Comment by RcouF1uZ4gsC | Hacker News Reader

Comment by RcouF1uZ4gsC | Hacker News Reader

Am I the only one who thinks it is a circular waste of time to try do explicitly draw lessons from movies and books. Of course the universe the author created generally comports with their beliefs or the point they are trying to make. It would be like trying to convert a skeptic to Christianity by citing The Chronicles of Narnia by CS Lewis. Lewis's Christianity had a large influence in how he crafted the literary universe, and thus trying to use events from that literary universe to convince people of the truth of Christianity is circular logic at best.

But I have seen it done so many times. Writers take a work of fiction such as a book or movie where the author generally has a similar outlook and use that to draw lessons. You see that a lot on the left, as well as on the right with Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. I don't think it is convincing anyone. Anybody can write a book where the people they admire become heroes and the policy they espouse has a good outcome, or the people they despise become villains and the policy they are against leads to bad outcomes. How close the book universe is to the real universe is a different story.

I think that's the point here. How close the fictional universe it to the real. Verhoeven's film, like most art, was made on reflection. Similarly this essay is making a point by referring to, and building on, previous points that have been made ... it is entirely relevant.

Moreso, the fact that this film is so misunderstood suggests that it was an exception to its genre. Most science fiction and westerns are set as they are, in space or on a vast prairie, so as to remove all noise and closely examine an area of human interest. If not explicit, they are absolutely intended to be relevant.

I don't know why you're downvoted, this is a pretty important topic. Well, I do know why you're being downvoted -- you're challenging an a very dear orthodoxy.

I agree with you that its circular logic, but I disagree that its a waste of time.

Books, movies, and other consumable media (songs, poems, etc. etc.) present perhaps the strongest arguments from various "camps". They are strongly representative of the ideals and ideas of large groups of people.

Strongest in terms of persuasive power, but rarely (if ever) in terms of any kind of reasoned or scientific approach.

There are three kinds of arguments: Ethos, Logos, and Pathos.

Just because Logos is effective on you, doesn't mean its the best methodology in general. Arguments towards authority and emotion must be understood as such, and provide greater insight to the crowds you're discussing with.

If you're going Logos-only into a discussion, you've effectively disarmed yourself. Your debate opponent will use Ethos, Logos, and Pathos to get a rhetorical advantage against you.

Therefore, its important to learn the Ethos-based and Pathos-based arguments that members of a crowd will make, in preparation before you discuss matters with them.

> How close the book universe is to the real universe is a different story.

The real life Lord of the Flies illustrates this well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23123609

TLDR: After being shipwrecked, everyone got along and cooperated, and remained life-long friends.

Exactly. Many times a story tells more about the author than it does about the real world.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com