Who else has trouble with fiction?

Post Reply New Topic

Not just reading novels, but getting into any works of fiction, including movies and TV. I find it so hard to suspend my disbelief, especially with science fiction and fantasy. Real scientific research, especially on human enhancement, interests me a lot, but I just can't get into stories about that sort of thing. It could be to do with the fact that in general, us people on the spectrum find it hard to see the world through someone else's eyes, and fiction forces the audience to do just that.

With novels, for me its about the "narrative"; the author's way of telling the story. The actual stuff that happens is of secondary importance to the telling of the tale.

I was about to post the same thing. If after reading a work of fiction I'm asked what it's about, I may only be able to give the vaguest of answers. The texture and style used in writing seems to have a much greater impact on me.

Examples of authors whose narratives have made particularly much of an impression: William Gibson, Iain M. Banks, Alastair Reynolds.

This is supposed to be a common problem.
But I have never had a problem with it.
Now writing fiction is something I can not do.

I have TONS of trouble with fiction. Mostly with the believability, and the legitimacy of it. Watching movies can be hard because nobody is really as good at acting as everything seems to think. I think I notice that more because of my habits of watching real people to improve my social awareness. It's not until the "real" factor is completely and blatantly abandoned that i can indulge in most fiction, because all of that is discounted to be an alternate reality. I also have a problem feeling bad for fictional characters. It feels really dumb, so I'm not big on sad fiction.

Although when a fictional character faces a REAL problem that I've faced as a person, and it hits me hard enough to get emotional, I feel justified because I know that there are ACTUALLY people out there with that problem who are worth crying over.

Comics on the other hand, I can read and write. Sometimes I'm a critic, but for the most part, I'm pretty ok. Mostly because the "real" factor is ALWAYS abandoned.

As for most movies, I watch them anyway because I pay most attention to figuring out how the movie was made, and the quality. That's how I judge a movie. I wanna be a screenwriter, and I have ideas and stories to publish as comics, but I would rather have them as films.

I had this argument with my brother.
He only reads fiction, I only read either scientific books or autobiography. I don't care about made up stories.

Example: we were watching a movie about Jack the Ripper, I realized that I prefer reading about the real reports of witnesses etc... than a fiction based over it. Same with Zodiac (yeah I'm into crime cases and stuff, i'm weird)

I cannot seem to waste my time reading it, but I really like watching it. The acting, drama, and special effects, I like. When everything seems to be real for me and I get emotional, like sometimes the suspense used to kill me. . I really cannot stand the suspence thrillers, and horror stuff anymore. The murder crap isnt very cool either, but it seems like someone is getting shot, or something sick like that in all movies now, soo if you like watching movies, you kinda have to deal with that sick crap all the NT's like soo much. Or when people get all scientific, or philosophical about it, and want me to relate somehow, my answer is usually the fact that it is not real, and it is in the script.

For me mixes are a trouble. As example films like "inglorious bastards", when they totally mix up reality and fiction. As well as many "novelle-based" hollywood films. Van Helsing was as example such a stuff, that was weird to me. For me the title implies, that the film will at least try to for the classic novelle character. (That they will add some stuff to please the actual action-junkey audience, I expected.) But in the end, they were absolutely not interested in fulfilling any expectations of the classic novelle-character, and instead created some completely independent stuff. Which was ok for me, if they wouldnt use then a name, that involves a certain expectation by the audience.

When it come to Alice in Wonderland,then they involved into the story, that its not about the classic story, but something playing afterwards it, so they could be free with the story. Thats ok for me again.

I actually used to have serious problems with fiction and avoided it like the plague. I could only get into books if they were encyclopedic in nature or if the fiction had a lot of social truth to them, like Upton Sinclair's The Jungle or Ivan Turgenev's Fathers and Sons.

I avoided TV for years because there was nothing but tripe on there. I was way too much into getting into real-type stories so, apart from news, I paid little attention to anything else.

I've since loosened up, though. I still don't read that much but I do write fiction. My fiction do have elements of "real' in them so I guess I'm still not far away from what I used to enjoy.

I'll often read fiction with settings in places that I would like to visit or live. It's more like a travel guide.

Ya I find it hard to follow the plots in books or movies. It's this "can't figure out people's intentions" thing. I never seem to know what's going on until the last 1/3 of a movie. It doesn't help that I have auditory processing issues and can't understand the dialogues half the time.

I still watch kids movies a lot, they're simpler and more predictable. I avoid movies that have won some serious awards, because that means they probably portray some subtle or complicated relationship things, and will feel like a total waste of time.

Fiction is a mixed up thing for me, because I LOVE movies and TV shows, but I am very, very dissatisfied by reading fiction. I tend to dislike most novels and find much contemporary fiction so poorly written, too, that it holds nothing for me. Most of my reading I would say is 95% non fiction.

But movies and TV shows I have no problem with the fictional nature of them at all. It's only in reading matter that I hate most fiction.

I don't have many problems with fiction other than thinking that much of it is far too contrived, but I am generally uninterested in fantasy and science fiction movies and tv.

What I really detest is horror movies and shows. Around Halloween, there is hardly anything worth watching on tv.

I can ditto most of what you guys have said. What I hate most about fiction is that people never seem to act rationally. I'm always asking, "Why would he do that?" or saying "That makes no sense." I have a hard time getting into the characters' minds.

And then when the plot comes to its climax I usually roll my eyes and say "so what?" OR if something bad happens, I get afraid that the same thing might happen to ME. So I avoid fiction. I don't like what it does to me.

wow, so im not the only one eh?

I cant do much fiction, I got into a couple shows like Fringe and Eureka that are science themed. Mainly they were shows I could sit through with my wife without getting too annoyed. I watch maybe one or two movies a year at most and for regular tv for me its got to be non-fiction. News, Documentaries, Cooking shows, DIY programs, Etc... Stuff like zombie shows, the vampires, hunger games, that kind of stuff to me is so stupid it actually offends me.

Victims of bullies, mistreatment, and abuse are my main over-empathy trigger. Want to fashion a guess as to just how far anything on the Lifetime network pushes me over the edge? The Mrs. gives me notice though and Ill go to the other end of the house while she watches that stuff. Simply my going to the kitchen for a glass of ice tea while that mess is on the tv, if its an abusive scene, will get me so angry I shake for 15 minutes afterwards. Usually with me yelling "You stupid B**** just shoot him, shoot him" the whole time.

This I do have an issue with, yes. I recall basically failing to finish Lord of the Flies when it was an assignment in school. Bullying and abuse leave a seriously bad taste in my mouth in any work of fiction. Maybe if they're proper villains who get their comeuppance, but not if it's done just to make a point. Which is not to say I demand a happy ending to everything, just don't leave it there for the sake of it. I may have misunderstood Lord of the Flies, but I got the impression it was just an exaggeration of how society works in general... in which case I really didn't have to see that extreme point made just for the sake of it. I saw enough first-hand, thank you very much.

I have similar problems with fiction that seeks to cast people who live the "wrong" lifestyle as villains, if they are not otherwise justified in being the villains. Kinky people? Of course they're the space pirates. People who aren't perfectly conformant to basic rules of "proper living"? Of course they deserve all the crap they get. Etc. Argh!

Baron Vladimir Harkonnen isn't that big of a deal since he clearly does violate some fairly basic moral rules that I can agree with entirely. I'm okay with that.

This is actually one of the issues I had with Gibson's fiction, much as I adore him otherwise. As I recall, Virek wasn't especially well justified as a villain, it was just like "he's a badly deformed sick person kept in a tank in a hideous industrial suburb of Stockholm" and therefore he must be the bad guy. Come off it, at least show some nasty acts he's performed rather than just flatly stating he's a bad guy. (If someone would like to correct me and show me where he was properly cast as a villain, please do. I would not mind having my opinion on Count Zero improved.)