Truth in Fiction

[Feo Takahari]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

@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]

@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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

Hi,

.....

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

Cheers, Greg.

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)