[skookumchuck]

Of course they are. The challenging part is reading different accounts of the same events, and attempting to discern the truth. For example, was Edison a good guy or a bad guy? Did he invent the lightbulb or steal it? And if you find something interesting, you can dig into it and find out more. Not so with a novel.

Fictional universes evolve into 'canon', where certain explanations are correct and others are dismissed. Star Trek, Star Wars, etc., famously have 'canon'. People get wrapped around the axle arguing canon. This is ridiculous, as it's all made up nonsense.

[rustler]

Good point on reading multiple viewpoints. As for fiction, there are a few writers who say true and interesting things about the world but they don't write Star Wars novels. I'd say "Disgrace" by Coetzee and "Demons" by Dostoevsky are examples.

[mercer]

You do realize 'fiction' is more than just Dan Brown and Star Trek, right? Some of the best novels I've read are basically historical/biographical accounts that just don't pretend they're anything but one person's biased take on things.

[skookumchuck]

Instead of reading historical/biographical fiction, why not read the real thing? For example, read "Stuka Pilot" by Rudel. It's an account of fighting in WW2 that would be dismissed as ridiculous if it was a Hollywood movie, but it is all real and documented.

Another is "Reach for the Sky" by Bader. Chuck Yeager's biography is also a treat.

Then watch that absurd "Flyboys" Hollywood fiction. What a piece of trash in comparison.