Why do normalfags love nonfiction so much?
>>25245228They don't like nonfiction (as in actual science or history books) they like "smart-thinking" self-help or general knowledge crap.
>>25245228It’s real stuff, you spend time learning about reality instead of someone’s fantasies.
Why do incels like to post xitter screencaps so much?
>>25245228Why do shallow and basic fags love fiction so much
>>25245260What? Who are you doxxing?
>>25245228Nonfiction is fine and good but normies like it for interesting factoids and trivia-esque reasons. It's like how people from previous centuries were obsessed with memorizing "Great quotes from Great Men" but more reddit.
>>25245228While I learn interesting facts about the Ringstraße and figures like Karl Lueger and Georg von Schönerer you are impressed by shallow world building about places like Airstrip One and Tom Bombadil.We are not the same.
>>25245308Were you the one who made that thread or did you just copy/paste
>>25245228Fiction is a relic in literature. It's only for tv and cinema.
I like nonfiction fuck you
>>25245321Yes, I’m OP. The book is genuinely good btw
>>25245308You've got to be a gigachad to get the surname von Schönerer
>>25245244This pretty much. No normie actually reads people like RG Collingwood or A.J.P. Taylor.
>>25245244>no no no they like the BAD nonfiction unlike me of course :)normalfags love history books
fpbp
>>25245228Nonfiction readers are more likely to not really be big fans of reading for reading's sake, they just see books as tools for information. Whereas people who read philosophy/poetry/literary fic are more likely to care about the non-analytical or non-quantitative aspects of language, prose, whatever. And these days, nonfiction is just easier to write and easier to read. There's more marketing backing it. The people who run the world are economists, politicians, etc, and those types of people are more likely to make biographies and memoirs and self-help books, not poetry compendiums or philosophical treatises on empiricism.
>>252452449 times out of 10 this is correct, fpbp>>25245247>fantasiesimaginary vs imaginal, look it up
part of it is our culture/zeitgeist of narcissism (most popular non-fiction like celebrity auto-bios are all glorified diary entries for emotionally stunted dorks, they rarely force you to confront radically different viewpoints and just coddle you with variations of what you've already learned), part of it is ideological scientism (the only stuff worth learning is naturalistic/materialistic)
>>25247116he might mean something specific in mind when saying "actual history books" i guess he doesn't mean "pop history" or whatever
>>25247141Isn't philosophy also non-fiction?
>>25247116Sure if you mean WW2 slop. Actual academic history on other subjects, no.
>>25247178>(the only stuff worth learning is naturalistic/materialistic)Is this a descriptive or prescriptive?
>>25248971Depends on the philosopher
>>25248997Does it? Can you name a philosopher who considers his/her work as a work of fiction?
>>25245228That seems like a false assumption. Women are the ultimate normies and they love YA fiction.
Why does anyone do anything and why are you such a cynic that you still care
>>25245228Why do people do something that you do not? Well, they're cattle, 50 IQ niggers, yadda yadda, as opposed to you, the person reading this, who possesses an IQ of 200 and a massive 14 inch cock.
>>25249407this but unironically
>>25247116Most history books are pop slop. Normies don't read shit like historiography or journal articles.
>>25248985for scientism people it's pre
>>25249031Camus genius
>>25248971Philosophy is theory, fiction with aspirations to become non-fiction.
>>25248971No
>>25249896Wouldn't his literary works exemplify the philosophy he lays out in his essays? That's how I'd see it, the essays being non-fictional philosophical exposition.
>>25249904I don't think I agree with this. The way I see it, the split of fiction and non-fiction is defined by suspension of disbelief. The reader is expected to know that what is said is primarily exploration of unreal. If theory is expected or implied to be applicable to real, it isn't fictive.
>>25250826The line is not hard unless you are autistic; fiction relies on the real and nonfiction is not 100% truth. But I was not drawing a line between fiction and nonfiction, I was pointing out that theory isn't really fiction or nonfiction, it is its own thing and we engage with it differently.
>>25245247the majority of “nonfiction” is just made up crap, too, dumbass.
>>25251995I see the line being hard if defined by intent, which is in my opinion the only way to define fiction and non-fiction in the first place. If for example a schizo writes a non-fiction work that seems fictional by all other accounts, I'd still classify it as a non-fiction work.
>>25245228I don't think the differences between the two are as pronounced as people like to believe.
