Two birds with one stone

Sharing my response to an important question

A post I read today posed a question:

Upon reading this, I decided to forgo a significant portion of my morning writing time in order to comment (perhaps the longest comment of all time).

And so, partly because I feel it’s an interesting question and partly because I feel I’d be making better use of the time I spent responding by posting my comment as a newsletter, I’d like to share my answer:

I find the answer to this question is often unnecessarily over-complicated. And I understand why—it does feel like there should be a wise and demystifying sentiment in response to this apparent mystery.

But at the very core, it's quite simple: stories convey information. If you think about why humans ever started to tell stories in the first place, this must have been the reason (in media today, many refer to the "inform, entertain, & inspire" triad . . . So perhaps to entertain and inspire could be added to this original act, so to speak).

Now, please don't take me for a bland, stick-up-the-butt science guy, because I believe just as much as the next literary enthusiast in the near spiritual nature of this art. Furthermore, I don't mean to convey a distaste to this sort of question, because I've found traditional literary study often fails to consider active implications of works, preferring instead passive reflection (this makes sense in part because most literary study focuses on works of the past). And while it's true that literature does reflect the nature of an era, I like to think it also plays a role in shaping culture, though admittedly less than things like the economy, geography, and other, more immediate circumstances.

If anything, I think stories are powerful tools for individuals to cultivate themselves. One thing literature does better than anything else is dig deep. No amount of conversation or psychoanlysis can best the written word's ability to mine one's subconscious. And to know thyself has a host of practical benefits.

In terms of cultural effects, however, I'm not so sure. The fact of the matter is (I have no statistics to back this assertion), I assume, that a lower percentage of the population reads books today than all time since the 16th or 17th century, seeing we have so many other forms of media today.

I think this fact—that fewer people engage in literature—shapes culture more than the degree to which literature itself positvely impacts culture. In other words, fewer people engaging with books and other written stories has a net negative effect (although this, I suppose, is countered by our copious consumption of podcasts and other contemporary media).

I'm sure, actually, you could chart out on a graph the percentage of people who read books in any country or culture against things like, I don't know, general quality of life or something like that, or percentage of a population in poverty, and find some sort of telling trend.

The question, then, would be: did the chicken or the egg come first? In other words, do more people engage in stories when they're healthy and wealthy? Or are more people healthy and wealthy when they engage in stories? My guess, and hope, would be the former.

ON THE OTHER HAND, certain stories shape cultures almost entirely (the Bible, for example) with precepts and philosophies put forth that trickle down into the very recesses of society, affecting any and all, regardless of whether or not they read. Indeed, the economy itself, the decisions people and politicians make are shaped by some of these stories.

So, in short, stories are everything.

My newsletter is small and tends not to attract any engagement yet, but if any readers find this conversation interesting, I’d love to hear your thoughts!