If literature (fiction) is to have a goal, which of the following should it be?

[Kyriakos]

Just a poll about this issue. Mostly directed to the readers point of view, not the writers..

Question is the same in the title:

If literature (fiction) is to have a goal, which of the following should it be?

Options are:

1) Cause thinking
2) Cause emotions
3) Present insight or new information
4) Be a pleasant pass-time
5) It has no goal, nor should it have one of any kind
6) Other/I live inside a fictional story

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I pass on fiction that fails to teach me about the world or the human condition.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

If literature pretends to be an art it must have not any goal, purpose or utility.

 

[Evie]

I pass on fiction that fails to teach me about the world or the human condition.

I pass on pretentious fiction that tries to teach me something I already learned from studying history and/or the news.

You need all sorts of literature to have a good broad selection. Trying to limit it to only the one purpose is an exercise is pointlessness.

 

[Kyriakos]

I pass on pretentious fiction that tries to teach me something I already learned from studying history and/or the news.

You need all sorts of literature to have a good broad selection. Trying to limit it to only the one purpose is an exercise is pointlessness.

Apparently grammar is pointless as well

 

[Evie]

Grammar on forum posts? What kind of silliness is this?

 

[Borachio]

I read for enjoyment or entertainment. Otherwise, why would I read it?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Sometimes being stirred to think is pleasant, and sometimes an emotional impact is desirable, and sometimes I read "fluff fiction" just to pass the time...but there is no reason to read stuff that is just not enjoyable in some way or another. Life's too short to miss part of it for that.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I pass on pretentious fiction that tries to teach me something I already learned from studying history and/or the news.

You need all sorts of literature to have a good broad selection. Trying to limit it to only the one purpose is an exercise is pointlessness.

I think the bigger problem here is that you think history and the news are sufficient together to explain the human condition. Or the world, for that matter.

 

[cardgame]

I want an all-of-the-above answer. Passion, introspection, entertainment.

 

[Evie]

I think the bigger problem here is that you think history and the news are sufficient together to explain the human condition. Or the world, for that matter.

Yes, because clearly it was an exhaustive list.

The point being, I can reflect on the human condition and arrive at my own theories and explanation just fine without some heavy-handed hackneyed attempt by an author to peddle his theories at me through novels ; and I can learn about suffering and the issues faced by mankind now pr in the past just fine without some author using them to try and win the Most Depressing Writer of 2015 award at me.

 

[cardgame]

Well, isn't that kind of philosophy's department?

And philosophy can be written down and incorporated into a story.

 

[Borachio]

I'm not so sure about explaining the human condition. But literature can certainly explore it.

If, in fact, exploring the human condition doesn't cover every single human activity imaginable.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I want an all-of-the-above answer. Passion, introspection, entertainment.

This
5char

But if I HAD to choose... invoking of emotions. For its general coverage of what is good. Valuable insights into the human condition often invoke strong emotions, splendid entertainment (suspense) invokes emotions, intriguing lessons often invoke strong emotions.

I'm not so sure about explaining the human condition. But literature can certainly explore it.

That is a good point, IMO. I think the mere idea of "A" human condition is very likely to lead to simplified placeholders filling the role of humans which tell us more about how we can stereo-type others than how others (or ourselves) are. The books which provided me with the deepest insight had no pretension whatsoever of providing some kind of universal lesson. They just told fascinating stories of what the human condition can mean, which were contradictory, too vast to fully comprehend, but at the same time seemed authentic, familiar and intriguing, and last but not least made me think.

 

[Evie]

Well, isn't that kind of philosophy's department?

And philosophy can be written down and incorporated into a story.

Anything can be incorporated in a story, but it is not the purpose of telling stories (or writing literature)

If, in fact, exploring the human condition doesn't cover every single human activity imaginable.

There's some degree of truth to that. Certainly, there are many tools that CAN be used to explore the human condition. It follows from that that one doesn't need to use a specific tool to do it.

Mine isn't literature, and I find it highly pretentious when people go around acting like the only literature worth the name is that which explore the human condition.

 

[Sonereal]

A story should be entertaining at least. I can't imagine I would've sat through reading The Jungle or Heart of Darkness unless those books were entertaining somehow. I can't imagine saying "This books got me to think, but it is so borrrrrriing." That isn't to say that an author shouldn't have other goals, but the primary goal should be to make a good story. And a good story is usually entertaining.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I find it highly pretentious when people go around acting like the only literature worth the name is that which explore the human condition.

Well, I am not saying this was the purpose of literature. Naturally not. I myself have tremendously enjoyed novels which had little to say about the human condition. And that enjoyment has value, of course. Joy is the best of life, ultimately.
However, I am also inclined to at least partially agree as I mature.
Novels are about humans (or aliens, or orcs, in any case beings which are conscious) and what I would regard as a good novel nowadays often has something interesting to say about the human condition, or as Borachio says, explores it in an interesting fashion, since if it won't it usually will have crude excuses of a human as characters.
And while such excuses may not prevent a story to be joyful or even valuable in another, perhaps regarded as higher, sense, they do mark all the vast trash that is literature. Again, trash can be valuable, too. But - it is still trash. It is not just subjectivity. There is also a demand for more or less objective sophistication involved, IMO, and a state of mind which corresponds to that.

I can't imagine saying "This books got me to think, but it is so borrrrrriing."

Well, not quit what you seem to say. But my experience of reading Kafka came relatively close. Not always, but rather regularly. Yet, I enjoyed reading Kafka, regardless. Because I was so fascinated by the bits of his stories, even if the plot itself may have barely captured me.

 

[Sonereal]

Well, not quit what you seem to say. But my experience of reading Kafka came relatively close. Not always, but rather regularly. Yet, I enjoyed reading Kafka, regardless. Because I was so fascinated by the bits of his stories, even if the plot itself may have barely captured me.

I've read a few books like that, especially the later books of Turtlvedove's TL-191. At that point, I was less interested in the overall plot as much as the characters themselves.

I've found that most stories usually have something going for them if not the plot.

I want an all-of-the-above answer. Passion, introspection, entertainment.

This would be my answer.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I barely found ONE answer that I want all the time, I certainly don't want all of them all the time. Sometimes I want thought provoking, or stirring (or both), sure; but sometimes I want to let my mind idle while I read some forgettable escapist nonsense. The only thing consistent is that I do want to enjoy the time spent, one way or another.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

The point being, I can reflect on the human condition and arrive at my own theories and explanation just fine without some heavy-handed hackneyed attempt by an author to peddle his theories at me through novels ; and I can learn about suffering and the issues faced by mankind now pr in the past just fine without some author using them to try and win the Most Depressing Writer of 2015 award at me.

You should probably stop reading so much of those things then.

Mine isn't literature, and I find it highly pretentious when people go around acting like the only literature worth the name is that which explore the human condition.

Who exactly are you to dictate my tastes? Seriously, just who the hell do you think you are?