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

[gay_Aleks]

Considering Asimov published almost 400 short stories, I don't think that reading one or two will do him much justice. You might want to read a few more.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

As I was saying

 

[sophie]

You confuse purpose with (immediate) effect.

nope.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

That just sounds just like a thing a smartass teenager would tell his or her parents.

Damn, you sure convinced him with those hot opinions.

nope.

He's right you know. There are reasons literature is meaningful to people. Those happen before a person decides the piece of literature is meaningful to them.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

I would never say that literature should have a goal... it's up to each author to determine what they want their work to accomplish. What I will say is that for me personally, I read (or listen to, these days) fiction to be entertained and for no other reason. If the book also makes me think, or gives me an emotional reaction, or expands my worldview, that's all gravy, as long as that stuff doesn't get in the way of the entertainment. As soon as the book stops being entertaining it becomes worthless for me. I read non-fiction when I'm in the mood to learn something sans the entertainment.