The arguments for literature's necessity often hinge on it being empathy-generating, which forecloses upon other experiences of reading: understanding, wonder, discomfort. A novel is a window into the thought process of another, and it's a waste to just shove yourself in there instead and "relate"
a lot of times when people describe being empathetic, they're talking about a thought-terminating projection of oneself into the position of another. which is not as much of a virtue as they would like to believe
While you and I understand literature can be exploring new and terrible types of guys, after focus-testing product descriptions, empathy was realized as the reactive term with the best SE-ohhh is this why people identify with Fight Club.
In general I'm suspicious of claims that art or literature should do exactly one thing or fit exactly one purpose. 20th century art and literature education really put a lot of arbitrary constraints on the way we're taught to think about these things.
the ideal literary experience is hooting and hollering and throwing popcorn at the page
one of the reasons that i like reading about a weird little freak who sucks, like Dr. Rat
