The works of fiction that are considered the "greatest" by the literati (and I have to be respectful because my wife is one of them) are the ones that present archetypes, motifs that occur in almost all societies in almost all eras because they're a type of instinct. So it could be argued that the "purpose" of fiction is to connect us to the collective unconscious, reinforcing our link with all the other members of our species. The characters and events in a well-crafted story are metaphors for real life, stripped down to their basics in a way that real life never is because it just won't follow a script. Some works of fiction are so powerful that people forget that they're metaphors and start thinking they're real. The bible is one of those.
For the writer it is different, example The Count Of Monte Cristo is argued by some to be allegro of Jesuit Generals revenge, maybe its entertainment, but not entairly.
Doesn't make it the purpose of fiction - even yours. Your purposes don't exahust the possible purposes, here. Besides, is it true that any emotion would do - that whatever emotion can be manipulated into existence at a given point is OK? If not, a larger context is supplying structure - and form is function, here, no?
it is the imagination and creative art of humans, it doesent have a single purpose. entertainment, expression, boredom, money, interest, fun, the list can go on. i enjoy reading, watching and writting fiction. it also comes from our desire to create and transform things. peace.
Of course it doesn't make it the purpose of all fiction. There are more at least as many pruposes as there are writers times the number of readers. So many ideas as to what the purpose is, it's absurd to even discuss the notion as if ONE purpose exists. All we can do is discuss out own personal notions. i.e. why we read and/or why we write. Why I read fiction is to have my emotions manipulated. Why I write fiction is to manipulate the emotions of the reader.
Fair enough. No answer to the question, then, as I read it. But I disagree. There seems to be an overarching role, function, or what have you - purpose seems a reasonable term - for storytelling among humans. Along with music and toolmaking, it seems to be fundamental to specifically human life. This context for the various motives and techniques and employments and mechanics of the art is what I took the original question to concern.
But when you take that out of the personal realm in which people are telling stories face to face to other members of their community, I think it's an entirely different thing.
