“Fiction reveals truth that reality obscures.”
America has always prided itself on its almost unchecked freedom of expression. Whether its citizens are burning flags, protesting unjust legislation, or simply complaining about the officials we select, the United States has always allowed its people to say what they want to say about the problems we as a nation must endure. While it’s true that a lot of nonfiction has been written about the troubles of the times, it’s astonishing to note the preponderance of influential fiction written about social, moral, and governmental issues through the history of this nation and worldwide.
The litany of authors who have used their fictional works to drive home a deeper point is almost endless. America alone is host to the likes of Mark Twain, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Herman Melville, Henry James, John Steinbeck, F. Scott Fitzgerald, William Faulkner, Kurt Vonnegut, Edith Wharton…you get the point. All of these authors discussed key issues of their day and left illustrious and poignant messages behind about society. Again, I’m not debunking the fact that significant nonfiction was written (Common Sense and the Federalist papers come to mind), but the fact that the fiction is so much more common knowledge is something to take note of.
Why is fiction a more used means of expressing true opinions about something than nonfiction? If we truly have freedom of speech, we should feel free to say whatever we want, regardless of where it is or whom it’s addressed to. I’m not saying that these authors were hiding behind their words, but it shows something when they knew they could better represent their ideals through the voices of Jim, Hester, Gatsby, and Eva rather than themselves.
I don’t know what this means. It’s possible that the general population is too thick to comprehend nonfictional works, so tying up the morals of the author with the pretty bows of a plot is easier to attain for them. It’s also possible that fiction is easier to write than nonfiction. All I know is that you shouldn’t be afraid to stand up for what you believe in. I can respect people I completely disagree with for the very fact that they are willing to disagree. Don’t just accept everything that someone brings up, but develop your own opinions about everything you interact with. Apathy is no way to live.
I think fiction is a good method of sucking people in. It’s like, “Oh hey, I’ll give you a fascinating plot and characters you’ll fall in love with and beautiful prose…aaaaaaaand now that you’re here LISTEN TO MY THOUGHTS ON LIFE!”
And then you just can’t help but stick around for the end and let it change your whole outlook on life.
The fear of thinking is initially pacified when something is labeled as fiction.
“Apathy is no way to live”–I appreciate it.
i think i found a fiction in your post actually…
“the United States has always allowed its people to say what they want to say about the problems we as a nation must endure”
Very clever, Jesse.
I don’t know what you’re referencing, but you can’t deny that compared to other countries, the United States’ lenience with the things its citizens say is remarkable. People don’t get shoved in black bags for speaking out against the government.
I think that’s very true, Alex. When people say something that goes against what society designates we should think, we can placate ourselves with the fact that it’s “made up,” instead of identifying with radical ideas and having to defend our position.
Becca, dear, you make me smile.
“People don’t get shoved in black bags for speaking out against the government.”
Are you sure about that?
I think if that were so, quite a few people who comment on this blog would have been purged a while ago…
Is that a threat?
I’m included in that, so, no.
We’ve all been purged. We’re all a part of the carceral archipelago.
Carceral archipelago? Really? Don’t you think it’s a bit much to compare our freedom of expression with that of a prison? And an isolated one at that?
No. Not at all, actually. This concept of freedom of speech is simply a subtle form of control built into every one of our American minds. Your attempts to by-pass its constant control, influence, and surveillance are futile!
It’s all about power structures, really.
Are you sure it’s not about nebulous paradigms?
FUTILE!
I’m fairly certain that we exist in a sort of grand societal panopticon. This view is as much influenced by Foucault as it is CCTV.
Well, if truth is stranger than fiction, I suppose that may imply fiction would be easier to produce. Fiction requires imagination and is much more entertaining as well.
Personally, the only fiction I really read is science fiction. Sort of a hybrid of truth and fiction.
America is a hybrid in that way too. And that, unlike novels, is dangerous because it is real and practiced, whether it’s premise is true or not.
‘Power may determine truth’ in-so-far as the state is concerned, but language can define that power.
Or is it that power is completely a product of language?
Then we better understand our terms and use them appropriately.
Each of us uses power differently. Which is why I wanted to emphasize the aspect of definition i.e., regulation. We cannot eradicate language and therefore power. So that only leaves using it responsibly i.e, with limits.
I don’t think that power is completely a product of language. I have very little strength and no domineering or imposing physical presence whatsoever. Someone could easily overpower me. There’s no denying that. But it’s possible that I could convince that person verbally that such dominance was unnecessary. I think that people who are deemed as “powerful” got there by some other means, but the effective use of language projected them to the top, or stabilizes them in that position. People are a lot more willing to respect your influence if you can express it effectively.
i agree heather. effective use of language is vital. absolutely. and, although language is powerful, and you could define language under various dynamics, (“the language of god” for instance), this post didn’t seem to be reaching so far as language being the be all end all.
topics of truth and fiction cover a lot of ground though.
a few comments above are humorous towards the ideas about reality and power structures. of course, in so far as the human brain is concerned, and language is king, these are very serious topics.
my take on your post was that it was aimed at opening discussion instead of trying to make some deeper point.
saying that, I do just want to give a couple thoughts. it seems fiction tends to carry a connotation of falsity, whereas non fiction would be its opposite, or fact. but i don’t think that’s really the case.
and i do still maintain that people like to enjoy things, be entertained, use their imaginations, etc, so the prevalence of fiction (which requires imagination and not reference books) is only natural.
I think you’re right, but then again, this topic isn’t really debatable. People just like fiction better. Fiction is most popular because people don’t often want to hear what other people have to say about a subject coming directly from them. They don’t like being preached to. It takes a great deal more interest to read a nonfiction book that is strictly facts and opinions as opposed to a fiction book that has some slightly veiled opinions, a plot, and characters you can relate to. Those facts have been established; I was just curious to see if anyone had any new reasons why that was so.
yeah, so we basically agree on that aspect.. but my first comment is definitely debatable. i am not sure exactly why you included freedom of expression, america, etc.
i mean, i guess you were hinting at the idea that if you veil your messages in fiction you can get away with telling the truth?
Nah, I was just remarking on why people would choose to utilize fiction to express themselves instead of just saying it. I realize there are societal pressures against freedom of speech, but a lot that’s written in fiction could be stated directly without consequences. The exceptions might be things like “A Time to Kill” that include blatant racism and hate speech, but then again, half the country was saying the same things…
There are some prohibitions on speech, but those are in place for the good of all and wouldn’t affect someone expressing negative opinions about any aspect of society. Why, in a country that prides itself on freedom of speech, do so few authors take advantage of that freedom?
That’s what I was going for.
maybe you could use a few more examples. what is it that you want people to be talking about?
maybe there are plenty of authors utilizing freedom of speech but people just aren’t listening. maybe there are people who are prevented from speaking, like sibel edmonds, not to mention the many people who are scared or unsure about speaking out.
“Why, in a country that prides itself on freedom of speech, do so few authors take advantage of that freedom?”
I just wanted to see what people thought about that, and I think most of those opinions have been expressed already. This isn’t really a lengthy discussion issue, it just came to mind, so I wrote it.
My point is that you shouldn’t be afraid to stand up for what you believe, especially in a country with a greater extent of freedoms than most of the world. Sibel Edmonds is an excellent example of that. She lost her job and is still fighting against what she expressed in the first place, that the people she worked with were doing the wrong thing and have been continuing to do so since her termination. While she is one example of how freedom of speech isn’t as pristine in America as our government would wish us to believe, it’s still notably different from other countries where she would be excommunicated or permanently silenced.
i agree with your point about standing up for what you believe. wholeheartedly. obviously, your comment about the extent to which the freedoms you’re identifying is a debatable topic and relative to various factors.
but let me rephrase: how do mean people are not taking advantage of that freedom?
what evidence do you have that supports what you are saying? i.e., people aren’t using the opportunity they have. and what should they be saying or doing?
It’s just a general thing. Often people shy away from what they really mean, or don’t say anything to avoid confrontation. I was curious to see what people thought about that and its correlation with fiction, since people often utilize it to express themselves. There might not be a correlation at all; it might just be that fiction is easier/more enjoyable to read/write; all of this has been discussed already.
It’s difficile to find examples of people not saying what they mean or want to say, because…they aren’t saying anything…but it happens. All too often I have heard close friends break down about an issue after the fact. They were bottling it up instead of speaking their piece as it was being played out. It just depresses me that people will be so hesitant to stand up for their beliefs, especially when they have the rights to.
alright, cool, i hear ya.
another aspect of it can also be explained in terms of understanding. people may be honest in accordance to what they know (think), but that doesn’t mean what they know is true.
i also think a lot of people don’t necessarily know how to express what they think or how they feel. people can feel pressured by others, whether family, friends, etc.
and people can be irreflective? and hence misrepresent themselves as well.
there are a lot of factors. i have been beating it out of you because i find it fascinating and i obviously was unsure about what you meant. thanx for responding and taking the time to clarify.
I think all the reasons discussed here are valid and really interesting. But another reason people may be drawn to fiction more than non-fiction is that God made us to “need” story–in the same way that we need music or art or dance. I don’t know that fiction is easier to write than non-fiction (stylisticaly, at least. It can be harder to write non-fiction if you’re afraid to reveal yourself) but I think fiction fulfills the human need to be creative more than non-fiction does. Maybe that’s why we now have a genre called Creative Nonfiction.
see, i think what you just mentioned is curious…stephanie, you use the word ‘need’..and this reminds me of the requirements for something to be a ‘good’…
a ‘good’ must:
1. be a human need
2. it must perform satisfactorily
3. there must be knowledge of the good
4. must be able to allocate/control this good efficiently
i think this can explain why fiction isn’t subpar in respect to non-fiction. the need is still being filled to a satifactoral extent. so, as i noted above in a previous comment, just because something is fiction, doesn’t mean what it represents is any less than the truth.
indeed, the greatest stories are told in such terms. that’s what clive staples and the inklings, among so many other authors, were all about.