Truth in Fiction

[psychotick]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.