[oddlyaromatic]

Reading creative fiction requires imagination and the ability to synthesize available information into an entire world. Great fiction gives you details and sequences of events, material from which meaning can be made. But the actual rich experience of being deeply engaged in imaginary worlds takes creative action on the part of the reader. It might not feel this way, but the meaning is not "in" the words. It is created by the reader at ... Uh, run time? And it is different for every reader.

[skrebbel]

Oh come on. Sure, you're not wrong, but reading is still a much less creative endeavour than many other things you could be doing, so the GP's argument holds up fine.

> , but the meaning is not "in" the words. It is created by the reader at ... Uh, run time? And it is different for every reader.

True, but no reader of a Culture novel is going to create a story about two lovers in present-day Seattle in their minds. It's going to be planets and aliens and megastructures and bad endings for every single reader.

[oddlyaromatic]

GP's argument was that reading is "exactly the opposite of a creative endeavor" ... To me, that does not hold up.

I guess I'm saying reading exercises the creative muscles more than not reading- and possibly more than entertainment where you can be more passive, like TV. Language alone can never fill in all the blanks. Reading IS an act of consumption but also one of creation.

> no reader of a Culture novel is going to create a story about two lovers in present-day Seattle in their minds.

Definitely. The difference between readers at the high level ought to be pretty small, but at the detailed level (how do people look, what is their voice like, how fast are they), stuff it's highly unlikely to really be the same.