Nonfiction and Fiction
The nonfiction and fiction theme is a subject I come back to time and again. It is a subject that intrigues me for the claims on both sides. I am a partisan of the claims for fiction, but as for nonfiction, I must admit to some skepticism.
For example, people tell me that when they (or I) read nonfiction, I am getting facts. The same holds true of fiction--fictional worlds are composed of carefully selected facts. The New York of fiction and that of nonfiction may be very similar realms. However, the advantage of the New York of fiction is that you know it is made up. You don't have to ask why Battery Park City abuts the Lincoln Center--it just does in that world. On the other hand, in nonfiction, facts are selected as well. In a book about New York City, the writer will choose to tell me some things and leave out others. In some cases these are details irrelevant to the thrust of what he or she is trying to get across. In other cases these are details that run counter to his or her thesis about New York City.
Both fiction and nonfiction come with agendas. Sometimes they are very didactic, very clear, and very pointed. Sometimes, they are not so clear. However, I know that fiction always has an agenda, whether announced or otherwise, I come to it prepared. Nonfiction, I'm inclined to want to be truthful. I'd like to be able to read it and think I have an understanding of the matter under consideration. The truth is, of course, I never can have, because even the simplest matter in reality is too complex to relate in all of its aspect in prose. Add to that that once one leaves the realm of the physical sciences or the tangible, measurable, empirical world, and enters the world of human congress, all bets are off. Was Washington religious or not? Deist a la Jefferson and Franklin (or were they) or not? Did he free his slaves or not? Was he opposed to the institution of slavery or not? Was he a good or a poor general? President? Was he cold, distant, formidable? Was he cold, distant, and stupid (Jefferson's evaluation)? What exactly did he die of? Did he have "wooden teeth." And so forth. And these are not even necessarily touching on all the core issues. I can pull from the shelves of "nonfiction" any number of books about Washington. I would read them all and still not really know anything about Washington. I would have formulated an impression of him, but that impression would be more formed by who I am than by who Washington actually was. And that is the way it works in the world with people I can talk to today--there is a limit to what I can know. However, what I can know from nonfiction is further constrained by the array of facts the author chooses to present to me.
Another example, I can conclude from "nonfiction" that our climate is becoming increasingly warmer at a prodigious rate. I can conclude that this climatic warming is human-mediated--or if I have a deeper-time perspective, I could conclude that it is inevitable coming out of an Ice Age and one of the coldest times in Earth's history. Which of these conclusions is valid? What has a perusal of "nonfiction" told me except that I live in two very different worlds depending on whose opinion I cleave to.
I suppose this is by way of saying that nonfiction uses the same techniques as fiction to similar purpose--to create a picture of the world. The intent in nonfiction is to convey as sense of the world as it really is, but this must necessarily fall short because the array of detail necessary for a true picture of the world qua world would stymie the Marcel Proust of nonfiction.
This present attempt at discussion is admittedly anecdotal, sketchy, and perhaps not tautly reasoned. This is an issue I reflect on a lot, so it's likely I'll return to this theme from time to time. Suffice to say for now, that I read nonfiction as a species of fiction that needs verification and research to determine its veracity and to sort out the agenda from the information. It is, therefore, far more work than even the most complex of fictions, and therefore--being the essentially lazy person that I am I tend to prefer the path of least resistance.
For example, people tell me that when they (or I) read nonfiction, I am getting facts. The same holds true of fiction--fictional worlds are composed of carefully selected facts. The New York of fiction and that of nonfiction may be very similar realms. However, the advantage of the New York of fiction is that you know it is made up. You don't have to ask why Battery Park City abuts the Lincoln Center--it just does in that world. On the other hand, in nonfiction, facts are selected as well. In a book about New York City, the writer will choose to tell me some things and leave out others. In some cases these are details irrelevant to the thrust of what he or she is trying to get across. In other cases these are details that run counter to his or her thesis about New York City.
Both fiction and nonfiction come with agendas. Sometimes they are very didactic, very clear, and very pointed. Sometimes, they are not so clear. However, I know that fiction always has an agenda, whether announced or otherwise, I come to it prepared. Nonfiction, I'm inclined to want to be truthful. I'd like to be able to read it and think I have an understanding of the matter under consideration. The truth is, of course, I never can have, because even the simplest matter in reality is too complex to relate in all of its aspect in prose. Add to that that once one leaves the realm of the physical sciences or the tangible, measurable, empirical world, and enters the world of human congress, all bets are off. Was Washington religious or not? Deist a la Jefferson and Franklin (or were they) or not? Did he free his slaves or not? Was he opposed to the institution of slavery or not? Was he a good or a poor general? President? Was he cold, distant, formidable? Was he cold, distant, and stupid (Jefferson's evaluation)? What exactly did he die of? Did he have "wooden teeth." And so forth. And these are not even necessarily touching on all the core issues. I can pull from the shelves of "nonfiction" any number of books about Washington. I would read them all and still not really know anything about Washington. I would have formulated an impression of him, but that impression would be more formed by who I am than by who Washington actually was. And that is the way it works in the world with people I can talk to today--there is a limit to what I can know. However, what I can know from nonfiction is further constrained by the array of facts the author chooses to present to me.
Another example, I can conclude from "nonfiction" that our climate is becoming increasingly warmer at a prodigious rate. I can conclude that this climatic warming is human-mediated--or if I have a deeper-time perspective, I could conclude that it is inevitable coming out of an Ice Age and one of the coldest times in Earth's history. Which of these conclusions is valid? What has a perusal of "nonfiction" told me except that I live in two very different worlds depending on whose opinion I cleave to.
I suppose this is by way of saying that nonfiction uses the same techniques as fiction to similar purpose--to create a picture of the world. The intent in nonfiction is to convey as sense of the world as it really is, but this must necessarily fall short because the array of detail necessary for a true picture of the world qua world would stymie the Marcel Proust of nonfiction.
This present attempt at discussion is admittedly anecdotal, sketchy, and perhaps not tautly reasoned. This is an issue I reflect on a lot, so it's likely I'll return to this theme from time to time. Suffice to say for now, that I read nonfiction as a species of fiction that needs verification and research to determine its veracity and to sort out the agenda from the information. It is, therefore, far more work than even the most complex of fictions, and therefore--being the essentially lazy person that I am I tend to prefer the path of least resistance.
Comments
Post a Comment