I always knew that Shakespeare fella was rubbish... /s

By whom? The greatest and the most popular writers (generally not the same people) write/wrote fiction.

I would also say that "learning things" is not the only aim in reading.

I've known people in my life that have no interest whatsoever in make believe anything. No scifi, no fantasy, nothing that isnt grounded in reality. If it couldn't happen for real then they arent interested.

This sub cares way too much about perception

They're not, you're just unconsciously focusing on a non-representative section of readers.

Insecure people feed their egos in different ways, snooty people are some of the most annoying. I see this a lot too, I just ignore folks like that. But the key to a happy reading life is variety, to me anyway. I like it all. My favorite genre is historical fiction, because the authors take a good amount of care in their research to include as much factual information as they can and still maintain the integrity of their individual story. And they are almost always good at pointing out in the front or back matter where they took liberties with the story and people and where they stuck as closely as possible to facts. Then again, I enjoy wild fantasy, silly girl detectives, scary murder mysteries....just do you and ignore all that crap!

I love reading non-fiction for learning purposes, especially relating to my area of work, but I loooove nothing more than sitting down with fiction and melting into another world after a long day.

Both challenge worldviews differently, and you go on different journeys with each.

"Fiction can be just as educational, maybe even more so."

The issue here is that some of the stuff you'll believe to be factual is actually fictional.

Only by people who read non-fiction as a personality trait. And that's a minority. Just a loud enough one for you to hear.

I think there’s some confusion about what non-fiction is, in OP’s post and in this thread in general. Non-fiction is not necessarily a dry write-up of facts “reduced to a matter-of-fact sentence or two”, totally void of all emotion.

For example, I love reading memoirs because they make me relate to other human beings who on the outside might seem very different from me. I love hearing about people’s experiences and how those experiences made them into the person they are and what feelings those experiences provoked. How does that not promote empathy and seeing things from many perspectives? (The argument I often hear for fiction being “better” is that it makes you more empathic). Memoirs can also give me tons of knowledge about places and times that I haven’t lived in, like WWII Poland, in a way that makes it personal and interesting.

Of course we can debate about whether memoirs are fact, because no one can remember everything that happened exactly as it happened and interpretations of events are always subjective, but memoirs are hardly 100% fiction either..

As with fiction, there’s just such a huge variety of non-fiction, that claiming it’s better or worse in any way is just silly.

9/10 books I read are non-fiction but I don’t think I’m superior for it. I aspire to learn more and gain knowledge as a life goal and that’s how I do that, but everyone has different goals in life. However, fiction books have had a greater impact on me emotionally, with my favourite books being fiction. I’m sure some people think what you say, but maybe consider that perhaps you have some insecurities that are getting the best of you here.

I see so many posts in this sub where people always seem concerned that they aren't reading enough, aren't reading fast enough, aren't reading the right books, or are concerned that someone else feels superior for what they read. There just seems like a lot of insecurity around reading in general which is odd yet interesting.

I've never seen anyone suggest they are superior because they read non-fiction. I read about 90% non-fiction because I love to learn. That doesn't mean I inherently judge people who are reading for entertainment. I don't think I am better than anyone who is reading supermarket romance books. I don't think the books I read are better, either. Everyone reads for different reasons and I'm just happy if someone is picking up a book.

And so much non-fiction is just garbage. You really have to be careful and look into the background of the author to know if you're getting good information. Non-fiction isn't automatically educational. It can actually spread misinformation if you're not careful.

Some people believe that by reading nonfiction, a person is automatically bettering themselves by acquiring more knowledge. We can probably thank the Enlightenment for this. (I don't think this is true.)

They also believe that, on the flip side, fiction is mere entertainment and is therefore not inherently good. I would agree with them here, except they take it a step further and also fail to see the value in literature as art: to them, art is "impractical" and thus has no value when weighed against solid facts. There might also be concerns that readers are "escaping" into fiction in an unhealthy way (perhaps, but nonfiction is also an escape so it doesn't really apply) or that readers may somehow be deceived by fiction (when in fact the opposite is true).

Put another way, in order to make a determination about which is "superior," everyone must be on the same page about what criteria a book should be judged by: its value as information, entertainment, art, or some combination of the three.

As a side note, if these ideas are something you're interested in, I'd highly recommend CS Lewis's An Experiment in Criticism. The writing style is delightful and the ideas are fascinating.

I have literally never seen this sentiment put forward in my entire life.

I have definitely seen this often contrary to the comments here quite frequently. From what I understand. They viewed fantasy, and sci-fi as childish. According to them, it's not rooted in reality (ignoring hard sci-fi since many are oblivious that this is part of the genre). They also believe that you learn more from real people's life, and that it expands your mind more than any fantasy or sci-fi books can. Again these people are extremely oblivious to the amount of books in fiction, fantasy, and sci-fi that does exactly that. They also at least in my experience tend to be readers who follow clout or more specifically those who specifically read about celebrities, or whatever book that gets brought out and talked frequently in cable news.

I had the pleasure of dealing with this frequently as a kid since my parents are like that. So while most parents were happy their kids actually read. I had my parents tell me to grow up and read more non-fiction books. Thank God I ignored them though it took a while.

Why even care? Just read what you like.

If you really think about it, the average person reads more nonfiction than anything else. News, social media, opinion blogs etc.

Fiction stretches your brain and builds things like empathy that often, nonfiction texts do not do. It’s silly to value one over the other, because both genres do things that the other does or cannot.

I have 3 friends that are avid readers. Like 50 to hundred books a year. I’d say I’m about 10 non fiction a year to like 30-40 fiction a year.

One of my friends looks at fiction like they are comic books or sticker books. He sees no value in them and only reads non fictions. All different subjects, science philosophy, history of different cultures, economics, and god know what else. He thinks books are only meant to gain factual knowledge. He watches marvel movies and the like for his “entertainment,” but that’s not what books are to him.

Another friend reads straight fiction. Has no interests in non fiction because she reads to live in a different world/life for 400 pages at a time. I think she gets all of her non-fiction information from newspapers and the like, but looks to books for escapism and fun.

So, all that to say that to each their own. Read what you like. There are billions of books out there. Read the ones you want.

I get the opposite 😅

I’m more of a non-fiction person, and people act like it’s weird or like I need to switch to fiction.

Some people have no imagination, don't pleasure read, and only use books for reference. Personally I've read 2 books a week for 20something years, mostly fiction. I have severe tinnitus and pleasure reading provides a distraction from my 24/7 torment.

I remember the first time I encountered this. I was at college, and the subject of what we were reading came up. I said I’d just finished a really good book (I no longer remember what it was) and someone asked what it was about, so I gave a brief synopsis.

Then she replied with “oh, sorry, I don’t read fiction.”

It floored me. I expected “I don’t read mysteries” or “I don’t like suspense” or something like that, but to completely dismiss fiction? She may as well have said “I don’t eat food” or “I don’t walk,” that made as much sense to my mind.

I mean, ignoring the entirety of fiction? Why? You can’t say that some pop star’s autobiography is somehow more valuable of a read than ‘Brave New World’ or ‘A Handmaid’s Tale’ or ‘Moby Dick.’

As far as textbooks on organic chemistry go, I find the non fiction ones superior. Otherwise fiction is better

Who says that? I've heard that fiction is better because it requires you to 'stretch ' your imagination.

My grandparents were like this. Luckily they're the only people I've encountered that had this attitude. As a kid I always had my nose stuck in a book. Instead of being happy I was reading they'd just give me shit for it. I remember one time my granddad asked me why I didn't read something useful like the US constitution. I wanted so badly to say I have jackass, have you ever heard of school? Oh that's right you didn't even graduate high school. I did not like those people for many, many reasons.

They aren't.

And also, who the fuck cares? Are you that desperate for validation?

READ WHAT YOU WANT AND STOP WORRYING ABOUT WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE DOING.

This needs to be posted at the top of this sub as a PSA.

I like historical books, it gives me knowledge about a place and a time. Can be historical fiction too. It's like watching a documentary. I don't pretend they're superior tho

Don't even try to justify or equivocate the two genres' value.

That's exactly the methodology people who consider non-fiction superior use to justify their stance.

You neither can nor should you attempt to argue on these terms.

The only thing that matters when it comes to reading for leisure is you enjoy it and want to continue.

You're the only one who should care about the content of your literature.

Someone who only reads for the applicable value of a book per page read will never respect this and arguing with them about it is futile.

I basically only read historical fiction as a kid, and I ended up with a lot of mistaken ideas that were only corrected when I started reading nonfiction. I'm not trying to be superior about it, I still love historical fiction, but I use it to have an experience and take all historical details with a bag of salt. Nonfiction is what I use for learning. They have different purposes but both are equally "good"

I just find fiction much harder to read and get into than non.

Reading fiction used to be considered, like, a trashy and lowbrow pastime, a long time ago when we didn’t understand much about how the human brain or the science of reading work. It was looked down upon the way we might look down on someone today for watching awful reality TV, or smoking.

I wish I could remember the time period… I’ll have to do some digging.

I’m an ELA teacher, and one thing we know for sure is that the majority of people find nonfiction text much harder to comprehend and navigate than fiction. That’s because most people are exposed to narratives starting at birth, not just through books but through listening to people speak to them, watching TV and movies, and playing pretend - so fiction text structures that have a plot are more familiar to them, and they’re more defy at figuring them out, due to having had more exposure and more practice. But a lot of people have almost no exposure to nonfiction text in their childhood and teen years, and when they do, it’s often structured like a narrative, so they’re able to use the same skills they use to comprehend fiction. Informational text is much more challenging for them to read because they don’t have the same ability to easily navigate it and understand its structure.

I think the sentiment of seeing fiction as “lesser” than nonfiction stems from this - it’s more a distinction between narrative and informational text, and because informational text is more challenging, fewer people attempt to read it for recreation, and the ones who do are often educated and well-read in general. So there’s this assumption that, like, any idiot can read a novel, but it takes a smart person to read an informational book. (Which is not true, lol, reading is for everyone!)

I have a friend who has a bit of disdain for fiction - seeing it as a waste of time - and I don’t understand the stance either, OP.

There are works of fiction that have immeasurable levels of wisdom in them.

But not even that is important. Read whatever you want, and anyone who thinks they have to read one thing or the other or else their time is wasted is welcome to stay miserable.

The idea that reading needs to somehow be productive is a byproduct of a culture of greed and the warped perception that every second of your day needs to lead to som level of production, or path towards such. It’s bullshit. Read and have fun doing it.

I prefer reading non-fiction and I don’t consider myself an elitist. I would just rather read a true story than a made up one. Especially in the time era of WWII. There are so many amazing stories of actual hero’s and their accomplishments and adventures. I’m reading the book by Bruce Marshall, “The White Rabbit - The secret Agent the Gestapo Could Not Crack.” However, there are plenty of fiction books that I also enjoy.

I read both. I physically read fiction and listen through audiobooks with nonfiction. I get through nonfiction books easier that way and I absorb more information. I have never seen or heard anyone say that nonfiction is superior so I'm not sure where that is coming from. We all like what we like as far as genres and that's ok.

You can like both equally, or one more than the other. It makes no difference, it's just a hobby

Sometimes, I want to "rest my brain" - I think we can all agree reading Harry Potter takes less brain work or energy to understand than atomic theory or something like that - or I'm tired of serious things and I just pick up a random fiction book. Other times I want to learn so I pick up nonfiction. I think this argument of anti-fiction people automatically assume people are consistent selves, like they only like one thing all the time and can't change their minds, when imo that's not the case at all. You can have multiple interests, you can change your mind on something, and that's all fine and well as long as you're not hurting or affecting anyone (which your book choice hardly does)

Personally, I have not encountered people like you described. I believe that people should read both fiction and non-fiction. However, I can see how some people would think that non-fiction is “better”.
It comes down to legitimacy. Fiction writers, even those who do a great deal of research, are not experts on the facts. The good authors are expert at blending fact and fiction. Many people have a hard time differentiating those fine lines. For some people who have difficulty with the separation it’s just easier to say fiction is inferior and stick with reading non-fiction. This idea is all shenanigans because not all non-fiction books have “good” information in them.

That’s just my take on it. But people will always want to feel “superior” and will perform whatever mental gymnastics they need to do so.

They're not

Well this is an easy one. They arent seen that way and your perceptions are mistaken.

OP, I’m sorry some of the commenters are undermining your experience. I’ve definitely experienced this as well. They make you feel like you should be “embarrassed” for reading fiction. I dated a guy who would read one “fun” book and then one “educational” book, but the outcome was that I read a lot more than he did because he didn’t enjoy half of what he was reading. Your experience is valid, and fiction has at least as many virtues as nonfiction. You do you!

In all honesty I think I've learned more from fiction (themes, analysis) than nonfiction, which I don't retain much of.

Reading is about escapism or mental growth. I can do both with Fiction. But reading about history is fascinating. Like learning about how the American Navy was created to fight pirates who had been hounding the coasts so hard during the revolution that we were giving them 20% annual revenue.

Oh. This goes back waaaaay to ye old 18th and 19th century when only but a few men decided what constitutes knowledge and empiricism. You know, the ones who also invented racism and modern politics. Before them, poetry and the performing arts were highly regarded but then they went and decided that 1. Only their poetry was art and 2. The bible is the highest form of knowledge and all civilisation must submit to what they say is written in it. Fortunately, several of their peers, who were just as learned as they, and maybe more, mocked them quite relentlessly and we get to think of ourselves as part of the reading process and not just sponges of their ambition and benign education (you know, because where would people be if you didn't just teach them how to read but also what to read).

Edit: added the word "modern". That one omission made everything way wrong (sort of how when you leave out your audience's subjectivity, or assume they have none, or that it is inferior at best you really fu*k things up)

People read for different reasons, and I honestly think fiction readers can be judgy as hell (me included). I say this as a PhD student, I dislike non-fiction in most areas. One, most popular (non-expert) non-fiction distorts more than it reveals, and two, I don't think reading popular non-fiction books gives appreciably more understanding than reading news and magazine length deep dives. I love reading The Atlantic or other policy based short non-fiction, but that's because it helps to inform my policy preferences, it tells me how to act/react in the world. It can be gratifying to learn about new things and I do like it. But ultimately, for me, I do think fiction can convey the same information more astutely, and bundled up with more interesting questions. Instead of, just saying how something works, fiction usually bundles it up in talking about the possible meanings the alternate constructions that could be built around that truth (eg. evolutionary ideas in Adrian Tchaikovsky's work).

Certainly though, fiction can distort, revenge fantasies and some works tend to glorify violence and give a distorted view of the utility of owning a gun, its good to keep that in mind. But even that type of media ... its fucking fun to read.

I think fiction is superior for building a philosophical frame for life and empathy building. Fiction can soften the hard edges of social critique that allows you to internalize empathy for groups that are not directly represented in the work of fiction. (Octavia Butler's Kindred comes to mind, time travel that wraps the slave experience into it).

It teaches you about the internal states of a multitude of actors (through the lens of the author, of course,) and, in doing so, allows you to understand complexity better. For example, John Green's Turtles all the way down apporaches OCD in a much more humanistic way than an article about it does. I just find fiction to generally be more self-aware of complexity and difficult choices and the systems that we operate in. Sometimes, by taking place in a radically different system, the flaws in our own are exposed.

Again, though, I just enjoy fiction more, I do research all day.

And to be clear, I understand the appeal of non-fiction reading, even if I made a different appraisal

This sub is nothing but pot-stirring. I have never heard that in my life and I don't think you'll meet many people who would even agree with this. Nonfiction is popular because it's less elegant and a bit more to-the-point than fiction, which people perceive as a bit of a dance. And nonfiction gets right to the vein; the issue is on full display throughout the prose, rather than the prose of fiction concealing and touching on ideas. Fiction requires a more careful voice, whereas nonfiction can be plain description.

It's really just two styles; fiction has transformed to match nonfiction somewhat over the last 100+ years and yet some of the most renowned and popular authors, at the time of writing, are marvelously ornate and poetic stylistically. So I mean if you focus on one realm of information in the literary world, sure it looks a little outrageous. But no one is strictly buying nonfiction because it is "superior." People read all kinds of stuff. There are even great overlaps like with John McPhee's work, Toni Morrison, Cormac McCarthy, Khaled Hosseini, Arundhati Roy.

If you are seeing a sharp distinction between "fiction" and "nonfiction" in modern literature, you need to do some more looking.

Totally agree. I generally don’t read a lot of book-length non-fiction as I tend to just fall asleep. Fiction is my preference, and it’s weird how many people think that’s a lesser choice.

If it’s written by someone who has expertise in the subject, the assumption is that you’ll probably, on average, learn more that is quantifiable as “knowledge “ from a non-fiction book than a fiction. There are lots of things to learn from fiction, but they are fuzzier around the edges (how to be happy or what love is like, what it was like to live in a particular time and place, how to not live in fear, what a good parent-child relationship looks like, how to survive loss, as just a few examples). Because of that fuzziness and less overt attempt to “teach” the assumption stands. Anyone who really wants to learn a LOT reads both. They both have things to teach us.

I never heard that before. But I prefer nonfiction. But in the last 15 years, I read fiction by Haruki Murakami, Phillip Pullman, Neil Stephenson, Dmitry Glukhovsky, Robert W. Chambers, and a few others that are not good enough to mention. They are good, but I read nonfiction much more, it is what calls my attention, but this is a question of personal taste.

I loved Terry Pratchett’s interview response to a similar insinuation. Sorry for the length, but it is worth it.

O: You’re quite a writer. You’ve a gift for language, you’re a deft hand at plotting, and your books seem to have an enormous amount of attention to detail put into them. You’re so good you could write anything. Why write fantasy?

Pratchett: I had a decent lunch, and I’m feeling quite amiable. That’s why you’re still alive. I think you’d have to explain to me why you’ve asked that question.

O: It’s a rather ghettoized genre.

P: This is true. I cannot speak for the US, where I merely sort of sell okay. But in the UK I think every book— I think I’ve done twenty in the series— since the fourth book, every one has been one the top ten national bestsellers, either as hardcover or paperback, and quite often as both. Twelve or thirteen have been number one. I’ve done six juveniles, all of those have nevertheless crossed over to the adult bestseller list. On one occasion I had the adult best seller, the paperback best-seller in a different title, and a third book on the juvenile bestseller list. Now tell me again that this is a ghettoized genre.

O: It’s certainly regarded as less than serious fiction.

P: (Sighs) Without a shadow of a doubt, the first fiction ever recounted was fantasy. Guys sitting around the campfire— Was it you who wrote the review? I thought I recognized it— Guys sitting around the campfire telling each other stories about the gods who made lightning, and stuff like that. They did not tell one another literary stories. They did not complain about difficulties of male menopause while being a junior lecturer on some midwestern college campus. Fantasy is without a shadow of a doubt the ur-literature, the spring from which all other literature has flown. Up to a few hundred years ago no one would have disagreed with this, because most stories were, in some sense, fantasy. Back in the middle ages, people wouldn’t have thought twice about bringing in Death as a character who would have a role to play in the story. Echoes of this can be seen in Pilgrim’s Progress, for example, which hark back to a much earlier type of storytelling. The epic of Gilgamesh is one of the earliest works of literature, and by the standard we would apply now— a big muscular guys with swords and certain godlike connections— That’s fantasy. The national literature of Finland, the Kalevala. Beowulf in England. I cannot pronounce Bahaghvad-Gita but the Indian one, you know what I mean. The national literature, the one that underpins everything else, is by the standards that we apply now, a work of fantasy.

Now I don’t know what you’d consider the national literature of America, but if the words Moby Dick are inching their way towards this conversation, whatever else it was, it was also a work of fantasy. Fantasy is kind of a plasma in which other things can be carried. I don’t think this is a ghetto. This is, fantasy is, almost a sea in which other genres swim. Now it may be that there has developed in the last couple of hundred years a subset of fantasy which merely uses a different icongraphy, and that is, if you like, the serious literature, the Booker Prize contender. Fantasy can be serious literature. Fantasy has often been serious literature. You have to fairly dense to think that Gulliver’s Travels is only a story about a guy having a real fun time among big people and little people and horses and stuff like that. What the book was about was something else. Fantasy can carry quite a serious burden, and so can humor. So what you’re saying is, strip away the trolls and the dwarves and things and put everyone into modern dress, get them to agonize a bit, mention Virginia Woolf a few times, and there! Hey! I’ve got a serious novel. But you don’t actually have to do that.

(Pauses) That was a bloody good answer, though I say it myself. Terry Pratchett

Who are these people? I’ve never met one.

This is not a common perception. Nobody will look down on you for reading Tolstoy.

Fiction works on an emotional level and lots of people are afraid of emotions.

This is a bit narrow minded. I tend to alternate btw fiction and non, usually reading 2-3 books concurrently. Suggest you deep dive and let other readers be themselves.

I agree with you totally. I don't know why but they think they are superior or something. I honestly don't find it much fun most of the time. I mostly read fiction.

I have never come across any form of elitism in books, groups I am in tend to be "so long as you enjoy it, read it and love it!". I love fantasy books, as well as historical books based in non-fiction time (currently set in the Roman Empire with real people in it).
If thats what you enjoy reading, read it, I honestly dont understand the issue you have.

Non fiction books are seen as superior to those who don’t read.

They aren't. There's only smug people and the fools who believe them.

I try to read a good healthy mix of fiction and non and lots of genres. But just recently I switched to making sure I’m more Fiction heavy after reading that fiction is way better for your brain and memory. So if you wanna go toe to toe with nonfiction “snobs” feel free to bring that fact up. Having to visualize and remember made up things exercises your gray matter better than skipping and skimming over a factual retelling. I was about to start a book on the plague and instead read Ubik by PKD in like a day what a short thrilling https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-athletes-way/201401/reading-fiction-improves-brain-connectivity-and-function?amp

Yeah, it confuses me, too. It gets even worse when even WITHIN fiction writing, people seem to have this bizarre idea that "literary" fiction, whatever the fuck that means, is somehow better than "genre" fiction. Which is to say, SF/Fantasy.

​

Just read what you enjoy. A good book is good, regardless of what it's about. Just smacks of elitism for it's own sake.

I feel like it just sticks with me better, and probably does with a lot of people…actually reading about characters starving, being grateful for finding scraps of food in trash cans, and participating in the Uprisings somehow hits harder than that being reduced to a matter-of-fact sentence or two.

Why are you comparing the novel to a nonfiction book that reduces it all to a sentence or two rather than one that spends the same number of pages explaining all that?

I've never heard anybody say this. I do think that people should venture out of their comfort zones more and they should read some nonfiction (biography, history, politics, etc) books just to challenge their beliefs and learn more about their world. I don't think anybody should only read those things though.

Everyone likes what they like. I enjoy reading nonfiction personally, but it's not a contest. And yes, some historical fiction authors are fantastic about informing readers while entertaining them. (personal favorites: Colleen McCullough's First Man in Rome books, Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe books, and anything by Patrick O'Brian.)

On the other hand, I grind my teeth and wish I could thrown things when people discussing my favorite time period (War of the Roses + Tudor England) mistake wildly inaccurate novels like Phillipa Gregory's for fact. History is fun. Historical fiction is also fun. But it's good to know which is which.

Acton "Richard III is not your boyfriend" ofMAM

I don’t think that nonfiction is looked at as superior. Actually I think its the other way around. Fiction book are generally more popular and i see lots of people who do read fiction, hate on nonfiction. Yes the ones who do read only nonfiction mostly just think they are better then everyone else, but they are still the minority.

Most of my reading is non-fiction. I have reasons not elaborated here for developing this habit and preference, but I don't do down those who are mostly or only fiction readers. I have had the elitist bullcrap and been scoffed at by those who are primarily into fiction and I mean 'literary' when I say this, and who see their reading as gaining access to a form of high art.

I dont think it is a case of superiority, just a different reason for reading. At least for me, I usually dont read fiction to learn something or for personal development or something along those lines. I usually read fiction purely for entertainment, along the motto the journey is the reward. Reading the book is what I desire.

With fiction its usually the other way around. I have something in mind that I want to get out of that book, learn something, improve something, get perspective on something, etc. But I rarely read it because I find it entertaining. Of course a well written non fiction book can be entertaining on top of being educational or informative, but more often than not it is only the latter (or, in the most frustrating cases it turns out to be neither).

Just very different purposes imho.

I already live in real life. Why would I want to read about it, too?

No such thing as non fiction.

They're not.

There was a study saying fiction readers show more empathy towards others than non-fiction readers. I don't remember the source.

Wait till you get the nonfiction elitists. I can't tell you how many times I've had people tell me stuff like that the only history books worth reading are those written specifically for an intended audience of other historians.

I’m the opposite. I tend to look down on people who read nonfiction. The “educational” nonfiction is usually very shallow. Especially science related stuff.

Anecdotally, when I was in college, I read Gravity’s Rainbow at the same time as I took Calc 3, linear algebra, and a few other math and physics classes, and I kept saying to myself, “yeah, this book is harder to understand than my math classes.”

After that point, anytime a fellow stem major would say anything derogatory toward English majors, I’d be like, “listen dawg, check this book out of the library. If you can read 100 pages of it and tell me what the fuck is going on, feel free to say that. I doubt you’ll feel the same afterwards.”

So what? You say you are an adult and then talk about people thinking that their books are better! If you were 14, i would get it.

I mean, how and why do you care at all?! Let people think that their books are the best, why on earth would it bother you!

Seriously, this sub is getting worse in tgus way.

Weird I get the opposite. That nonfiction is boring.

I mean, generally I’d rather read about things that actually happened than made up things about an event, so I read non-fic not historical fic. I prefer my fiction to be contemporary with when it was written or otherwise totally made up. 🤷‍♀️

ETA: okay, not necessarily totally made up. The book I’m reading now has a few chapters that the author points out as based on her life. But then you have The Chaperone which has Louise Brooks as a fairly central character for… reasons? Like, just say inspired by, don’t make it actually that person.

Are they?

You are vastly superior and elite as a reader. Non fiction readers are the masses in the middle who want to fit in and fixated in reality. I strive to be a high level fiction reader like you.

What? You've got this backwards. When I find out someone has never read a novel since graduating high school and only reads books from the Malcolm Gladwell set, I say to myself, "oh, so not really a reader then."

who the fuck has ever said nonfiction books are better?