Stranger than Nonfiction Many have a thirst for knowledge, and some would even say that it is a defining human trait. However, our means of obtaining knowledge and what we classify as knowledge seems to be in a state of eternal dismay. In “Reading Imaginative Literature,” Mike Myers claims that literature is a much more insightful way of learning opposed to simple fact reading. I argue the contrary and suggest that literature is not only an inferior way to obtaining true knowledge, but it also serves as an obstacle. However, it is only an obstacle to those that cannot separate knowledge from art. When this is done, I believe that literature serves a separate but equal purpose to humanity. Initially, I would like to point to the figures
…show more content…
By this point, this true knowledge is so distorted that it is almost impossible to conceive, and the counterfeit far outweighs the authentic. Myers uses the poem “A Narrow Fellow in the Grass” by Emily Dickinson to try to prove that literature is more insightful than nonfictional reading, but the poem is useless unless you have had an encounter with a snake (3). There would be no way to even know what the poem was trying to communicate unless there were some prior experience to clue in the reader. A person would understand what a snake is best by handling a real snake. The next best alternative is talking or reading from someone who had acquired knowledge of snakes or seeing a painting of a snake. Reading “A Narrow Fellow in the Grass” would be the last alternative to learn what a snake is. The poem is not just bested, but it is the worst way to understand snakes. The further away from the actual experience, the more distorted facts become. Thus, inaccurate information can be distributed. The stanza “But never met this Fellow (New line) Attended or alone (New line) Without a tighter Breathing (New line) And Zero at the Bone,” can easily be interpreted as all snakes are dangerous, but a nonfictional work would have to clarify that only some snakes are dangerous. If it only read “snakes are dangerous” it would no longer be a factual
By this point, this true knowledge is so distorted that it is almost impossible to conceive, and the counterfeit far outweighs the authentic. Myers uses the poem “A Narrow Fellow in the Grass” by Emily Dickinson to try to prove that literature is more insightful than nonfictional reading, but the poem is useless unless you have had an encounter with a snake (3). There would be no way to even know what the poem was trying to communicate unless there were some prior experience to clue in the reader. A person would understand what a snake is best by handling a real snake. The next best alternative is talking or reading from someone who had acquired knowledge of snakes or seeing a painting of a snake. Reading “A Narrow Fellow in the Grass” would be the last alternative to learn what a snake is. The poem is not just bested, but it is the worst way to understand snakes. The further away from the actual experience, the more distorted facts become. Thus, inaccurate information can be distributed. The stanza “But never met this Fellow (New line) Attended or alone (New line) Without a tighter Breathing (New line) And Zero at the Bone,” can easily be interpreted as all snakes are dangerous, but a nonfictional work would have to clarify that only some snakes are dangerous. If it only read “snakes are dangerous” it would no longer be a factual