10, 25, 100 business books? Finance books? Relationship books? Etcetera - why not pair a book with the primary objective of teaching about productivity or business with a more creative fiction author, and now allow those priorities to become secondary, significantly increasing their effectiveness because those very things will become an INEVITABILITY by virtue of the entertainment value the creative fiction writer brings to it as the new primary focus? They will get in the hands of more readers, and thus in their heads, and finally in their actions.
BUSINESS IDEA BABY. Partnership formed. Umbrella company called something likes “Books Reimaged” and we get permission when relevant and re-author and re-release important nonfiction books in a way that is more palatable and entertaining to the general public.
This message is a binding contract, thus sayeth I. You can help rename the umbrella company to something better since, ya know, you’re the creative one.
OH NO I READ THE NEXT PARAGRAPH
Now scale it to tv shows and movies. Uh oh.
—
As usual, I am loving how this particular series makes my brain think and feel. That’s right, my brain has feelings thankyouverymuch.
Keep ‘em coming!
(Apologies for the rant. Migraine + no sleep = some crazy pours out)
I would argue that the reason that most people would choose Instagram over Moby Dick is that Moby Dick is objectively bad fiction. I mean, switching from a traditional 18/19th century framed story to Shakespearean soliloquys in the middle of your story because you started reading the bard is fine for a rough draft. But for the final cut of a great work of fiction? Pick a lane. Please.
I think your analysis about how non-fiction sometimes edges out streaming media because it's not entertainment, and thereby can sometimes win out despite inducing less dopamine or whatever.
I actually do read fiction regularly, but usually not the "great" works of fiction, and especially not the 19th-century, paid-by-the word authors. I managed to make my way through The Brothers Karamazov, sometimes enthralled, but often tired and the slow and aimless plot. I hit random asides in Les Mis about how the author doesn't think there should be monasteries in that day of age, and just put it down. I realized that his issue that he had writers block but had to write X words for his serial was not a problem with my attention. It's just bad writing.
I absolutely have space in my day (or rather evening) for reading, but I have come to realize that a lot of white might have great ideas or themes is packaged in what I believe to be pretty crappy story telling. It's verbose, rambling, and immersion breaking. I do much better with folktales, ancient poetry, or 20th century novels, or the rare 18th and 19th century writers that are trying to fill space (Jane Austin) for example. A lot of times, I lean into pulp over "great" literature precisely because it's better designed for me (helping me forget distractions and immerse myself) rather than targeted at rich upper class in the 18th/19th century pre-TV that was trying to kill time, it didn't have enough distractions.
Ideally, the perfect book would do both. Immerse you in narrative without bloat or editorializing, while hitting you with deep human insight. But I'll be honest... I generally take the immersion over the insight when push comes to shove.