Let’s step back. This thread of the conversation is rooted in this claim: “Let’s be honest: all fiction is a form of escapism.”. Are we snared in the Disputing Definitions trap? To quote from that LW article:
if the issue arises, both sides should switch to describing the event in unambiguous lower-level constituents, like acoustic vibrations or auditory experiences. Or each side could designate a new word, like ‘alberzle’ and ‘bargulum’, to use for what they respectively used to call ‘sound’; and then both sides could use the new words consistently. That way neither side has to back down or lose face, but they can still communicate. And of course you should try to keep track, at all times, of some testable proposition that the argument is actually about.
I propose that we recognize several lower-level testable claims, framed as questions. How many people read fiction to …
entertain?
distract from an unpleasant reality?
understand the human condition (including society)?
think through alternative scenarios?
Now I will connect the conversation to these four points:
Luke_A_Somers wrote “Why would I ever want to escape from my wonderful life to go THERE?” which relates to #2.
thomblake mentions the The Philosophy of Horror. Consider this quote from the publisher’s summary: ”… horror not only arouses the senses but also raises profound questions about fear, safety, justice, and suffering. … horror’s ability to thrill has made it an integral part of modern entertainment.” which suggests #1 and #3.
JonInstall pulls out the dictionary in the hopes of “settling” the debate. He’s talking about #1.
Let’s step back. This thread of the conversation is rooted in this claim: “Let’s be honest: all fiction is a form of escapism.”. Are we snared in the Disputing Definitions trap? To quote from that LW article:
I propose that we recognize several lower-level testable claims, framed as questions. How many people read fiction to …
entertain?
distract from an unpleasant reality?
understand the human condition (including society)?
think through alternative scenarios?
Now I will connect the conversation to these four points:
Luke_A_Somers wrote “Why would I ever want to escape from my wonderful life to go THERE?” which relates to #2.
thomblake mentions the The Philosophy of Horror. Consider this quote from the publisher’s summary: ”… horror not only arouses the senses but also raises profound questions about fear, safety, justice, and suffering. … horror’s ability to thrill has made it an integral part of modern entertainment.” which suggests #1 and #3.
JonInstall pulls out the dictionary in the hopes of “settling” the debate. He’s talking about #1.
Speaking for myself, when reading e.g. the embedded story The Tale of the Omegas in Life 3.0, my biggest takeaway was #4.
Does this sound about right?