Thread: The Truth About Fiction

For those who have seen the movie “Fargo” you may recall the words coming across the opening scene describing the movie as being based on a true story. That was a lie.

Fargo had been released for several years before I finally decided to sit down and watch it. I rented the DVD, and settled in on my favorite spot on the couch. To me the movie was like a train wreck; I couldn’t look away. After it was over, still feeling amazed by the story, I watched the segment on the making of the movie which was included on the DVD. The Coen brothers, who directed it, discussed the opening statement that claimed it was based on actual events. They conceded that it was all made up. In fact, one of them added that there is no law against lying in a fictitious story. It made the dark comedy seem even funnier to me after I realized I had been duped.

I have to be honest; I am a little bothered by what I see as a bias toward fiction. To me, one can simply look at the names of the genres and see that it exists. To understand what I mean consider this: Have you ever noticed that the choices when buying milk are whole-milk, and non-fat? Applying the same naming convention to writing, the genres should be something like reality, and non-reality. Instead the literary world has decided that the true to life approach gets labeled with the second-fiddle prefix of “non.” Let’s consider what the rest of the world would be like if we used this approach: Our food choices would be dessert, and non-dessert. Our automobiles would be Mercedes-Benz, and non-Mercedes-Benz. And, our computer manufacturers might be Apple, and non-apple (Steve Jobs would probably be trying to give that one a “like” right now).

Before you fiction writers get offended – this is just me wondering why “non-fiction” sounds like an alternative to fiction instead of a separate genre that can stand on its own merits. I think the Coen brothers may have wondered that themselves. It seems as they are believers in the mantra that truth is stranger than fiction. Had they not, they could have said that their movie was based on non-fiction. That just doesn’t have the same ring to it does it?

The fix is in, you are saying. The good stuff is fiction. That which fails to make the grade is non-fiction. As a writer of non-fiction I can appreciate that.

Good ideas here. But let's not confuse 'factual' with 'truth'. If you are a student of the New Testament in the Bible, whether you are religious or not, you know that Jesus used parables to teach important lessons. The parables were based on important truths about people, but they were fiction - non-factual, made-up, stories. The best fiction works are parables. Read Go Down, Moses by William Faulkner. Those seven stories are are parables, fiction, and full of truth.

Some years ago the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was scheduled to visit Belize. At the last moment some crisis erupted and the visit was cancelled. A local newspaper editor who had planned to interview the Foreign Secretary went ahead and published an interview. When challenged, the editor's response was, 'well, if he had come, that's what he would have said'. Some of us have turned that into a slogan for the New Age in journalism - 'If it didn't happen that way it should have'.

Maybe that is the meaning of the introduction to the movie.

I guess I've never considered non-fiction to be a 'lesser' area than fiction. I don't consider non-fiction to be a genre itself - to me, there are 'genres' in non-fiction just as there are in fiction. You really can't compare a biography to a travel guide, or a treatise on some government program with a DIY book, any more than you can compare m/m romance to sci-fi, or westerns to horror. Other than some basic common elements, those non-fiction 'genres' are just as distinct as those in fiction.

Originally Posted by shadowwalker

I guess I've never considered non-fiction to be a 'lesser' area than fiction. I don't consider non-fiction to be a genre itself - to me, there are 'genres' in non-fiction just as there are in fiction. You really can't compare a biography to a travel guide, or a treatise on some government program with a DIY book, any more than you can compare m/m romance to sci-fi, or westerns to horror. Other than some basic common elements, those non-fiction 'genres' are just as distinct as those in fiction.

True, but my question is why does non-fiction have to be categorized by what it "is not" instead of what it "is."

Originally Posted by garza

Maybe that is the meaning of the introduction to the movie.

It was interesting to see them discussing this issue because they seemed amused by the fact that they knew that it would get people more worked up if they were told the story was true.

I think that maybe everything I write, from now on, will start with the sentance "The following is based on a true story." Then that will allow me to post in fiction, right?

Originally Posted by ClosetWriter

True, but my question is why does non-fiction have to be categorized by what it "is not" instead of what it "is."

Because it "is" so many things - as those 'genres' I mentioned show. The one thing it universally is not is fiction.

Not sure why it matters, really.

Originally Posted by shadowwalker

Because it "is" so many things - as those 'genres' I mentioned show. The one thing it universally is not is fiction.

Not sure why it matters, really.

Ha ha ha... And the one thing that fiction is not is 'real.' Don't worry about being sure why it matters. I just thought it was thought-provoking to address this, and it was meant somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I don’t know why it matters either; this is just how my mind works.

I think I am going to write my congressman to get a bill started that will forbid the use of non-fiction as a terminology. It clearly is offensive to reality writers.

Well imagine that I am standing at the bar and drinking a glass or two. Invariably I'll get around to telling a tale of daring 'do' or 'done'.
Hopefully my friends and fellow drinkers will listen and then either laugh or cry.
The problem I nearly always have is to remember the same story in the same words.
If I attempt to tell the same factual story for a second time, I will probably add a bit or forget a bit, but so long as my friends around the bar enjoy the story then who cares?

However was the tale I told fact or fiction?

Perhaps Occam's Razor can provide an answer for us:

Maybe fiction was termed first, then naturally, it's antithesis, non-fiction came afterwards.

Originally Posted by Divus

Well imagine that I am standing at the bar and drinking a glass or two. Invariably I'll get around to telling a tale of daring 'do' or 'done'.
Hopefully my friends and fellow drinkers will listen and then either laugh or cry.
The problem I nearly always have is to remember the same story in the same words.
If I attempt to tell the same factual story for a second time, I will probably add a bit or forget a bit, but so long as my friends around the bar enjoy the story then who cares?

However was the tale I told fact or fiction?

Very well put... I am just glad that you didn't ask if it was fiction or non-fiction.

Originally Posted by philistine

Perhaps Occam's Razor can provide an answer for us:

Maybe fiction was termed first, then naturally, it's antithesis, non-fiction came afterwards.

This is a very distinct possibility. You might have something here. I am going to think about this tomorrow when I am eating my non-chickens and bacon for breakfast.

I know; I am a real smart-aleck. Just tell me to stop it.

Somehow this discussion reminds me of the difference between a fairy tale and a sea story. A fairy tale starts out, 'Once upon a time...' while a sea story starts out 'This is no lie...'.

But now, Divus lad, when in your local and about to launch into some marvelous tale of your derring-do, what is critical is to judge the level of your mates' intemperance, and how well able they are to recall the details of your adventure if, perchance, they've heard it before. The worst mistake is to repeat a story before an audience of stone cold sober listeners.

Originally Posted by garza

Somehow this discussion reminds me of the difference between a fairy tale and a sea story. A fairy tale starts out, 'Once upon a time...' while a sea story starts out 'This is no lie...'.

But now, Divus lad, when in your local and about to launch into some marvelous tale of your derring-do, what is critical is to judge the level of your mates' intemperance, and how well able they are to recall the details of your adventure if, perchance, they've heard it before. The worst mistake is to repeat a story before an audience of stone cold sober listeners.

Sounds like great advice Garza... I knew that there had to be a good reason to drink.

The mind boggles, 'stone' + 'cold' + 'sober' = listeners. Ugh. Ugh. Ugh.

Nowadays I live in a small village where teetotalism was invented about 400 years ago - but those sober folks are now safely tucked away in a box in the graveyard. The only way I could bump into one of them these days is after imbibing of a couple of glasses too many and then having to walk home a mile away up the lane in the pitch dark. I suppose I could always sing 'Nellie Dean' to keep them at bay, after all I'd have the booze inside me to keep me warm -(until I stopped for quick one, that is)

Dv