The purpose of literature is to entertain. Since time immemorial, from the fireplace to the stage to the big screen, the primary function of the storyteller is to entertain.Grug's tale of the hunt is entertainmentThe Iliad is entertainmentThe Oresteia is entertainmentBeowulf is entertainmentShakespeare is entertainmentFlashman is entertainmentWhy did literature turn away from entertainment in the 19th century? For example, Moby Dick is a patently boring book. It is impossible to enjoy. It is not an engaging story. You could not read it out to someone and expect to keep their attention. Yet it is praised for every other reason than being entertaining. It is praised *despite* the absence of anything compelling.In my view, someone who reads fiction for reasons other than entertainment is a decadent and degenerate. They pretend to read. It is subterfuge. They have ulterior motives. They are liars.It is for this reason I completely distrust anyone who says they like Moby Dick.
>>24974777>Moby Dick sucksI'm a dickhead myself, some people love coffee or wine although they taste like rabbit shit. >the purpose of literature is to entertainYou could say that about anything. Who are you to say that, anyways? T.S Elliot? lol
> Why did literature turn away from entertainment in the 19th century?Because people stopped reading books and started listening to radio or watching opera. Books became obsolete for entertainment, so they became status symbols for the "intellectuals".
>>24974777The idea that literature should strive to be pure entertainment and nothing else kills literature. What exactly is "entertainment," is it just the ability to hold the consumer's attention for a few hours at a time? And, according to you, any amount of difficulty or artistic significance is necessarily incompatible with entertainment, right?If that's the case, then literature is already obsolete as a form of entertainment, and the highest form of entertainment in existence right now is the short form video. The algorithms on tiktok, instagram reels, and youtube shorts would seem to be the purest entertainment known to man in your worldview. It requires zero effort or thought on your part, you just sit there and let the algorithm shovel entertainment into your eyes. People who are into that can easily sink hours a day into it, all without having to keep track of symbols, themes, high level prose, or even plot and characters.Why exactly should people read or write instead of doomscrolling tiktok all day, according to you? What valuable things do books offer that tiktoks don't?
>>24974821>I undergo the Moby Dick ordeal because I don't want to be the kind of person that watches YouTube Shorts
>>24974832Moby Dick is an incredibly fun and enjoyable book for anyone with an IQ higher than room temperature.
>>24974777Entertainment is A purpose of literature. >>24974815Nobody was listening to the radio in the 1800's.
>>24974777writing and literature in the first place were invented for purely administrative purposes i.e. stone tablets having a record of the amount of crop that slaves have collected and so on, purely utilitarian by designentertainment is subjective, for instance I'm reading Moby Dick right now and it's one of the most enjoyable things I've ever held in my hands. I enjoy looking up the references and symbolism and the meaning behind it all, sure it has some jargon related to whales and other things but I don't mind it, quite the opposite actually, it's an opportunity to get exposed to something new and when fiction is both entertaining and educational you are getting the best of both worlds
I've got midwit fatigue
>>24974777Entertainment is only bad in proportion to how much it makes you forget yourself. Any arrangement of activities that puts *you* in control, in other words doesn't appeal to pure senses, or pure reason alone too much is good.
>>24974777>The purpose of literature is to entertainSays who? Consumerism is relatively new.>Moby Dick is patently boringAs opposed to the thrilling plotline of Symposion or Leviticus?
>>24975229>>The purpose of literature is to entertain>Sez who?Sez me>>24974777Boy do I have an author for you
>>24974777The claim that “the purpose of literature is entertainment” oversimplifies the entire history of storytelling. Entertainment has always been one function of narrative, but never the only one. From ancient epics to medieval sagas to Shakespeare, stories have served to transmit cultural memory, teach moral lessons, explore identity, critique power, and shape the imagination. Even the works cited as “pure entertainment” — the Iliad, Oresteia, Beowulf — were deeply tied to ritual, religion, and moral instruction. Reducing them to entertainment alone flattens what they actually were.The idea that literature “turned away from entertainment” in the 19th century also misunderstands the period. That era didn’t abandon entertainment; it expanded the possibilities of fiction. Popular writers like Dickens, Dumas, and Conan Doyle thrived, while others used the novel to explore psychology, society, and metaphysics. Works like Moby-Dick may not appeal to everyone, but calling them “impossible to enjoy” is a subjective reaction, not a universal truth. Many readers genuinely find them profound, funny, or moving. Disliking a book is fine; declaring that anyone who likes it is lying is not a literary argument — it’s projection.More broadly, fiction has always been more than amusement. As thinkers like Chesterton argued, stories shape the moral imagination. They help us rehearse virtues, empathize with others, and imagine what a good life looks like. Children instinctively use stories this way, and adults need it just as much. When fiction is dismissed as mere entertainment, we lose sight of its deeper role in forming character and meaning. A culture that stops telling rich, aspirational stories doesn’t stop needing them — it simply forgets how to cultivate them.
>>24976941First of all, the claim that literature’s primary purpose is not entertainment oversimplifies the evolution of storytelling. While ancient epics and medieval sagas certainly served cultural, moral, and historical purposes, they were also created to engage and entertain audiences. The idea that we can simply separate entertainment from deeper meanings ignores how central enjoyment was to these stories’ existence. Saying they were “purely moral” also misses the fact that audiences came for the thrill and emotional impact of these works, which is still true today. Reducing literature to just a tool for instruction leaves out the complex, layered experience stories provide.Secondly, the argument that literature in the 19th century “turned away from entertainment” misunderstands the evolution of storytelling. Writers like Dickens, Conan Doyle, and even Melville expanded what entertainment could be, combining it with deeper reflections on society, identity, and human nature. To say something like Moby-Dick is "impossible to enjoy" is not only subjective—it’s dismissive of readers who find profound meaning in it. Dismissing a work because it doesn’t meet your personal preferences isn’t a valid literary argument, it’s a projection of your own tastes onto others. Everyone's experience with literature is different, and declaring that enjoyment is impossible for others because you don't like something is pretty arrogant.Finally, I have to call out the fact that you’re using AI to write this, which seems a little ironic given your stance on the value of human storytelling. Literature has always been about human expression, emotion, and complexity. Yet here you are, relying on a tool that generates content without the deep human experience behind it, to push your argument. While AI can help with structure or ideas, it can't replicate the nuance, voice, and creativity that literature has always offered. It’s kind of hard to talk about the depth of storytelling when you’re using an algorithm to push your ideas forward. It’s a bit of a contradiction to champion the human qualities of literature while leaning on technology that strips away those very qualities.
>>24974777i'm esl so everything is educational even smut since am also a volcel
>>24977012Your causality is backwards. They werent entertaining therefore developed a deeper meaning. They had a deeper meaning, and therefore were entertaining. And I am not separating the moral from the emotional impact. I am saying that they are the same thing. Why id a heroic story thrilling and exciting? Because we get to see someone acting heroically, and we can learn to act heroically as well. You second paragraph agrees with me. I dont know why you though you needed to write it. And as for using an AI, yes, I am busy, so I have my secretary handle my correspondence.You seem to agree with everything I wrote.
