# Truth in Fiction



## psychotick (Jul 16, 2015)

Hi,

Was reading through the PSA - Choose your words carefully when I came across a post suggesting that braveheart and in fact all movies which claim to be based on true stories are in fact about 90% false. Now I don't know if that's correct or not, and really it isn't the point of this thread. But it did make me start to think.

First it made me think about Fargo season one which has just started screening here in NZ (and which is brilliant by the way!) but which starts with the disclaimer (claimer?) at the begining saying that it's based on true events and only the names have been changed but everything else is accurately. Clearly that's a complete load of twaddle - and has been debunked.

But then I also thought about a quote I read by Neil Gaiman – _"Fairy tales are more than true: not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten."_

This reminded me that while we do write fiction (I assume) there is the potential for greater truths to appear in our work.

So that's my question. Where do we / should we as authors stand on the question of truth? Is it ok to lie to the reader / audience by claiming there is truth where there isn't? Or should we always be looking to bring a certain truth to our work even though they are fiction? I mean arguably grimdark is a movement towards bringing greater truth to our characters. It's not in my view, but that is a claim proponents of the sub genre make.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Nihilium 7th (Jul 16, 2015)

I think it all depends on the purpose of the story you are trying to tell and the demographic (if any) you are particularly trying to reach. If you are writing to present a certain message, lets say equality, it's up to you to decide how raw/real you want to go. It could be Roots, Star Trek or Avatar/Legend of Korra. All three deal with matter of race and equality but in different ways context and to different demographics. Are any more "real" in their portrayal? In essence no. Are they all as raw or shocking? "No" would be an understatement. But all get their message across.

  Now lets say you aren't trying to make a statement of some kind. Then how much "truth" you put in all depends on whether you want the book to be a reprieve from life in the sense of the reader not having to deal with certain aspects of everyday living (god knows we all need an escape) or if you want it to be an escape in which the world has all the darkness and light and ups and downs of real life but with and element of magic added to it (a different type of escape. Sometimes a more satisfying).

 Personally I don't think "truth" is the hard part. I think the rawness of the story is the hard part. We all kknow how terrible life can be but rarely do we experience the true horrid nature of fates dark side. Many of us have never gone to war or spent a night at the E.R as a doctor and thats probably because we don't want to. Many readers don't want to experience that either. To me, that is the question that needs to be answered not "should I be this truthful/honest" but how do I want to exhibit the truth.
I hope that helped answer you question.


----------



## KC Trae Becker (Jul 16, 2015)

Nihilium 7th said:


> I think it all depends on the purpose of the story you are trying to tell and the demographic (if any) you are particularly trying to reach... rarely do we experience the true horrid nature of fates dark side.



Great answer. This reminded me of the Note to Readers I put at the beginning of my WIP. My narrator actually tells the reader he is going to lie to protect everyone from "truths too terrible to tell" and some of my villains are the Fates themselves. (I have a second more dominant narrator who calls all that stuff pretentious so that I don't come off too pretentious. - Using two narrators is still experimental at this point but I'm liking it so far.)

Have you been tapping into my brain somehow? (Incidentally, Mythic Scribes seems a likely site for people with ESP. Do you need to out yourself on this issue?)

Your answer helped me clarify for myself one of the truths I am trying to write about: the confusing condition of adolescence. Thanks for sparking that thought process for me.


----------



## WooHooMan (Jul 16, 2015)

The notion of "truth" is a big theme in a story I'm working on.  But the truth itself isn't terribly important, it's more about the characters' relationship to it.  Like how they handle it.



KC Trae Becker said:


> My narrator actually tells the reader he is going to lie to protect everyone from "truths too terrible to tell" and some of my villains are the Fates themselves. (I have a second more dominant narrator who calls all that stuff pretentious so that I don't come off too pretentious. - Using two narrators is still experimental at this point but I'm liking it so far.)



Interestingly, I'm also using two narrators/protagonists and fate as a villainous force.  However, one narrator explicitly avoids lying.  As he puts it: "a terrible truth is always preferable to a pleasant lie".  The other narrator thinks he's pretentious and is more caught-up in the network of lies (it's a mystery stories so there's a whole bunch of lying and half-truths going on).
It's pretty spooky how some people on this forum always seem to be in-sync.

Anyways, I was talking to someone a little while ago about what makes a powerful scene and I told them something like "when a character hears a profound truth about the nature of reality and humanity...whatever.  But when a character (or the reader) hears something that they specifically need/want to hear, that's always more powerful and rings more true".

I think the writers' job is to tell a story and lie all they want and _if_ there's some kind of truth, let the reader figure it out.
So, there's my take.

Cheers, Nihilium 7th.


----------



## Nihilium 7th (Jul 16, 2015)

WooHooMan said:


> I think the writers' job is to tell a story and lie all they want and _if_ there's some kind of truth, let the reader figure it out.
> So, there's my take.
> 
> Cheers, Nihilium 7th.



I agree with here. After all many times the only difference between the truth and a lie is perspective and time. I Personally don't go out of my way to lie "Unless there's a hint to the truth hidden somewhere in the scene/context. I guess the question is "The truth according to whom?" If a character says they can create tiny Suns but it turns out they can only create camp fires are they really lying?


----------



## valiant12 (Jul 16, 2015)

> It could be Roots, Star Trek or Avatar/Legend of Korra. All three deal with matter of race and equality but in different ways context and to different demographics. Are any more "real" in their portrayal? In essence no. Are they all as raw or shocking? "No" would be an understatement. But all get their message across.


By avatar you mean the cartoon\manga.
James Cameron's Avatar is more interesting in its depiction of race. And a lot more controversial.
The majority of humans in Avatar are white. The Navi have colored skin.
The humans are greedy asshole, yet you can argue that they are the good guys. If the next film reveals that the first is a Navi propaganda I will be very happy.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Jul 16, 2015)

I think fiction is about perspective more than it's about truth. First you've got the world, which is too complex for one human being to fully understand. Then you've got what each individual writer has seen of the world, and that's what they put in their stories. If you've seen something different from other people, your story may still have value even if you interpreted some things wrong.

Incidentally, I do think fiction writing tends towards certain biases. In particular, writers tend to praise the positive impact of stories and downplay the destructive effects they can have, for much the same reason rich businessmen write essays about how great capitalism is.


----------



## Penpilot (Jul 16, 2015)

I think in terms of writing, we're not talking about literal truth. It's about finding the truth in lies and telling the lies truthfully.

Truth in story has nothing to do with facts. Facts are just details, and as can be seen in any biography or based on true story movies, those get left out or interpreted loosely. Truth in story doesn't deal with realistic situations or details. It deals with the truth of your characters and the truth of their reactions when confronted with a situation.

In terms of author, telling the story truthfully is about telling the story fairly instead of accurately. What I mean by that is no cheating. For example like in one of Agatha Christie's books where the POV character turns out to be the murderer.


----------



## Nihilium 7th (Jul 16, 2015)

valiant12 said:


> By avatar you mean the cartoon\manga.
> James Cameron's Avatar is more interesting in its depiction of race. And a lot more controversial.
> The majority of humans in Avatar are white. The Navi have colored skin.
> The humans are greedy asshole, yet you can argue that they are the good guys. If the next film reveals that the first is a Navi propaganda I will be very happy.



I agree with you when you say Cameron's Avatar had an interesting depiction and viewpoint on race; it went to the point where you didn't know who to relate to. But in the end it is easy to see (at least from my perspective.) that the Navi are meant to symbolize Native Americans. 
  To me the Last Airbender series is more controversial in the sense that every Nation in the show represents not just a country but an ethnicity. Avatar the Last Airbender was basically a critique on Imperial Japan's behavior during the World Wars. Aang was the Dhali Lama, and the Air Nation is Tibet.

But this goes to show how the truth works in fiction it is all subjective. Our jobs as writers is to lead our readers, without dragging them, to the destination we designed for them.


----------



## Reaver (Jul 16, 2015)

Facts are things that can be verified exhaustively by you and other people.  Truth is something that's pondered by philosophers.

I try to keep my fantasy stories fantastical. I avoid facts but I do sometimes add things that I and most people believe to be true. For example, sitting under a shade tree on warm day with a gentle breeze is pretty freakin' nice.


----------



## ThinkerX (Jul 16, 2015)

> But then I also thought about a quote I read by Neil Gaiman — "Fairy tales are more than true: not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten."



Substitute 'Lovecraftian Abominations' for 'Dragons' and you are at one of several themes in my works.  Even in Lovecraft's tales, the abominations were defeated on occasion, even 'killed.'


----------



## skip.knox (Jul 16, 2015)

There are two (at least!) separate issues here. One is that by saying "truth" one implies there's only one. It's the nature of the word to be singular. As others have pointed out, that's a philosophical consideration. Perhaps it's one an author ought to spend time with, maybe work into stories, I dunno. Your call.

But the other issue goes back to the OP, specifically to the *claim* of truth. All Hollywood movies jiggle the history. That's not a problem for me as a historian. But when a movie *claims* historical accuracy, then the daggers come out. I belong to a discussion listserv (that's how old it is) called MEDIEV-L, for professional medieval historians. Braveheart is banned from discussion, the only movie to be so rated, not only because the errors are so egregious but because Gibson was so strident in claiming accuracy. 

Same goes for writing. This isn't much of a problem for our genre, but it certainly applies to spy novels or detective novels or forensic stories. If you are going to claim realism (not the same thing as truth, I know), then you'd better get the details right. As for truth, there are plenty of books that stake a claim to that, too. The same applies.

All that is quite different from fiction that offers insight ("truth" often gets used as if it were a synonym for insight). Which is again different from whatever the reader gains from a book regardless of what the author intended.


----------



## ThinkerX (Jul 17, 2015)

Mostly hard SF, but I have read a number of SF novels that were actually fictionalized efforts to explain very unusual things that were scientifically correct. A couple planets with unusual characteristics, relativistic effects, that sort of thing.


----------



## KC Trae Becker (Jul 17, 2015)

Feo Takahari said:


> writers tend to praise the positive impact of stories and downplay the destructive effects they can have, for much the same reason rich businessmen write essays about how great capitalism is.



Interesting statement, I'm wondering what destructive effects of stories this is referring to?


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jul 17, 2015)

KC Trae Becker said:


> Interesting statement, I'm wondering what destructive effects of stories this is referring to?



I'm guessing things like a skewed perception of reality. Not in the sense of the "obviously unrealistic" stuff that happens, but in the way people and characters behave and relate to each other.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Jul 17, 2015)

KC Trae Becker said:


> Interesting statement, I'm wondering what destructive effects of stories this is referring to?



There are a few different ways to answer that. One approach I'd take is that I know a lot of people who live their lives like they're protagonists, and it's a very self-centered, oblivious way of being. Another is that the hero's journey has a lot of resemblance to the heroic narrative of the soldier going off to war, and I think that concept of heroic martyrdom is how both governments and terrorist groups encourage people to die for the cause. I also think reading a lot of fiction in which good people succeed and bad people suffer feeds into the Just World Hypothesis: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis And then there are the political implications, especially for horror, which is so often about why you should be terrified of some new social phenomenon . . . You could write a whole book about it.

Edit: to be a bit more clear, what I'm trying to say for this topic is that these aren't ideas I see explored in fiction often. Not a lot of writers have the inclination or the guts to write fiction about how fiction might be bad for you.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jul 17, 2015)

EDIT: I was thinking I should expand on what I wrote, but it got complicated and I'm not sure I'd make myself all that much clearer anyway.


----------



## WooHooMan (Jul 17, 2015)

Feo Takahari said:


> I also think reading a lot of fiction in which good people succeed and bad people suffer feeds into the Just World Hypothesis: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis And then there are the political implications, especially for horror, which is so often about why you should be terrified of some new social phenomenon



Man, I wish you posted this yesterday.  I got into an argument with someone over avoiding fiction that portrays a different morality system or worldviews you're uncomfortable with or don't agree with.
I tried to explain to him how it can be cathartic to enjoy fiction that's unpleasant but I had trouble putting it into words why absorbing nothing but idealistic fiction could be harmful or boring.



ThinkerX said:


> Substitute 'Lovecraftian Abominations' for 'Dragons' and you are at one of several themes in my works.  Even in Lovecraft's tales, the abominations were defeated on occasion, even 'killed.'



The monsters in Lovecraft mythos represent a truth: they represent the cosmic forces that humanity doesn't fully understand (Yog-Sothoth is time, Azathoth might be creation or something, and so on).  The fundamental truth that Lovecraft was trying to tell us was "the universe is really big and often scary".  
However, with science and all that, we're getting closer to understanding those cosmic forces so a victory against the abominations here and there seems deserved.


----------



## psychotick (Jul 17, 2015)

Hi,

Feo, I think we're a little at odds on this fiction can be bad for you. I generally think it's good and where it does leave a negative stain upon a person, it's generally because of the lies in it - not the underlying truth. The truth may be uncomfortable. You may want to deny it. You may hate it. But it's almost never bad. Consider the underlying truth of Lord of the Flies. That we're all just savages pretending to be civilised - and that we're ashamed of this fact. That we try to block it out and pretend it doesn't exist. Uncomfortable read? Yes. Absolutely. But aren't we still better people for having that truth shown to us? Doesn't it give us more insight into our nature upon which we can grow? My thought is that it's ignorance, the truths not exposed but hidden away in the dark recesses of our souls, that lead to bad outcomes.

That's why I think as authors of fiction, we still have an obligation placed upon us to tell the truth (these deeper inner truths not bare facts) when we can - and of course not to make it preachy.

This is also why I have an issue with the deceptive prose. The stuff like in the Fargo tv series where the writers are desperately trying to tell you that something is true when it's not. In that case the harm caused is extremely minor - but our world view is still impacted a little bit.

However grimdark is a different kettle of fish - sardines? Here according to followers, authors are trying to tell stories that are more real. Good guys have feet of clay. Bad guys need to be understood. And there is a modicum of truth in this. But they take this truth and take it far too far. They turn it into a lie. Consider Game of Thrones. I love this - the series not the books - they were simply too dark and I couldn't read any more torture and rape of essentially children after a point. But consider the underlying messages being given. That there is basically no or almost no true heroism or decency. No real moral imperitive. Everyone is out to get you. We are all just self absorbed savages who will slit your throat for a few coins. Contrast this with Lord of the Flies. Both claim that we are underlying savages. But in Lord of the Flies, we are redeemed to an extent by our shame of our actions and our inner nature. In GOT that does not happen. Instead we glorify in the violence. We accept it as a part of our nature not to be fought. We deny the very existence of true morality and show that those who even try for this will be cut down. And this becomes part of our world view.

You take a simple truth. Exagerate and distort it until it's far more a lie than true. And you have a recipe for harm. I'm not talking people reading the books and rushing out with swords to hack others to death. I'm talking the way people who read and invest themselves in these sorts of works view the world. Are they more likely to be cynical and suspicious? Less likely to make friends, always believing that the other is really just out for himself? Do they feel less when horrible things happen? Lack a little empathy? This is the harm I see in the lies. And it has a long history unfortunately in writing.

This is why Nietzsche's work was so dangerous. Because he took a little truth - yes we should work on ourselves, make ourselves better, stronger people, and be a little self-involved - and turned it into a massive lie. We should reject any form of morality other than what we decide for ourselves. We should never be weak. Weakness is caring for others. Obeying the laws of the masses is a form of enslavement. We must break free of our enslavement be it Christianity or whatever, and live only for ourselves. And whatever we decide to do is right. While Nietzsche was writing philosophy, his message is now a meme out there, poisoning the hearts and minds of many. Worse so many writers have swallowed his message and now essentially echo his clarion call.

Personally as a writer I try to fight that message a little. In The Stars Betrayed I tried to portray the truth of what an overman would be like - to show the nature of the beast as it were. Others do the same. Dean R Koontz for a start. And that in a roundabout way is what I started this thread to explore.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Chessie (Jul 17, 2015)

Interesting thread. Psychotick, to answer your question, I think it really depends on the type of message an author wants to send to his readers and what essence he/she wants to market. This is all personal and unique to each writer. Your post above couldn't have been better spoken, imo. The problem I have with GOT is that it does glorify the violent side of human beings, but ignores that humanity that all of us still have somewhere in our core. But that's my perspective on it, others will disagree.

The strongest moral messages I have received in literature, and admired the authors for them, were the ones that slid just underneath the surface of the story yet was entangled in it. Morality isn't something that should be forced in a story, but I definitely believe that it should be part of a good story because it reaches the hearts and thinkers of those readers.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Jul 17, 2015)

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> Feo, I think we're a little at odds on this fiction can be bad for you. I generally think it's good and where it does leave a negative stain upon a person, it's generally because of the lies in it - not the underlying truth. The truth may be uncomfortable. You may want to deny it. You may hate it. But it's almost never bad. Consider the underlying truth of Lord of the Flies. That we're all just savages pretending to be civilised - and that we're ashamed of this fact. That we try to block it out and pretend it doesn't exist. Uncomfortable read? Yes. Absolutely. But aren't we still better people for having that truth shown to us? Doesn't it give us more insight into our nature upon which we can grow? My thought is that it's ignorance, the truths not exposed but hidden away in the dark recesses of our souls, that lead to bad outcomes.
> 
> ...



That's the thing--I'm not convinced Lord of the Flies is true! Coral Island gives one perspective, then Lord of the Flies gives a contrasting perspective, and then Bless the Beasts and Children was written as a counterargument to Flies! My inclination is more to agree with Beasts, but the "truth" of the matter is something for psychologists to determine by studying what's in the hearts of real, actual people rather than fictional characters.

Viewed in that light, I don't think GOT is necessarily worse than Flies. They both present a viewpoint, and I suspect both are wrong, but they're each just one idea that can be evaluated on its merits. Most of the problems come from refusing to evaluate, or fleeing back into stories with the same worldview as you.

I can't find it now, but Neva Chonin once wrote an essay on why she doesn't like The Empire Strikes Back. She preferred Darth Vader when he was just bad and Luke Skywalker was just good. If Vader is Luke's father and Vader is bad, that opens up the possibility that Luke is bad, and that's not something she wants to think about in an escapist movie where good guys fight bad guys. To me, that article felt kind of creepy--if you can't tolerate even that basic level of moral ambiguity in your fiction, how do you handle it when deciding which flawed political candidate to vote for? To me, that's a bigger issue than any one writer being wrong.


----------



## Helen (Jul 17, 2015)

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> when I came across a post suggesting that braveheart and in fact all movies which claim to be based on true stories are in fact about 90% false.



History/truth is written by the winners, so I don't think you can ever arrive at the absolute truth.


----------



## psychotick (Jul 18, 2015)

Hi Feo,

Haven't read Bless the Beasts, but my first question for you would be why can't it and Flies both be revealing truths?

Consider that Flies shows that somewhere within the heart of us, perhaps most clearly seen in children, is this tribal savage who refuses to be bound by rules unless he has to. But also shows us the shame for our actions when we do wrong - indicating that still within us is the desire to do right and good. There is nobility as well as savagery. Beasts from what I've read seems to show that nobility, while still breaking the rules.

GOT by contrast shows a very one dimensional view of people as leaning much more towards the savage. Nobility and decency is crushed. Good intentions are corrupted. Good actions are punished. The bad win. And even the very ideal of goodness is scorned. So both Flies and beasts show a complex creature in people where yes there is savagery, lawlessness and dark impulses. But they also show the lighter side of our nature. This is their truth. GOT's truth is only that there is savagery and darkness within us. And its lie is that nothing else is of value or can win. Only evil can fight evil because goodness is destroyed.

In the end this move to grimdark is no more embracing the truth than the heroic fantasy was before it.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Penpilot (Jul 18, 2015)

Psychotick, the way you're interpreting GOT is definitely not how I see it. If there's anything the story shows us is that there is darkness and light within everyone, not just one or the other. It shows that we are all people, who love, who hurt, who lust, who revenge, etc, no matter what we may seem on the surface. 

(GOT spoilers ahead for season 1) 

It doesn't say you have to be evil to win. It says if you're naive you will lose. That's the whole point of Ned Stark's death. He was naive to think that honor would protect him just as well as a sword. He chose honor over prudence by warning Cersi he discovered her secret, showing he didn't know how to play the Game of Thrones, so he lost. He thought she would cower and run, but instead she bared her claws and ripped his throat out. 

GOT shows that love is one of the strongest motivators in existence and can make people great things and despicable things. Many of the character's actions are driven by love. Cersi's actions are driven by love for her children and the need to protect them. Jamie pushes Bran out the window not because he derives pleasure in it. He does it to protect Cersi and the secret of their love, messed up as it is. Ned admits to treason to protect his children. Tyrion is haunted by thoughts of his first wife, and his continued love for her despite the years apart. He is one desperately searching for love. Rob broke an alliance/promise for love, and was naive enough to think he could get a way with it and paid for it dearly. I could go on and on.


----------



## X Equestris (Jul 18, 2015)

Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with your interpretation of Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire, Psychostick.  It doesn't say that there is only darkness in us.  I mean, look at Jaime Lannister.  He starts out as rather unlikeable, but by the point the series is at, he's a totally different, and better, man.  Nor does it say that being evil pays.  We've seen plenty of villains pay for their actions.


----------



## psychotick (Jul 18, 2015)

Hi Guys,

Not my intention to derail this into a GOT is good / bad thread. All I would say having read the first two books and seen seasons 1 - 4 is that in my view every time a character yields to a decent moral impulse it comes back to bite them. Innocence is lost. And yes it seems that evil will be killed - but by other evil for evil ends. Maybe by the end of season seven some will be redeemed / saved - but there's so few left! And thus far there are no real heroes in the piece with the exception of Snow and Bran - and Snow has already shamed himself and betrayed his vows. Tyrion has let love die - in fact he murdered it - and he was one of my favourites. Daenerys is on her own special road to damnation each step guided by her desire to do the right thing. Sansa is a victim, painted that way by her gender and her weakness. Arya is youth corrupted by anger and hatred. Jamie has had a couple of moral impulses - but he's far from redeemed and I don't see that ever happening. As for Cersei - yes she has love - and her love has destroyed her and so many others. There is no depth to which she will not plunge for her son.

It's hard to see anything in this show that says goodness can in anyway match up to the innate horribleness of people. And this is a message that keeps getting repeated - and not just by the main characters. Even the minor ones who turn up here and there looking like they might turn out to be good, either betray themselves or get shafted. Take a look at the farmer and his daughter offering the Hound and Arya a place for the night and getting robbed by them for their trouble. Particularly pay attention to what the Hound says of his actions.

Don't get me wrong - it's still a gripping show - but I would not want to live in that world!

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## valiant12 (Jul 18, 2015)

> One approach I'd take is that I know a lot of people who live their lives like they're protagonists, and it's a very self-centered, oblivious way of being



Do you really blame fiction for that?
And it is mater of perspective  if that is realy a destructive way to live your life.



> I also think reading a lot of fiction in which good people succeed and bad people suffer feeds into the Just World Hypothesis: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis



I agree with you. However most people read this kind of stories for escapism.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Jul 18, 2015)

valiant12 said:


> Do you really blame fiction for that?
> And it is mater of perspective  if that is realy a destructive way to live your life.



I don't see literature as the sole and specific problem. It's about stories and narratives, whether they're told by parents, advertisers, religious leaders, talking heads on TV . . . A lot of sources told my generation that we were special and unique snowflakes, and we listened.


----------



## Penpilot (Jul 18, 2015)

psychotick said:


> Maybe by the end of season seven some will be redeemed / saved - but there's so few left! And thus far there are no real heroes in the piece with the exception of Snow and Bran - and Snow has already shamed himself and betrayed his vows.



I think that's one of the key points about the series, that there are no true heroes in the world and the concept of a true hero is naive. There are just people, who sometimes do good things and sometimes do evil things. If you look at the characters, they are each capable of doing good or bad, and it is consistent with who they are. And to me, that's the truth of it.

Taking this back to the subject of truth, we look at history and there are figures that are labelled heroes and those that are labelled villains. But when you dig deeper, sometimes heroes turn out to be despicable SOBs and villains aren't so villainous. 

To me Sansa isn't weak because of her sex. She's weak because of her naivety, but becomes stronger and stronger as she learns the game. And her sex, she's learning that it can be a weapon as strong as any sword. All the young characters lose their innocents, but gain knowledge, and with knowledge comes the struggle to choose between light and dark.

The way I see things, almost every character in GOT can be redeemed or forever be lost. And within the context of storytelling, you have to put your characters into deepest holes where climbing out seems impossible before they start their climbs. If the reader sees the hole can be easily climbed out of then tension and suspense is lost because the end is a forgone conclusion. Any way, that were I see the story is at right now.


----------



## Nihilium 7th (Jul 18, 2015)

I think GoT is a perfect example of what the nature of truth is. An illusion. There is no such thing as good and bad; only what we decide is good or bad. It shows us just how self righteous we all are. There are no villains or heroes in GoT only people we don those titles on. The truth in all fiction (I believe), whether writers know it or not, is that things like "truth", "morals" and "ethics" are just like the stories we read and write, a choice; tales we tell to make sure we devolve into chaos and savagery. I think an excerpt from the "Chaos is a Ladder" speech explains it best. 
Petyr Baelish: "The realm. Do you know what the realm is? It's the thousand blades of Aegon's enemies, a story we agree to tell each other over and over, until we forget that it's a lie."

Lord Varys: "But what do we have left, once we abandon the lie? Chaos? A gaping pit waiting to swallow us all."

The question isn't "should we write about 'truth' (philosophically speaking)" But do readers on a _whole_ _want_ to read about the truth. After we ask that question we should then ask if it should matter whether or not.


----------



## skip.knox (Jul 18, 2015)

Feo Takahari said:


> A lot of sources told my generation that we were special and unique snowflakes, and we listened.



We are special and we are unique. Of course, that doesn't mean we're important. Or even that we are special and unique in interesting ways.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Jul 18, 2015)

Nihilium 7th said:


> I think GoT is a perfect example of what the nature of truth is. An illusion. There is no such thing as good and bad; only what we decide is good or bad. It shows us just how self righteous we all are. There are no villains or heroes in GoT only people we don those titles on. The truth in all fiction (I believe), whether writers know it or not, is that things like "truth", "morals" and "ethics" are just like the stories we read and write, a choice; tales we tell to make sure we devolve into chaos and savagery. I think an excerpt from the "Chaos is a Ladder" speech explains it best.
> Petyr Baelish: "The realm. Do you know what the realm is? It's the thousand blades of Aegon's enemies, a story we agree to tell each other over and over, until we forget that it's a lie."
> 
> Lord Varys: "But what do we have left, once we abandon the lie? Chaos? A gaping pit waiting to swallow us all."
> ...



Coincidentally, I'm taking an ethics class right now. In the past few weeks, I've learned about three thinkers who would agree at least partially with you from different directions (Nietzsche, Gilbert Harman, and J.L. Mackie.) I've also learned about a great number of them who'd say you're wrong. Whether _you_ know it or not, your "truth" can't be confirmed as the truth just yet. It's just another theory for us to debate over, and that ties back into what I've been saying all along! You'll write your stories, I'll write mine, and readers will decide whether either or both of us are wrong.


----------



## Nihilium 7th (Jul 18, 2015)

Feo Takahari said:


> Coincidentally, I'm taking an ethics class right now. In the past few weeks, I've learned about three thinkers who would agree at least partially with you from different directions (Nietzsche, Gilbert Harman, and J.L. Mackie.) I've also learned about a great number of them who'd say you're wrong. Whether _you_ know it or not, your "truth" can't be confirmed as the truth just yet. It's just another theory for us to debate over, and that ties back into what I've been saying all along! You'll write your stories, I'll write mine, and readers will decide whether either or both of us are wrong.



I find that kind of funny since I'm not a big fan Nietzsche. But I agree with your last two sentences and infact is kind of what I'm trying to say in the last post and my first post in this thread. Our jobs isn't to tell our readers what the message/truth of our art is, only to facilitate the world for them to decide that truth.


----------



## WooHooMan (Jul 19, 2015)

I haven't read the last two pages of posts and I assume - since we've passed the two page mark - the thread has completely gone off the rails and no one is going to read through it...but I have a topic of discussion I'd like to bring up and I don't want to make a new thread.

I've written a scene earlier today in which a character gives this grand monologue about destiny (more or less).  He tells a character that all people have a single purpose and if they fail in life or are unhappy with where they are, they're fulfilling the wrong destiny.  And this character monologuing is very dedicated to his beliefs so he says this stuff like he's totally convinced it's true.

I'm worried that a reader will read this and think "oh, destiny exists in this story's universe" or, worse yet, they'll think I'm saying destiny exists in our reality.  But it's supposed to just be the character's viewpoint - totally subjective.
In the past, I've had to explain to some readers that sometimes my characters are wrong or half-right or just flat-out lying.  I generally like to think my readers are smart enough to understand the difference between subjective, in-universe objective and me - the writer - giving an opinion without me having to spell it out for them.
But I've had people tell me I give readers too much credit.

Does anyone else ever worry that readers will take what characters say as "objective" truth when it's not supposed to be?


----------



## Feo Takahari (Jul 19, 2015)

@WooHooMan: It helps a lot to have some characters disagree with other characters. With your "destiny" character, for instance, if another character is skeptical about destiny, it'll probably seem more open to interpretation. (After all, if _every_ good guy thinks the same thing, you have to wonder if the author's saying you need to think that in order to be a good guy.)


----------



## WooHooMan (Jul 19, 2015)

Feo Takahari said:


> @WooHooMan: It helps a lot to have some characters disagree with other characters. With your "destiny" character, for instance, if another character is skeptical about destiny, it'll probably seem more open to interpretation. (After all, if _every_ good guy thinks the same thing, you have to wonder if the author's saying you need to think that in order to be a good guy.)



I appreciate the suggestion but that wouldn't really work with the scene.  There isn't really anyone in the room _to_ disagree with him.
As far as the overall story goes, the concept of destiny doesn't really come-up anywhere else; certainly not to the point where I can create a balanced argument about it.


----------



## psychotick (Jul 19, 2015)

Hi WooHoo,

You might want to look up the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus aka the weeping philosopher, who opined that "character is fate". Though this has been much interpretted and translated and transliterated, in my understanding it basically means that fate is determined by a man's character. Some men are fated by their nature to do or become certain things, and if they fail to do so or do otherwise they are acting against their nature - and will be unhappy because of it.

You may also consider the arguments between the stoics and the epicureans on fate and divine plans.

However, for your character might I suggest that you could have him pass out drunk after giving the speech, thus suggesting that his words and their veracity might be subject to his drinking. Alternatively you could have him make references to others who disagree with him and in turn call them all sorts of names.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## WooHooMan (Jul 19, 2015)

psychotick said:


> Hi WooHoo,
> 
> You might want to look up the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus aka the weeping philosopher, who opined that "character is fate". Though this has been much interpretted and translated and transliterated, in my understanding it basically means that fate is determined by a man's character. Some men are fated by their nature to do or become certain things, and if they fail to do so or do otherwise they are acting against their nature - and will be unhappy because of it.
> 
> ...



I already have the character figured-out though I appreciate the suggested reading.  I've already looked into this topic pretty thoroughly (or at least, as thoroughly as necessary).

The idea of his speech being a conditional thing could work.  In the scene, he's pretty much trying to romance a chick so saying "whatever works especially if it's mystical and romantic" would be appropriate.  He does believe it but I maybe able to make it clearer that he's really trying to sell it.

I was already planning on having characters who outwardly disagree with him later but then it's like "well, the guy gave a pretty solid argument in favor of fate so why would I think these naysayers know what they're talking about.  The 'truth' is already established so anything else is false unless proven".
Maybe I'm overthinking it.

Anyways, thanks for the suggestion.

Sincerely, skip.knox


----------



## Penpilot (Jul 19, 2015)

WooHooMan said:


> I appreciate the suggestion but that wouldn't really work with the scene.  There isn't really anyone in the room _to_ disagree with him.
> As far as the overall story goes, the concept of destiny doesn't really come-up anywhere else; certainly not to the point where I can create a balanced argument about it.



IMHO, this may be the problem. If you don't want the reader to think you're lecturing or preaching, you have to present doubt, and the way to do that is to have someone disagree and present a counter.

Also, if no one disagrees then there's no tension, and I think this may end up feeling flat unless his monologue is drop the reader on their ear fantastic. 

And finally, if the whole theme of destiny doesn't come up in the rest of the story, then why devote a monologue to it? It's going to stick out like a sore thumb.


----------



## kennyc (Jul 19, 2015)

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> .....
> 
> ...




In fact that is the point of fiction, to teach greater truths.



“Fiction is the lie through which we tell the truth.” 
― Albert Camus

“Fiction reveals truth that reality obscures.” 
― Jessamyn West


“There is no doubt fiction makes a better job of the truth.” 
― Doris Lessing, Under My Skin: Volume One of My Autobiography, to 1949

More here: Quotes About On Fiction (79 quotes)


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jul 19, 2015)

WooHooMan said:


> I appreciate the suggestion but that wouldn't really work with the scene.  There isn't really anyone in the room _to_ disagree with him.
> As far as the overall story goes, the concept of destiny doesn't really come-up anywhere else; certainly not to the point where I can create a balanced argument about it.



Or the character could have been wrong about something in the past, so that readers already question him. Or you could have some other character spout utter nonsense like it's absolute truth, so that the reader doubts you as a writer (the right kind of doubt, not the bad kind).


----------



## WooHooMan (Jul 19, 2015)

Svrtnsse said:


> Or the character could have been wrong about something in the past, so that readers already question him. Or you could have some other character spout utter nonsense like it's absolute truth, so that the reader doubts you as a writer (the right kind of doubt, not the bad kind).



Solid suggestions.  Thanks.



Penpilot said:


> IMHO, this may be the problem. If you don't want the reader to think you're lecturing or preaching, you have to present doubt, and the way to do that is to have someone disagree and present a counter.
> 
> Also, if no one disagrees then there's no tension, and I think this may end up feeling flat unless his monologue is drop the reader on their ear fantastic.
> 
> And finally, if the whole theme of destiny doesn't come up in the rest of the story, then why devote a monologue to it? It's going to stick out like a sore thumb.



The viewpoint the character expresses isn't the important part of the scene.  The monologue better establishes the two characters' relationship, the speaker's motives and it's kind of a motivator for the character listening to him - it's some initial guidance to get their arc in motion.  If the whole thing had no purpose but to philosophize, I would have already scrapped it.


----------

