ec2-18-189-170-17.us-east-2.compute.amazonaws.com | ToothyWiki | RecentChanges | Login | Webcomic Why bother reading about made-up stuff? Adult time is much better spent reading newspapers and working.
Why bother doing stuff? Generating new ideas is the only worthwhile thing, and that works best when sparked off of other ideas. (Reading about stuff-that-happened is in the overlap)
Doing stuff keeps you alive in an immediate and obvious way that talking about doing stuff doesn't. It's not adult to need to think about things that aren't immediately relevant to keeping oneself alive.
We will ALWAYS need stories, grown-up or not. Stories are probably what defines us as humans, when the first tribe elder talks of spirits of animals, of the deceased, of ancestors, and of nature. And after all, a good story might not be true, but it is always a reflection of real life. -ColinLeung
Both parts of that are assertions that need justifying, IMO. If they were self-evident truths, I don't think either this page or WhenWillYouGrowUp would exist. - MoonShadow
Huh? I thought that this page was just sarcastic rant-y rhetoric up until now. --M-A
Only partly. I see it as the end result of ChiarkPerson's position, and am waiting for people to enlighten me as to why it is not: why do people holding a similar stance to ChiarkPerson think grown-up people need stories at all? After all, they are "not relevant" to their real lives.. I am fully expecting a statement along the lines of "we learn from allegories and imagined things", at which point I will attempt to wedge in "we learn from our past", "we learn by knowing ourselves" and "we learn by reading stuff about growing up". - MoonShadow
I think you missed ChiarkPerson's point - to a teenager, stories about the angst of growing up are relevant, because they speak to that person's current concerns and issues with life.
I think you missed my point. We're talking entertainment here. Is relevancy really the overriding factor for enjoying something or choosing to watch/read it? If it was, surely we'd all spend our time watching documentaries and newscasts and little else. - MoonShadow
Does that mean that you think that only facts are "relevant", and not thoughts, opinions, ideas, discussions? --M-A
*I* don't. But then I don't seem to have the same opinions of what is mature and what isn't as ChiarkPerson. I am trying to get a handle on what *he* thinks is relevant and just why it is I disagree with him. Introspection, if you will. And what's wrong with getting "relevant" thoughts, opinions, ideas and discussions from documentaries and newscasts? I enjoy reading a number of political commentators and quite a few of the Guardian's columnists. - MoonShadow
OK, you said, effectively, that if relevancy was the main factor in choosing our entertainment, then we would mostly choose to watch documentaries and newscasts. To me, than means that you think that documentaries and newscasts are the only places for an "adult" to get "relevant" entertainment from. Is that what you think? --M-A
No, but I do think they are the places with the highest ratio of "relevant" to "nonrelevant" content. - MoonShadow
Really? I don't see anything in the news which tells me anything other than "Humans are acting according to HumanNature?" - and that the news likes to report upon the largest, most vivid and usually the worst bits of it. That they report uon the specific happennings of FarAwayPlaces? makes it even less relevant, surely? --Vitenka
If that is the case for things related to the real world, how much more must it be the case for things that are made up, talking about made up people and MadeUpPlaces?? - MoonShadow, devil's advocate
Then, having got through those fraught-filled years, those kind of stories may still be interesting, but they are no longer directly relevant to the issues of the day - more "adult" themes are more engaging.
I really can't see anywhere where ChiarkPerson dimissed the need for stories in general. If I dug out my old MyLittlePony comics, I certainly wouldn't be as thrilled and excited by the storylines as I was when I was 5, because I have grown up since, and I can see the vast over-simplifications that the stories use - I'd rather read a more in-depth story. You can be very eager to accuse people of throwing together StrawMan arguments, but I feel you may have fallen foul of it yourself this time. --M-A
Shame. I'd like a full discussion. It's an interesting point whether it is actually needed to learn and grow in that fashion. Certainly, all human societies that I can think of do - and there are many stories about why stories are an inherently good thing. (Ponder that three times fast) But then, there are stories about emotion being inhenrently impossible for any non-human society... --Vitenka
I think we do actually *need* stories, fantasy, and imagination. In relation to history, telling stories of our past lets us learn from it or move on from it. In relation to art, pretty much all illustrative art tells a story of some form, except for a straightforward still life from reality. And in relation to progress, I think the subjunctive is vital to let a society advance: the ability to go "I know things aren't like this, but suppose they were..." Which I think is clearly tied in with storytelling. --AlexChurchill
Afterall, stories are fun, therefore must be approved of. -ColinLeung
StuartFraser is strongly of the opinon that we need stories; mostly because of AlexChurchill's last point. (I'll leave the comment about history out of this; IMO DoWeNeedHistory is an entirely separate discussion...).
StephenHawking?, in his foreword to The Physics of Star Trek, wrote: "Today's science fiction is often tomorrow's science fact. The physics that underlies Star Trek is surely worth investigating. To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." Concerns about the HumanSpirit? aside; I think this sums up my (and part of AC's) position nicely. Humanity became the dominant species on earth because we our thought processes are not limited to the mundane and the concrete (or even the flint). Whilst pure science is a product of the mind that thinks "Why?"; applied sciences are the product of the mind that thinks "What if?"....and to ask "What if?" is essentially to have imagination, which is the font of storytelling. Equally, the parable and the satire, as stories, can have massive sociological and political impact; the works of Emile Zola are considered to have been influential in the 1848 revolution in Paris, in perhaps the best example. It's often easier to communicate obliquely in this manner than it is to do so directly. (People who play SpotTheSubtext? in Chinese cinema will certainly agree...)
Can I turn this one round and ask, "What's wrong with stories?" Even in MoonShadow's view of what he thinks that ChiarkPerson thinks, what's wrong with stories? --M-A
With reference to paragraph 3 "...It's not adult to need to think about things that aren't immediately relevant ...", this is clearly limited in scope. As was said earlier, utiliterianism does work for short term survival. But what of planning, of fun, of humour, of life? You can go into work every day, and do and learn what you need to survive, or you can learn, and creatively imagine what will happen tomorrow.
Also, man needs time off. Heck, G-d (existence under investigation) only works 6 of 7, man needs a certain amount of time away from work. Stories enrich our experience and inform us through media as diverse as art, music, tv, books, theatre, fables and folklore, acting as both group memory, and a tool for relating to other people.
Logically, they work for me; Emotionally I want /need stories ; Result I am a book addict.
On the flip-side, an over indulgence of fiction can be unhealthy. I went through a year where I barely did anything bar read and watch TV. This clearly wasn't healthy, and a result of my depression, and illustrates that where there is unsufficient emphasis on the utiliterian there can also be problems. I got over it. I read now, but not as obsessively *shrug* life can be fantastic, but fantasy shouldn't be life. Garbled
An excellent set of points / comments - thanks, Garbled. I had a rant I was planning to put on AlexChurchill/WikiBlog about spending time exercising your imagination but not living in a fantasy world, but you've just said most of it :) --AC
Not all stories are made-up stuff. "The Kon-Tiki expedition", by Thor Heyerdahl, "Catch Me a Colobus", by Gerald Durrell, "A mad world, my masters", by John Simpson for example. --DR And I think "What, if any, are the deeper purposes served by reading/writing/telling <foo>" is a more interesting question to ask.
The ability to come up with stories is the ability to imagine ways in which certain results might have been attained, and indeed to imagine what might be the consequences of certain actions that have not yet happened. The rest (telling the plot in an engaging and memorable fashion) is mere trimmings. The basics of the ability is to be able to say "You stay out of that wood, young'un. Why? I'll tell yer why. 20 years ago, mind, there were a terrible bandit as ended his days there. Died furious and cheated so they say. And ever after, well, bad things happen. Unquiet spirits. So yous stays out of that thar wood, right?".
This ability is fundamental to survival. The ability to hypothesise, plan and empathise. Did she not turn up in order to slight me because perhaps I offended her somehow? People make up stories for themselves to help explain and predict the actions of other people all the time. My guess is that reading literature, fantasy, fairly tales, legends, soaps, romances, and all helps improves this ability of the mind.
DR adds: Having now spent considerable time in schools observing young children in English classes, I am more convinced than ever that being able to tell a tale is a fundamental ability that is critical for children to learn in order to be able to think properly.
There have been stories that just stop as if they ran out of pages or something. These endings are very unsatisfying and are not recommended. The creators of these stories often do that to show that life continues on. It doesn't just neatly wrap up like it does in fiction. The problem is, as we discussed, people want stories to make sense and have meaning. Stories are almost a substitute for religion. They create meaning out of meaninglessness.
I wondered what other people thought of the section I've highlighted in bold... --AC
The statement hangs together - I mean, religion creates meaning out of meaninglessness for a lot of people. But I don't agree that stories create meaning in life. Stories are meaning, but they aren't the meaning of life. That's kind of a definition for a story. When people start thinking of their faith as something that's separate from reality, it's called a crisis of faith. When people start thinking of a story as something that's separate from reality, it's called sanity. --Requiem
Religion is a story. Surely that is obvious? --Vitenka
For some values of 'story', possibly not including that discussed above? --Requiem
DR rants: On the flip side, do we need newspapers? I mean, really? What do you get out of reading a newspaper?
The weather, road works, upcoming rail strikes
Surely a newspaper isn't the most efficient or timely way to store and retrieve this data?
Responsible use of your vote
Since when did you alter who you voted for based on a story you read in the newspaper, rather than personal contact, effect on your own life, or in-depth research? Keeping the btards honest doesn't require trumpeting their every move to the masses through dead trees surely? There must be a more reliable and better feedback-control mechanism for society.
![[Home]](/img/text_logo.jpg){kind=logo}
DoWeNeedStories