i actually do pay attention at school, and every now and then, my teachers say something interesting that jus sticks in my mind (well there r the times where they request tt it sticks, too, but tt doesnt always happen unfortunately). well one said: you are what you read. another said: until u do ur PhD, no one really cares about what you think (ceteris paribus).
well, i'd really agree tt u r influenced by experience, and while sense experience seems to do a considerable amount to ur development as a person, i guess uh.. wdv u call processing of information (i dun tink u can call it sensory eh?) does also shape ur thoughts, ur perceptions, ur world view. and despite the advancement of technology seeming to promote the proliferation of videos and whatever that may entail, reading still (imo) will continue to be a force of trading of information to be reckoned with.
in the more specific sense, reading as in reading things that are meant to be read for some time and not in passing ie books, should also be likely to continue (and that said, the physical book as well, and not ebooks, or audiobooks, or wdv). and this is where the second point comes in. obviously with insufficient exposure and experience in the rather complex fields that i try my rather poor task of engaging in, i am (once again) in no position to give my critique. but heck, it helps me, it might help u, and its jus makes me feel better. so here goes.
how is this related to fiction. well the scope of this discussion is books; the printed word. it is specifically fictitious. or imaginary. so here we're dealing with novels, scripts for plays, even poetry. whatever is, as aristotle commented on tragedy (which i think can be applied here) "an imitation of an action that is real" of course, this goes beyond the "serious and of a certain magnitude". and so, we are interested in the impact that stories have on the individual.
well i hv long wondered the extent of the imagination. well from my limited knowledge of works of fantasy and fiction out there, i feel that some are really far off from reality, while others clearly have some basis or inspiration in the contemporary, or the past - or to any extent, to events that occured. thus "imitation of an action that is real" really applies rather directly. then, what with "futuristic" fiction like sci- fi, cyber(and whatever derviation thereof)punk, etc, and with works of epic fantasy, i really do wonder to what extent do the writers of these works draw their inspiration from the real world. well tt said, i guess we could all comment on certain metaphors or comparisons in poetry that seem "out of this world", perhaps for their perfectness of representation or wdv. but tts slightly different.
so in any case and at any rate, im not going to explore the purpose or function of fiction, but rather look at how certain works might either add or detract from the formation of a world view that is appropriate for life in the 21st century (uh? yea.. smth liddat)
ok this works off the axiom that "you are what you read", or rather, that works of fiction (or substitute it for "media" as u so wish) influence the individual (of course, if we're talking about the media and causation and acts of violence, then things get abit hazy. if we simply talk about "outlook on life" or something rather hazy to begin with, then we're probably fine.) so then, is it better to appreciate a work interested in recreating a real- life scenario, but idealistically, or one tt chooses to represent it as accurately as possible? of course, one wld immediately realize tt u cant jus compare these two like that without setting the relevant parameters. uh. but ok lets jus assume tt there is no inherent purpose in the consumption of either (like u appreciate either cos it makes u feel happy, or want a cathartic experience, or wdv. tho clearly, it doesnt help learning about the "real" action, since its clearly an "imitation", and thus putting any weight into its representation and evaluation of the action is rather highly dangerous.)
well to try to make this more understandable, lets jus take a topic like friendship and explore it. well representations of this relationship in fiction is unlikely to severely alter ur world view for better or for worse. because in all likelihood, any kind of friendship tt the writer presents can and should fall within the realms of the possible; it is an imitation that is similar to the real, and perhaps in most cases, does not hv any significant differences that shld be taken note of. however, once the subjects become rather more intense, such as love, or hate, or some other big "emo" idea, then the situation changes. i tink tt it is fair to say that if u spent all ur time reading (or watching or wdv) the kind of "thrashy romance novels" like the maid did in Gulliver's Travels when the palace caught fire, then ur whole view on love is probably going to change. similarly if u continually read betrayal stories or wdv. well this is of course neglecting the impact tt ur real life business does have on ur perception at the end of the day, but still i tink some consideration shld be given to the whole information- gathering- via- work- of- fiction thing.
thus the question is, is it better, in such cases, to appreciate an idealistic representation, or a "realistic" representation, knowing that both are equally far from reality?
heh at the end of the day, i tink the answer probably is: get out more, so ur ideas r based off experience in reality, rather than works of fiction, inasmuch as fiction is supposed to be escapism in some sense, anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment