Fiction is basically a drug.
Fiction is basically a drug.
Both :
Give pleasure. Alter your consciousness. Are addictive. Are delivered via a small, portable device.
By that logic - that fiction is a drug because consuming it releases endorphins or dopamine or whatever - then anything that gives pleasure is a drug.
If you enjoy it, then
- rock climbing is a drug
- jogging is a drug
- feeding the birds in the park is a drug
- petting your cat is a drug
Oh no! They were right! TV is a drug!! Rock and roll is a drug! Sex - drug! Not being miserable: definitely a drug. Unless you're a masochist, in which case: being miserable is a drug!
I need to see your justification for this conclusion
I'm guessing their justification would be that both are a means to escape reality.
Sure. I'll put it up top
I think most anthropologists would agree that storytelling is an innate human activity far older than drug use.
Surely drug use is as old as eating. From the first time that you eat a strange berry or funky apple.
Fair, but thereβs no evidence it became a regular part of human culture before the agricultural revolution. Whereas storytelling seems to be an innate social activity, probably as old as language itself.
Funky Apple is my rap name.
Mmm...maybe? I just got back into reading fiction after uhh...almost two decades from the last time I read fiction. I've also been addicted to alcohol and weed in the past. And I've also NOT been addicted to, but used to occassionally enjoy, psychedelic mushrooms. I've also been addicted to exercise, sports, and work.
To me, effective fiction, if comparable to any class of drugs, is closest to psychedelics, and is far less similar to other much more addictive and usually harmful drugs. Both fiction and psychedelics can change your worldview without necessarily having to go through a potentially traumatic experience (though in both the reading of fiction and the experience of psychedelics, it's important to note that trauma can still happen).
Any activity can be addictive. Determining whether an activity is addictive can be based off of whether or not said activity harms your current relationships, damages your physical/mental health, or prevents you from otherwise having a fulfilling life. Thusly whether or not an activity or substance is addictive is somewhat subjective, and dependant on the context under which said activity/substance is participated in/consumed.
Sometimes the desire to obliterate one's sense of self through addiction stems from a turmoil/pain that is markedly worse than the intoxication/numbing they get from their substance/activity of choice. Sometimes there are no support structures or alternative ways of addressing your issues and/or pain.
I'm not trying to downplay or ignore the very serious problem of addiction, as I think addiction pervades nearly every aspect of modern life in both subtle and overt ways, but I do think that we all tend to judge each other for our addictions rather than question why we all seem to have these various addictions in the first place, and I question whether or not our ire and concern would be better redirected at the political socioeconomic conditions that generate these cultures of addiction in the first place.