[CaptainMorgan]

This is ironic timing for me. For more than five years I haven't read a single fiction book. Recently, I saw more than a few articles on being well-read and they all offered convincing arguments. I also enjoy how this linked article points to the positive social factors related to fiction. This was an area I found myself lacking and after being further convinced that reading fiction: the art of being deeply immersed in a book's story, often relating to or putting one's self in the situation, can reduce stress - I decided to make a change.

Recently, driving by the local library, my wife asks "what are you getting?", to which I replied, "I think it's time I start getting back in touch with the classics." I quickly picked up and read Of Mice and Men and The Pearl. I never knew how good these books were, books that I once read in high school and at the time never understood and ultimately despised having to read. My next read from the late Steinbeck will be Grapes of Wrath.

Lately though, I've been addicted to Vince Flynn's political thriller novels, and having never read Clancy, some critics say he's a Clancy protege. Flynn's books are incredibly difficult to put down, in my opinion.

Today, I'm about 60/40 for non-fiction/fiction reading and I find myself happier in general. Sometimes at least for me, always reading non-fiction can get kind of bland. Reading fiction a waste of time? Unless it's someone's only form of reading, I wholeheartedly disagree and I'm glad I got back into them.

[chasingsparks]

This is just idle speculation, but I think people get turned off to fiction because they were forced to read classics in high school. Classics in high school are mostly useless unless you are particularly mature; I was not.

Rereading those books now is a bizarre experience. I remember reading Death of a Salesman a year back in a state of disbelief. It was something I remember absolutely hating in high school but six years later, I thought it was brilliant.