Fiction Versus Non-Fiction

I have heard about some debates on which one is a good read: fiction or non-fiction. But, I feel that the debate is pointless, because both are the same in terms of gaining knowledge. The only difference I see is the amount of knowledge you gain per page (or per unit of time).

Fiction books are like conveying the author's thoughts in the form of story-telling, which like kids, interest readers. Whereas, non-fiction is to the point where the author conveys his thoughts succinctly. I appreciate the fiction in the way that the author tries to convey something by framing a real world situation. This, I feel, is required for people who can't frame the situations on their own. Whereas readers of non-fiction (have to) come up with their own analogies to relate the concept. According to my observation, people who are either too busy or unable to come up with analogies on their own, prefer fiction. These people don't want to stress their brains. In other words, reading fiction doesn't require much brain stress. That's why we find many people reading fiction whenever they find time: waiting at bus stops, queue, hospitals, before bed time etc. Here, it's ok to involve your half-brain, and keep the other half, for e.g., observing the bus you want to take. On the other hand, reading non-fiction requires some mental effort to really understand and relate things, which requires your 100% concentration. If you read non-fiction at bus stops, you may more likely miss the bus :).

At the end, I would say, [as if I have made a final conclusion on the world's hottest debate], it's all about your choice: nothing is good/interesting and nothing is bad/boring.

There is an article that gives more elaborate view on this topic: Read...