re:considering

I’m of the firm belief that all human beings are born being creative and innovative. It’s a survival trait, we have to be able to solve hitherto unencountered problems to grow up and we often have to make do without the help of others. As time and socialisation works on us we learn to shed or hide that creativity. We learn to conform, to do as expected. We learn that some solutions are NOT valid in this particular society. IF we are lucky we can see that this is not the case universally but we’re still encouraged to do it the way we do it here. So to speak.
This is of course also a kind of survival trait. It works to unify a certain community, to make that community walk in step. This is what the community needs, and often it benefits the citizens of that community.

Sometimes it gets too strict, though. In our present time we get told that being creative is childish and irresponsible.

I think this is one of the reasons the mainstream despise the science fiction genre. Only the other day I had a conversation were the other part said he had enjoyed SF when he was a kid but then grew out of it, then going on to tell that what had been so great with it was how it showed other perspectives, other ideas, other ways to organise society. And believe it or not but he was talking of Flash Gordon! Science fiction is, at it’s root, creative, and demands a mentality that wants to make that journey, to explore the unknown.

Contrast this with the kind of mainstream books out on the market who works to explore certain relationships or characters (mother-daughter, father-son). Those books work to establish which step to walk in, and to assure the reader that other people have felt that way and it’s only normal.

Society needs balance. Society needs both a solid ground to stand on and creativity. Society needs both kinds of literature/fiction.

But it would be so much easier if those reading confirmation lit could acknowledge that while the explorative stuff is not their cup of tea at least it’s not unworthy of a grown up mind.

Personally I enjoy books because they offer the possibility to explore hypothesises. I also enjoy stories that poses questions or that casts light on situations we no longer reflect over because we are so used to them. Too used to them, sometimes. Like the concept of humanity, or the role of religion in conflicts, or whose subjective ideas are viewed as objective truths. Like the concept of power, or history.
The best authors are those who manages to ask all these ‘what ifs’ while at the same time conjure believable characters and a page-turning story.
I’m not hardcore on the characterisation stuff, though. I really really want believable characters BUT sometimes the author makes such a good job with story and ideas that I can accept the thin personalities. Books by Neal Stephenson (this link goes to his Wiki page – this one is for his website) usually fits this last category, this latest book Anathem a point in case.

I also enjoy books for the comfort they bring. Some books are like old friends. Other books are made for reading while you’re sick or generally low. Some of them are the same as those above, but not necessarily so. I used to reread Good Omens whenever I felt down but nowadays when I am sick I mostly reread the Foreigner series.

Some books are stuffed with fast carbohydrates. Pleasurable while they last but leaving you feeling empty afterwards. I think the Dresden Files a typical specimen. It’s like fast food, fluff. Fun, and don’t bear scrutiny.

Others are elaborate, yes, byzantine!, mysteries that challenges the mind’s puzzle solving faculties.

Of course books can also be a source of knowledge. When you use them as such I think it important to look at them and ask when were they written and what are the objectives of the author. Because in some cases even textbooks and encyclopaedias can be prejudiced. Just pick any 100 year old encyclopaedia and check the word ‘Africa’ if you don’t believe me. Racial bias didn’t get non-PC until after wwII.

So many uses for books, and all statistics (from Statistics Sweden, in Swedish) show people read less and less.

Makes me sad.

I prefer books that requires the brain do some work.

Of course I read a lot of light stuff as well. It’s just that (some of) those books are like candy – nice while eating them but leaving the stomach emptier than it started.

But that’s just MY preference. I’d never want to force it on someone else. Reading should be fun.

That makes it tricky to talk about books, though, because it’s inevitable that I voice my opinion and by doing that risk others taking it in a personal way.

“This books that you really liked is trash, and so are you”. Kind of.

So. It’s important to understand that preferences differ, just like we as human beings are different. But this also means that, yes, YOU liked that book but that don’t automatically suggests I will like it. At all.

Sometimes I think a reminder is in place. This IS the reminder.

Preference is personal.
Respect should be universal.

And don’t forget to ask who benefits from you thinking it shouldn’t be that way.