undefined

points

[-]

I think about this a lot. For me, non-fiction stories hit way harder. I read a book about Amelia Earhart last month, and KNOWING it happened to a REAL HUMAN made the book 10x more powerful than a work of fiction about a lost pilot would feel. The same with documentaries; I love them because they happened.

However, I still watch movies about made-up things! TV shows that were written by a roomful of writers, all arguing and compromising, then taking notes from suits and producers, and making more compromises up to the day of shooting, even the day of editing! What comes out of that process is complete fiction, written by not-a-single-human-heart but rather a messy mash-up of humans combining their gibberish.

And sometimes it's still good. And I love it. Even though it isn't "real" and didn't come from a "real person."

So ... people may love a meat-book more in the future, but people will also love machine-books. Not you, by the sounds of it. But there are people not-you on Earth as well.

by cautiouscat5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I should probably clarify that something like a television show, movie or game where it’s likely a group of people is still included in my “someone’s heart” even if it’s many hearts.

Let’s take Backrooms for an example. In the interviews with the cast, Kane, and others they usually all hit on “so and so was so passionate and added X”. Hearing about everyone’s passion and seeing the end result reflect that makes the experience of watching it so much more enjoyable.

If someone generated a Backrooms film, there would be none of that.

I’m not saying you’re wrong for liking machine books or anyone should be wrong for thinking that, but I just can’t imagine them being equal in the view of the arts.