Actually, I'm flipping the two: The potential value of a fiction book is a good story - social commentary is purely optional. Fiction that has commentary padded by a story are valued only by those who are sympathetic to the commentary. Whereas I can easily love a good story even if I disagree with the commentary.

> Good fiction usually exercises the mind in ways a non-fiction book never would. You experience life through someone else's eyes, you try to understand someone's mind by the actions they take and the words they say, you wonder in a meta-plane what the author is trying to show, you see language being used in non-common ways to provoke emotions or express ideas, you wonder how you would have acted in someone's shoes... Saying the author could get to the point quicker is like saying that lifting weights in the gym is done faster with a forklift, the process is the point rather than the extracted output.

I don't think we're in disagreement. I'm merely saying that I've yet to see someone changed by a fiction book. If there was change, it was always "change in the same direction" (e.g. "a renewed appreciation of X").

I have seen plenty of folks changed by nonfiction, though.

Incidentally, most/all of what you wrote above can be done as effectively with nonfiction. Books like When Broken Glass Floats by Chanrithy Him are extremely powerful. As was Killers of the Flower Moon. I doubt any works of fiction dealing with the same topics would be more powerful. Both of these books could have been written (and read) as fiction, but knowing the events were true makes a huge difference in appreciation.

> There is also a fundamental difference between being told 'pain is an unpleasant feeling that living beings take effort to avoid' and being punched in the face. Fiction gives you a fraction of the extra wisdom you get with the latter.

This seems like a false dichotomy. You can have nonfiction do this very effectively without simply "telling" you.