Fiction

I can't stand fiction. Not all fiction- only really good fiction.

Before you exit out of my blog and hate me forever, allow me to explain.

First, let me tell you what I define as a "really good" book. I often define a book of this caliber by its ability to deeply affect the person reading it. It doesn't have to teach a lesson, but the reader leaves with some conviction that they did not previously posses. Now, this definition falls somewhat short when I think about some of the best fiction books I've read. I do not glean some new piece of information or spark of inspiration from them. In my opinion, what makes fiction books great is their ability to transport the reader. Obviously not physically, but on an emotional and psychological journey. When I read a good piece of fiction, I get lost in its depths.

The reason such books are so great is the same reason I hate them.

See, when I get lost in a book's depths, when I find myself totally immersed in another world, certainly there's a part of my mind that knows that this escape will not last forever, but I try to ignore that voice as much as possible.

And then it's over. With the turn of the final page, the universe I have poured so much of myself into disappears. When I finish a good fiction book, I feel empty inside. What I devoured so rapidly and with such intensity is gone, and I don't know what to do with myself.

This might sound extreme and melodramatic, but there are few things I can compare to finishing a good work of fiction. I have never been depressed for long periods of time, and I have never been clinically diagnosed with depression, but I have felt depressed before. I expect that I experience this feeling no more than any stressed senior, but I bring this up as a means of comparison. When I put so much time and dogmatic faith into this endeavor  I invest a great deal of myself into the world created by the melding of the author's words and my creativity. When that comes to a close, I find myself lost. It often takes me days, and sometimes even weeks before I fully recover from finishing a fiction novel.

And yet for all of this emptiness, these holes left by a good book, I cannot help but pick up another. I don't think it's because I'm a sadist, and I wouldn't say I'm hooked on the hollowness brought on by a finished novel. If I had to guess, I'd say the reason for this is because of the absolute high of living in a fantasy world, even if it's only in my mind, and even if it's only for a short 600 pages. Being able to create, destroy, interpret, and experience such other-worldly things is something that I could never give up.

But WHY?

Why do we feel the way we do?

This is a question I've been pondering for a while since we had a discussion in English about existentialism. There are so many different thoughts jumbling around in my head, I'm going to try and present all possible views I can think of on the subject.

For the purpose of comparison, I'll use the example of love. An undoubtedly strong feeling, prevalent in almost all aspects of life, some stronger than others. But why do we love?

According to (my understanding of) existentialism, the reasoning behind emotions and feelings is always selfish in nature. For example, we might love someone because we are similar to them, and therefore have a higher chance of getting together, which means a higher chance of procreating, which means a higher chance of passing on our genes to future generations. Another selfish aspect of this emotion is the fact or evidence of its reciprocation in the object on our feelings. This might seem like a bit of a stretch, but, when you think about it, pretty much all human actions can be boiled down to selfishisness. But, it's important to note that in Existentialism, selfishness is not an inherently negative thing. In fact, being selfless and acting completely unselfishly results in the literal loss of one's self, or one's identity. So love is felt due to selfish motives, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

One idea that scared me for a while was that everything that defines us, everything that we feel, everything that we think, is all just a specific interaction of neurons in our brains. We love the people we do because certain chemicals were triggered in the right ratios in our brains at the right time. This is quite a depressing thought for me. This idea gave me the impression that I have absolutely no control over my feelings. Loving someone, which feels so definite and absolute in my mind, is really caused by reasons outside my control. But then, after a while, I realized that yes, our feelings are dictated by physical interactions. But that makes them no less real, and no less our own. Sure, I only love you because of a specific combination of chemicals in my brain at the right time. But imagine the complexity of such interactions. The math points to the statistical impossibility that all of these triggers would align perfectly for me to love you. And yet they did. The infinitesimally small chance that the physical events would happen for me to feel the way I do is so astounding that, in my mind, it in no way diminishes the reality of the emotion.

I guess I believe in a bit of a combination of these two ideas. The existentialist approach teaches me that I love the people I do because I want to benefit myself in the long run. And there's nothing wrong with that. The second idea teaches me to not pass off the things I feel as trivial or meaningless. The fact that I feel the way I do is incredible and unique, and there's nothing dehumanizing about it.

Of course, these are only two theories of hundreds. And they are by no means exclusive or closed off to different interpretations. These are just a couple of thoughts I've been having on the subject. They may not make any sense, but I have found that writing your ideas down and sharing them helps you come to terms with what's hard to put into words.

A Colorful Alternative

Graphics novels.

When you hear those two words, chances are your mind immediately goes to comic books. Batman and Robin, The Green Lantern, Superman, Deadpool. There are a few major differences between what we think of as comics and what are classified as graphic novels.

Comics are released as a continuation. One publication has the same story as the previous one, but it advances the plot a little bit further. Graphics novels are entire stories in one large chunk. For this reason, while comics are generally released in small serials, graphic novels are released in lengthy books. Both comics and graphic novels use a combination of pictures and text to communicate their ideas, but, in graphic novels, these ideas are often more mature and literary, while comics tend to be more commercial in their goals.

Because of the false association many people have with graphic novels and comic books, graphic novels tend to be looked down upon as a literary form. I think that this is a shame. Not only do graphic novels posses the same literary power that novels do due to their text, but they in fact have increased potential because they have the added dimension of pictures. If anything, graphics novels are able to convey much more complex emotions and ideas than novels can.

I have read a few graphic novels, and I can think of two off of the top of my head that are perfect examples of excellent works of literature. First, is the 3-part series Maus, by Art Spiegelman. This novel tells the story of a holocaust survivor through the allegory of animals. The Nazis are cats, the Jews are mice, the Poles are pigs, and so on. This is an incredibly powerful tale, and it is written in a gripping style. However, if the story were solely text, the effect that is created with the animals would not be nearly as effective.

Another graphic novel is Watchmen, by Alan Moore. This is one of the most thought-provoking works I have ever read. The story is far too complex to outline, and the characters are far too dynamic to describe, but Alan Moore was able to create a world that the reader can identify with, which is quite a feat for an author to successfully accomplish. The added effect of the visuals to this work adds a great deal to the reader's understanding of the characters and the story. This graphic novel truly makes you stop and think, and I cannot recommend a better read for a curious mind.

All in all, I hope this makes you somewhat interested in the world of graphic novels, as they are sadly under-appreciated in today's culture. If you are interested in reading either Maus or Watchmen, I have both and can lend them to you. I have also heard that Batman: The Long Halloween is another excellent novel, though I haven't read it myself.

Below are just two examples of the kind of deep questioning that Watchmen in particular ponders.

History

I am going to start out today's post with a quote from the book The Plot Against America, by Philip Roth. Because of a couple of references, you might need a bit of background to understand what is happening. *NO SPOILERS WILL BE GIVEN- ONLY BASIC BACKGROUND* The Plot Against America is an alternate history novel, speculating what would have occurred if Charles Lindbergh had won the presidential election that was actually Roosevelt's third term. Lindbergh was a known anti-Semite, and this book is told from the perspective of a young Jewish boy looking back on that time. At this point, the father of the boy has just come to a realization, and the boy is stunned by his father's sudden hopelessness.

"And as Lindbergh's election couldn't have made clearer to me, the unfolding of the unforeseen was everything. Turned wrong way round, the relentless unforeseen was what we schoolchildren studied as "History", harmless history, where everything unexpected in its own time is chronicled on the page as inevitable. The terror of the unforeseen is what the science of history hides, turning a disaster into an epic."

This quote struck me as extremely powerful. The message that it sends is an important one, as important to us today as it was to the young boy in the 1940's. Roosevelt himself said only the election before, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." I do not think this is an accurate statement. As shown by the passage, the greatest fear is that of the unknown. Over time, people tend to forget about that fear. What we all think of as "harmless history" was unthinkable and unexpected to people at that time. Today, things are constantly happening in the World that we can't foresee or prepare for. The message that I take away from this passage is to never get too comfortable with how things are, because you never know what's around the next corner.

Another point that this passage makes, though it might not appear to make it outside of context, is the message that all of our actions have far-reaching consequences. Every tiny decision you make effects thousands of things that you can't possibly know about beforehand. It's impossible to take all of these things into account with each decision you make, but it's a good philosophy to always make decisions keeping their potential impact in mind.

I have deleted the picture I posted because it was too small to read. Sorry :(