Leisure Before Utility: Why Stories Are Not Tools

Atlas Press recently argued that new books are not worth reading. The essay is clever, abrasive, and wrong in all the ways that matter. It mistakes the purpose of stories, misunderstands how culture is built, and sets up a rhetorical trap designed to feel airtight while proving nothing.

At the core of the piece lies a false-to-facts utilitarian premise. Reading, it alleges, must justify itself by delivering information or competitive advantage. If a book does neither, it fails. From there, the author concludes that modern fiction offers no value, since contemporary writers share similar lives and predictable opinions. Old books survive because only the best endured. New books deserve suspicion by default.

That framework collapses once you recall why stories exist at all.

Josef Pieper addressed the problem directly in Leisure: The Basis of Culture. For Pieper, leisure does not mean idleness. It names the contemplative posture that allows a person to receive reality rather than manipulate it. Art arises from leisure, and civilization arises from art. Practical labor supports leisure, not the reverse.

When a culture demands that every act justify itself by output, it strangles the conditions under which truth and beauty appear.

Stories belong to leisure. Their value does not hinge on data transfer or résumé enhancement. Instead, they form the inner life, train perception, and orient the soul toward order or chaos. Asking fiction to justify itself on utilitarian grounds doesn’t even miss the point; it aims the cannon at speaker’s face.

Read the full post on Substack!

Access it free for the first two weeks, then find it in the paid archive.