Fiction and Nonfiction
An online friend and I have what I hope is a congenial disagreement over the relative merits of the two broad categories of writing featured in the title of this post. Like most men (if I'm to believe the polls and studies) he finds the world of nonfiction more substantive, or perhaps more comfortable, or still again perhaps, more interesting and lively than the world of nonfiction.
Naturally, this is the source of our disagreement. I find the world of nonfiction useful, but apart from a few scattered books and one whole category (religion and philosophy) relatively uninspiring. And when I cast an eye over what remains to us from the Canon and the great works of the past, what I discover is that except for foundational works and the category identified above, nonfiction perforce supersedes itself and doesn't really enter the realm of the eternally readable. That is nonfiction as a genre tends not to last beyond its usefullness for the age. There are many notable exceptions. But as a rule, the science books of 1640 aren't particularly useful, or for the most part interesting (except to the historian of science) to readers today. Indeed, I would far rather read Martin J. S. Rudwick than I would the books HE must read in order to write his books. (For those interested in the history of science, I could not do better than to recommend his remarkable book The Great Devonian Controversy, truly a readable, fascinating history of a little-known debate in the History of geology.)
As though it were meaningful, I will even point out the relative positions of the two genre categories to one another. We do not refer to them as Fact and Nonfaction. The pride of place at the table is given to fiction, and that is probably for good reason. Fiction lasts. Even very old fiction can be read in a productive way now. We can take "Pseudolus" and "Miles Gloriosus" and produce from the A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum. We can read "Romeo and Juliet" and imagine a West Side Story. We can sit on a bank on a sunny afternoon and read through Emma and come up with Clueless. Fiction is, to paraphrase Picasso on Art, "a lie that tells the truth."
Fiction is made up. It is about nothing real, even when there are "real" characters within it. Nothing in the realm of ficiton has solidity or reality. However, the same may be said as well for nonfiction--that is the words themselves and the narrative are largely a lie--a drawing forth of the salient details to make a coherent (often biased) portrait of the fragment of the world you wish to portray. Take the few entries already posted here. How many of them represent a known truth? Is it true that Virginia Woolf was influenced by James Joyce? It is entirely probable--but does my structural comparison prove anything other than I am able to discern similarities in structures? No, indeed, most of nonfiction is also a lie. And if the lie is well done, it also tells the truth or a portion of it.
So, ficiton or nonfiction? I will continue to read and enjoy both for their different merits. But I must admit that ficiton will always hold the upper hand for me because it is through fiction that I have learned the essential truths in life. The story of the prodigal son, the good Samaritan, the master and the faithful servants, the sower and the seeds--these illustrations move me far closer to God than all of the intricate (and true) arguments of Paul in the subsequent chapters of the New Testament. And the Book of Revelation will stand for me always as an ultimate sign of God's mysterious love, in a way the the Letters of John and Peter cannot. Fiction pierces the armor, gets underneath, and transforms the person--which is why reading wisely and well is so important.
Naturally, this is the source of our disagreement. I find the world of nonfiction useful, but apart from a few scattered books and one whole category (religion and philosophy) relatively uninspiring. And when I cast an eye over what remains to us from the Canon and the great works of the past, what I discover is that except for foundational works and the category identified above, nonfiction perforce supersedes itself and doesn't really enter the realm of the eternally readable. That is nonfiction as a genre tends not to last beyond its usefullness for the age. There are many notable exceptions. But as a rule, the science books of 1640 aren't particularly useful, or for the most part interesting (except to the historian of science) to readers today. Indeed, I would far rather read Martin J. S. Rudwick than I would the books HE must read in order to write his books. (For those interested in the history of science, I could not do better than to recommend his remarkable book The Great Devonian Controversy, truly a readable, fascinating history of a little-known debate in the History of geology.)
As though it were meaningful, I will even point out the relative positions of the two genre categories to one another. We do not refer to them as Fact and Nonfaction. The pride of place at the table is given to fiction, and that is probably for good reason. Fiction lasts. Even very old fiction can be read in a productive way now. We can take "Pseudolus" and "Miles Gloriosus" and produce from the A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum. We can read "Romeo and Juliet" and imagine a West Side Story. We can sit on a bank on a sunny afternoon and read through Emma and come up with Clueless. Fiction is, to paraphrase Picasso on Art, "a lie that tells the truth."
Fiction is made up. It is about nothing real, even when there are "real" characters within it. Nothing in the realm of ficiton has solidity or reality. However, the same may be said as well for nonfiction--that is the words themselves and the narrative are largely a lie--a drawing forth of the salient details to make a coherent (often biased) portrait of the fragment of the world you wish to portray. Take the few entries already posted here. How many of them represent a known truth? Is it true that Virginia Woolf was influenced by James Joyce? It is entirely probable--but does my structural comparison prove anything other than I am able to discern similarities in structures? No, indeed, most of nonfiction is also a lie. And if the lie is well done, it also tells the truth or a portion of it.
So, ficiton or nonfiction? I will continue to read and enjoy both for their different merits. But I must admit that ficiton will always hold the upper hand for me because it is through fiction that I have learned the essential truths in life. The story of the prodigal son, the good Samaritan, the master and the faithful servants, the sower and the seeds--these illustrations move me far closer to God than all of the intricate (and true) arguments of Paul in the subsequent chapters of the New Testament. And the Book of Revelation will stand for me always as an ultimate sign of God's mysterious love, in a way the the Letters of John and Peter cannot. Fiction pierces the armor, gets underneath, and transforms the person--which is why reading wisely and well is so important.
Good and interesting thoughts Steven, ironic though it be that this is a non-fiction post. :-) (Sometimes I think I MOST love non-fiction about fiction, like Joseph Pearce's unpacking of Shakespeare, but I digress...)
ReplyDeleteI've always complained in the past of not having a story-telling mentality, of not being able to write plot. But is that really true given that my subconscious spins a thousand and one tales in my sleep? Isn't our desire to read fiction implied by the fact that we dream nightly in order to heal and integrate our emotional lives?
The fiction/non-fiction argument is one of those I recognize being on the wrong half but have little control (see my blog title). For Pius XII wrote:
“The function of all art lies in fact in breaking through the narrow and tortuous enclosure of the finite, in which man is immersed while living here below, and in providing a window to the infinite for his hungry soul.”
Dear TS,
ReplyDeleteI suspect "wrong" is strongly overstating the case. Let's just say that you are on the "Faction" side. And it isn't as though either denies the validity of the other--there's just a certain bent to the way a person absorbs information that might make him or her more inclined to accept it in one form as opposed to another.
So, I don't know that there is a "wrong" half. But I do find interesting that some nonfiction has a greater durability than others. And it is interesting to me that Plato chose a very fictiony way to express some strongly nonfiction premises. And I find equally interesting that when fiction approaches or excessively uses the devices of nonfiction it tends to be weakened as a result. But this is anecdotal, and probably worthy of further exchange. After all John Brunners Stand on Zanzibar which uses techniques from John Dos Passos USA trilogy, effective and persuasively uses some of the devices to create a very, very interesting piece of fiction.
Thanks for visiting and writing.
shalom,
Steven