my proposition is that quality fiction (whether poetry--a nod to the hipster--or good prose) is superior to the text of a history book.my reasoning goes something like this: a fictional writer who truly understands humanities' struggles can better instruct and inpsire regarding motivation and emotion than the history writer who gives a supposedly neutral telling of what actually happened. no telling is neutral and no historian actually knows what the person felt and experienced. the story comes up short. the dates and times may be correct, but the compelling turmoil that wrought the story is missing.
if i am ignorant, please enlighten me.
23 comments:
i hate being the first commenter. i even refrained from commenting earlier this morning. paul, i disagree only to the point that authors will be too biased in their critique/assessment of history. such is the case with tolstoy in war and peace. while providing a strong point, he gives little to no credit whatsoever to one of the greatest military minds of the western world. so in that case, the historians may have him beat and while they may be biased themselves, the slant is less.
I must remind you of the story of moses.
marc and peter. nice to hear from you.
moses is a true and epic story. i have got to hand it to you farc. it certainly sounds blasphemous to ask which is more compelling--the biblical account or the movie with charleton heston...you could give 'stone tables' a try (by orson scott card) and get back to me.
peter. fair enough. it gets the conversation going as i was beginning to think no one would bite. i agree that not every fictional story is worthwhile. many are trash and should be thrown out. however, as a genre, fiction allows for the truer emotions to be expressed. would you agree with that?
so tolstoy missed the boat on characterization of the general, but did he portray honestly and movingly the narratives of the characters on whom the book focused. do their compelling stories tell you more about yourself than dates and times would have?
i guess you ultimate point, peter, is that fiction and history serve two purposes. i agree that if you use fiction as your source of historical information--the data will be way off.
however, if you use history as your sole source of information--you will miss the power of the human experience...
paul.
first off: i wouldn't dare say that tolstoy was wrong. only that he kicks againsts the pricks in regards to napoleon. but who's to say that his characterization is more accurate?
and for the most part, fictional authors rely on their history book writing counterparts to produce the fantanstic stories they do. there is no way the author of master and commander could have written 18 volumes simply by reading other peoples fiction. that would have be un-original so to speak. so fictional writer must lean on the history writers for their main sustenance.
another interesting comparison. contemporary writers will simply write about their own human experience as projected onto a past scene in history. so at the time of publication, the experience is not so phenomenal. however, those stories (the classics) that still have revelance today are powerful, not because they explained some society/lessons of the time in which the book was set, but rather because they held futuricity.
imagine time periods A,B, and C in that chronological order. a good writer is able to exist in B, project a plot line in A, and still project meaning and connectivity in C. only these three elements will produce sincerely moving literature.
ps. the winter of our discontentment?
why this book cover?
recent read? any good?
When I first read your post, Paul, I was going to make fun of you, but the post is thought-compelling.
I thought of it along different lines, however, and I must agree with Petey to some degree, that the fiction that is written is a combination of history as experienced or understood by the author, and an added measure of imagination and storytelling ability. The fictional writers able to find the right blend of these stand among the great in literature. The history they include, however, may be only a series of experiences from their lives, or momentous events in the history of humanity.
I contend that there is one person who provided the most influential pieces of fiction in the history of the world. He lived about two-thousand years ago and taught in parables. The fact that everyone knows of whom I speak, and know several of the parables He used attests to his influence. Jesus of Nazareth spoke both history and fiction, and something even more... prophecy. Prophecy is outside the scope of this conversation, but it cannot be denied that Jesus taught doctrine with fiction. But what is more influential to the world... his fictional parables, or the history of his life and teachings?
peter and matt. again, great comments.
we'll start with peter. the winter of our discontent is subtle, unsettling and sad. i read it years ago, but there are images from the book (about a husbands slow decline) that are still stark in my mind. a great read.
i love the idea about a writer in time B reaching back to time A and remaining relevant in time C. how's this thought? you only really need carbohydrates, proteins, fiber, vitamins and water to subsist. you could live on a formless, tasteless amalgamation of these ingredients and be absolutely healthy. Fiction is the spice and flavor. It must be based in mush but give meaning and life to our world. The power of a story is definitely based in it's truth and applicability.
About Jesus. I've been reading a book lately about the bible. We have no surviving 'autograph' (text written in the original hand of the author) for any new testament book. The earliest text we have is from 200 AD and is in greek. It is postulated that even the original autographs were not written till 70 AD or later. These stories are an interesting phenomenon then. They are not your classic biography. In fact the parables would have been an apostle's personal remembrance of a story/experience and colored by personal feelings and bias. So the stories within the bible don't fit the classic historical text of impartial observer recording dates and events. I mean to say that it's power and influence don't fit the classic fiction versus history argument that we are having. I'll leave that sacred text for more solid ground.
I will say, matt, that some of my most testimony affirming experiences have come during performance, viewing, or experience with some fictional work whose core principles and actions demonstrate a principle of Christ's teachings.
Fiction allows for the application of the lessons learned through history.
History, in its pure form, is unbiased and unchangeable. Fiction, of course, varies greatly from writer to writer. I would say that the greatest measurement for the value of fiction would be the author...
...but this measurement will vary greatly from person to person. Which authors speak to you and your life paradigm? Which authors address your values and principles in a way that causes you to relate?
I am just surprised it took Paul so long to mention Orson Scott Card (or "Orson" as Paul refers to him... they are on a first name basis ever since Paul emailed him and recieved replies. Did you know Orson was sick with pneumonia a few months ago?? Paul did!). "Good" literature is so subjective--we all filter it through our own experiences.
The writters of the autographs that we have translated as the new testament, I consider to be historical. I don't think the writters were really into fiction. I agree, it is not solid ground, but I would think that they, as do most historians, tried to tell the history as it happened. So why not consider it a history (confirmed, no less, by modern-day prophesy for you believers). History can be much more than mushy facts, because history is full of speculation and thought as to the "reasons why" of the facts and the players in the history. That is what real historians try to do, is tell a story about what really happened. History can be a collection of facts, and the theorys or hypotheses of the experts that have studied them that provide life and insight.
For example, if you were to compile a history of Napoleon, would you not include (among the facts) the opinions and studies into his life of the world's leading experts? Are not these studies historically significant in trying to unravel the mind of a prodigious war general? Just like fiction, a good author can bring these components of history together and tell a fascinating story about something that REALLY HAPPENED! Why would such histories be less influential or inspiring than ficiton, especially when the person or people of study were truly inspiring, or the events considered of great personal moment?
fair enough. we can step away from the bible. it is a genre unto itself (as far as it is translated correctly).
the main difference i see in history v. fiction is the level of engagement in the minutae (sp?) of a story. historians were not there, so to give minutae is to create fiction--because they often don't know the exact words that were stated, they definitely don't know the moment to moment thoughts--even a journal entry is tinged with bias--or day to day facial expressions of their quarry (ie. they don't actually know what really happened...)
This is where fiction takes off. An artist can mold the minutae into their view of how true motivations would play out as dialogue, facial expressions, thought processes etc. They can take the power of the true stories and bring them to life fictionally--yet powerfully.
and deltar, where have you been?
I must say I am a fan of fictional stories. But Moses tops all stories. if the bible is its own genre it tops them all, but if Moses wasn't there i'm not too sure it would hold its ground
Moses was a prophet sent to Israel. He would lead them to the promised land to dwell. They were slow to follow, or so it appears. They were in the wilderness for forty years.
Today's featured article on Wikipedia.org is, "The Mormon Handcart Pioneers". I thought that was pretty cool, and I think it has some relevance to your post. Think about how Susan Easton Black retells the stories of the pioneers. She is a respected historian in and out of the Church. Her version of what happened with the pioneers places the saints in a glorified light. However, if you were to read history books written by those who aren't so fond of the Church, you would find discrepancies in facts and reasons why the Saints left for the Utah. It's hard to tell history without letting your biases dictate your discourse.
I think I agree with Petey's first comment in that authors many times are too biased to give us a true glimpse into history. It's interesting that you mention Tolsoy, because we have been talking a lot about his works in my Russian lit class. Although he is biased, I think he does give us great insites into the lives of the lower class in Russia. He gives the lower rung of the Russian social totem-pole life in a time where they were seen as slaves who had nothing to offer society. So in that regard, I would say that Tolstoy does do a better job than any of his contemporary historians in portraying the real Russia.
i plead the fifth.
and paul: my school has blocked blogspot.com on my computer and i can't get on to make comments at school no more--a serious blow to my bloggin capabilities.
nice to have you stevie. sorry to hear about your school's silly policy.
i guess there are those who would debate susan easton black's accuracy, but i am a huge fan. i would say that is an anomaly amongst historians, because man can she tell a vivid story.
tolstoy is a great one. his ability to seperate worth from class is a lot like jane austen. maybe jane is a bit more anti-class.
so jonny, it seems from your comments about agreeing with petey that your examples take a different position. you tell of a historian who is too biased and a fictional author who nails the truth about russian peasants. i will take your comments as an afirmation of the power of fiction.
i had a scare at the hospital the other day where i thought they had banned blogspot. i know the day is coming, but on a long medicine or surgery days it is a lifeline sanity to come to talk with normal people...like the hipster.
i am the ny chipster...
jonny: good luck on your physiology exam!
Have you people really read War and Peace?
yes, i read war and peace. it's an oldie but a goodie...
Post a Comment