Do you think that fiction is a valid source for knowledge?

Answer 1

I think it depends on what you mean... if you are referring to assertions that a work of fiction uses to help set up a good plot or something (Da Vinci Code style... or even Thousand Splendid Suns or Portrait of an Artist), no that is not valid. Some works of fiction (e.g. State of Fear) offer footnotes, if you want to 'learn' from the book you should check those footnotes which ought to be valid sources that are scholarly works, but don't trust the work of fiction.

On the other hand, if you are looking to study the way people interact or how they go about their daily lives (or even how biases work), I would say that fiction can sometimes be a better source than non-fiction (although less citeable). The reason I think this is because fiction has to sell itself on a different level than non-fiction does. Non-fiction gains believability based on the repute and education of the author and of his sources. Fiction gains believability by portraying people and lives in a way that is consistent with what the readers know occurs from personal experience. If the readers knew that people in a book are behaving in a way that is not defended by everyday experience, they would set down the book because they wouldn't be able to connect to it. By contrast, people may dismiss such flaws or be more receptive to an incomplete portrait of a character in non-fiction because they know that "truth is stranger than fiction." I think I'm stumbling over my words here so I'm going to hope to do better with an example:

For these observations about characters to be valid, a large number of people have to buy into the novel. So I'll try to use Harry Potter to support what I am saying.

The premise of these books are that a large wizarding society exists in secret throughout the world, and that their is a notable society of wizards in England. It also goes on to describe various magical plants and creatures that seem to exist without Muggles ever noticing them. Obviously this premise is false and should not be used to support knowledge. Most books have more believable premises than these ones, but they are still no more valid than these. However, there are things that would destroy the books if they weren't believable. I will just use examples from the second and fourth books. In the second book, one of these elements is that Fred and George seem to find pleasure in the chaos unfolding around them for at least a while as they torment their little sister with this knowledge, etc. If readers didn't know that their were people who behaved like this, they wouldn't buy into these characters and be able to laugh with them and sympathize with them for the rest of the series. Once again in the forth books, there are people desperate enough to attempt foolish things at the risk of injury to try to prove themselves like Fred and George. Also, Harry's guilt after winning and not wanting the money is believable because it is consistent with trauma. This is not schoarly research, but if you want to defend your belief of a certain idea to yourself, seeing whether or not a character who behaves in a way consistent with that idea is believable can be a good guide.

Answer 2

As a fiction writer, I am very careful to have my facts straight. I do research and talk to people in 'the know'.

However, let's take for instance The Davinci Code'. It is first and foremost a fiction novel, but in the beginning Dan Brown writes that this was all based on fact. Later, after the book sold millions, it was discovered that a lot of what was in the book was not, in fact, true. Dan Brown did a ton of research and I believe did the best he could, but your research is only as good as your sources.

Even history books are sometimes wrong.

So are they valid? Yes., they can be, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

Answer 3

In a sense. Assuming the mind reading it is educated (not school-wise necessarily) and that they are reading the text with more depth than just "enjoying the story." Themes (and such) in books can be used to explore ideas. Not as examples, but as something more, like in one story, the author makes a case for a world without hatred, and in another, it shows the possible ways such a world could go wrong. I read mainly fiction, but (without sounding conceited) I get good grades, and my teachers say I am smart. But it is best used as a source of wisdom, since it takes understanding to really learn from books, and knowledge (gained from books) without understanding is pretty much pointless. But it might not be a good idea to learn simple facts... (like how something works) from fiction, which doesn't need to include actual facts, and can change things or make mistakes.

Answer 4

Yes, I do. I think it is a great way to learn while being entertained at the same time. Most authors do extensive research or have previously worked in the field of the subject they are writing about. I love good fiction.

Answer 5

That depends what you mean. When a story has a real setting, some things have to be real. One cannot write about the Golden Gate Bridge without it being in San Francisco--fact or fiction--because that IS where it is.

Can you learn things from it? Well, no. Magic like that in Harry Potter is not real, so no knowledge to be gained there.

What you can gain from fiction is an appreciation of story telling and learn how is done.

Answer 6

It can be. But it has to be well researched and carefully written fiction. Unfortunately, not much qualifies, so you have to really be careful. It's best to get knowledge from other sources, just to be sure.

Answer 7

It's a good source for getting one to to *think* about knowledge ... the nature and validity of it.

Of course, only good literature is capable of doing this. As well as a thinking mind in response to it.

Answer 8

It certainly can help with your literary skills, and *sometimes* it is a source for knowledge.

But it is not a *reliable* source for knowledge because it is fiction. Generally speaking, you can't believe anything that you read in fiction until you verity it yourself.

I hope this helps.

Jim, http://www.life-after-harry-potter.com

Answer 9

Science fiction is because a lot is based on fact to some degree.

Answer 10

Rand grew to become into fairly the materialist and, as all of us comprehend, completely content fabric with that situation. looking heavily at this actual passage what I see is a cry for solutions to the allegorical description(s) of Gods (us) passing in the process the Archangelic "thought of guy" into the Worlds of Separation (rudimentary vernacular and language courtesy of our much less-stepped forward progenitors). With that, you are able to nevertheless understand why Ayn hasn't a clue approximately something remotely touching directly to an Absolute fact or Absolute Beingness. As for the chest-thumping boasts of mankind's modern growth spurt, i visit concede that is been speedy, yet with regard to here: "we can manage existence ...and 'create' new varieties" - I answer: "somewhat? From scratch? without nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscoper or genetics lab?" circulate! "we've jets and weapons." - Wow, each thing Adam and Eve ever somewhat needed. Nevermind shifting into into the Divine situation, we've "jets and weapons...woohoo!" Troubling, pretty watching the modern Bonfire of the Vanities - in any different case ordinary because of the fact the cave in and bailout in 2008 - which trashed this us of a and a great bite of the worldwide economic equipment. ...fairly an fulfillment. Mankind, subsequently, would desire to be grasp of the Universe. Atlas is weeping like somewhat one now.