Fiction From Fact

I was just reflecting on the publishing world, the type of reading I like to do is defined by what it is not: non-fiction. The term "fact" is often used as the opposite of "fiction" but non-fiction books are not described as "fact books."

This is analogous to religion. Those who not believe in magical sky people are described as "a-theists" or non-theists. There is no comparable term for non-believers which does not define us by what we are not.

NoCoPilot wrote:

There is no comparable term for non-believers which does not define us by what we are not.

One could start a semantics argument over that statement.
Consider that people can all be defined as monotheist, polytheist, or atheist. Which defines, in a positive manner, the number of gods in which one believes: one, more than one, or less than one.

I also do not believe in LGMs. Does that mean I need to call myself "a-alien"?

I guess you could if you'd like.

You get my point. There are dozens of things, hundreds of things, millions of things I do not believe. I cannot hope to list them all.

It would be much simpler if there was a word for "non-fiction" outside of literature.

NoCoPilot wrote:

I was just reflecting on the publishing world, the type of reading I like to do is defined by what it is not: non-fiction. The term "fact" is often used as the opposite of "fiction" but non-fiction books are not described as "fact books."

They are not described as "fact books" because a great many of the books found in the non-fiction section have few or no facts in them. Consider all of the opinion, theory, political, religious, etc., books that are located in the non-fiction section. Do you think these are all books containing just facts? No way, Jose!

Maybe the two sections of the library should be defined as "fiction" and "everything else."

So is "non-fiction" so grey that none of it can be described as "fact"?

Of course not. But it would be inaccurate to describe every book in the non-fiction section as containing only facts. Just as it would be inaccurate to say that there are no facts in any of the books in the fiction section.

It might be more definitively correct to call the two sections "entertainment" and "information" rather than "fiction" and "non-fiction."

_Howard wrote:

It might be more definitively correct to call the two sections "entertainment" and "information" rather than "fiction" and "non-fiction."

It might.

I guess I'm the only person in the world who is "entertained" by information.  Who reads non-fiction for fun, because learning stuff is fun.  I don't know this for a fact but I assume fiction outsells non-fiction by about 60:1.

Which is odd, but not surprising, I guess.  Most people live in a fictional world, believing in fictional events and magical forces and have little if any understanding of what actually drives the world they see around them.

No, you are most assuredly not the only person in the world who is "entertained" by information. Who reads non-fiction for fun, because learning stuff is fun.

I don't read as much non-fiction as I used to but, in my house, I would guess that fiction and non-fiction books are present in about equal measure.

NoCoPilot wrote:

It would be much simpler if there was a word for "non-fiction" outside of literature.

I think many such terms have been proposed over the years: realist. Humanist. Scientist. Pragmatist. Objectivist. Truther. Missourian.

They all fail the catchiness test.

There are times when something can best be described by what it is not.

"Non-fiction" encompasses a large and diverse body of writing, for which there is no universal label. That makes a reference to this entire body of work with a single term dependent on a term which, while not specifically defining each of the categories in the work, separates them all from that which is recognized as other. Much of the rest of life suffers from the same condition.

I'm nonplussed by your illogic.

Sounds like a personal problem. Have you tried penicillin?

You want nonplussed? I'm listening to Neon on my computer speakers.

_Howard wrote:

I'm listening to Neon on my computer speakers.

That would be like looking at Scarlett Johansson on a cellphone screen.

Thank god the new ones have great resolution.

_Howard wrote:

No, you are most assuredly not the only person in the world who is "entertained" by information.  Who reads non-fiction for fun, because learning stuff is fun.

I don't read as much non-fiction as I used to but, in my house, I would guess that fiction and non-fiction books are present in about equal measure.

Yup. I don't even read fiction for fun at all. I probably have one somewhere but I don't know where.