>>11703539>Works of fiction can and do teach without blatantly betraying their intention to do so. Yes, but this is not what their primary goal is, generally. Fictional works are meant to be enjoyed first and foremost without much thought into symbolism and themes, and then, if you think there's something more to it afterwards, that's when you should begin to really delve into meaning. This is why people hate literature in school (this is talked about in "How to Read a Book", in the picture I posted), because they're forced to initially look for meaning in works the first time they go through without simply enjoying the book. Of course, this doesn't mean you should swear off looking for meaning and themes and such while reading fictional works, but it definitely shouldn't be on your mind when going into reading it (except, perhaps, in the case of someone like Dostoevsky, although even then I would say to at least first read through without thinking too much on reasons), and you shouldn't take away any of the satisfaction of reading by lingering on chapters or paragraphs looking for meaning.
>>11703539>I find that they teach me about morality and emotions, primarily.While they can teach you about these things, philosophy would be a much better medium for this, particularly foundational philosophy and Ethics such as Aristotle.
Don't get me wrong, I read both non-fiction and fiction. I would never say that reading fiction only makes you wise though, there is a certain basis of things which needs to be understood if you wish to seem wise, and this can't be found using only fictional works.
