Reply to comment

I really like what you said about accepting non-fiction as "our own." As we spoke about at some point in the Thursday seminar group, science functions within the limits of our own discovery. While new creations and experiments are being performed every day, they are still all within the realm of what has previously been created. Each new invention makes a dent in the enclosure of discovery, but the research involved in finding new techniques cannot be innovative in itself. On the other hand, fiction writing has infinite possibilities. There will always be another combination of events to depict, or new worlds to create. While there may be a finite number of story types, the content options are limitless.

Both the claustrophobia of science and the exponential options of fiction are daunting. Non-fiction seems to lie on a pleasant middle ground, in which the reader can depend on some degree of resolution. Knowing that this road has been traveled on (regardless of the hardships or obstacles) gives the reader a sense of rules. Nothing ‘otherworldly’ takes place, and so we can relate better. We are also better able to find meaning within our own lives when reading non-fiction. An inspirational story can be rooted deeper if we know that the experience was more than plausible: it actually happened. Non-fiction can incite in its readers the potential to do more, because we know it is possible. In this way, non-fiction finds a comforting middle group between the staunch limitations of science, and the terrifying sprawl of options of fiction.