In my previous post, I asked the question whether you should write fiction or non fiction. In this post, I am going to go a little deeper into that question and show how the answer is a little more complicated because understanding the differences between fiction and non fiction is a little more complicated.
A dichotomy, according to an online dictionary, is "a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different." I wanted to start with a commonly understood definition before picking it apart. We use dichotomies to organize and simplify our knowledge about the world. Common ones include: day vs. night, good vs. evil, black vs. white, hot vs. cold and so on. Dichotomies are handy and, at the extremes, very clear. For example, if the sky is black with twinkling stars, we are pretty sure it is night. If, on the other hand, the sun is overhead radiating warmth, we are pretty sure it is day. But, when did night turn into day and vice versa? The fact is that many, if not most, dichotomies are actually continua with exemplars at the extremes. We often make up names for points along the continua. For example, sunset, twilight and dusk are used to identify transition points between day and night. On the continuum from black to white we have dark grey and light grey along with any number of boutique colors such as off white, ivory, platinum, ash grey, battleship grey, and charcoal.
It is also worth pointing out that the definition says, "two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different". It does not say that they necessarily are entirely different. It only says that they are represented as being entirely different. That is to say that when we organize our knowledge, we choose organizational schemes to represent thing that have some utility.
Fiction and non fiction is a similar dichotomy. One would think that if something is fiction, it should be pretty clear and anything that is not fiction must be non fiction. But, things are never that clear. For example, we have historical fiction which is based on fact but enhanced with narrative interpretation and some literary license. And we have creative non fiction which is facts which have been enhanced to make them more interesting and/or more understandable.
Wikipedia defines creative non fiction as follows, "Creative nonfiction contrasts with other nonfiction, such as academic or technical writing or journalism, which is also rooted in accurate fact but is not written to entertain based on prose style. Many writers view creative nonfiction as overlapping with the essay." This is certainly a workable definition. But, if a scholarly scientific article uses a story or a narrative argument to explain something, does that move it from non fiction to creative non fiction? And if the move to creative non fiction is acceptable, just how creative are authors of scientific journals allowed to be before the article moves from being creative non fiction to just plain fiction. One of the problems we faced during the heat of the COVID pandemic was that scientific articles, news reports, blogs, and podcasts were appearing everywhere on the spectrum from non fiction to fiction. Some glaring examples occur when the virus is anthropomorphized. For example, if someone says that the virus prefers to infect the lungs, this humanizes it by suggesting that it has preferences. It doesn't. Talking about it as though it has preferences just makes it easier to understand.
The new journalism, defined in the 1970's by Tom Wolfe, employs creative non fiction techniques in journalism. If you wanted to understand New York in the 1980's you could read The New York Times (clearly non fiction) or Tom Wolfe's Bonfire of the Vanities (clearly fiction). Which would give you a better understanding of the city? My opinion is that Bonfire of the Vanities gives the reader a much better understanding. So, which is more true, which more effectively conveys the reality of the situation, the newspaper accounts or the fictional book?
Another great example of this can be found in Upton Sinclair's The Jungle which was a fictional book that revealed the horrible conditions found in meat packing plants. It had such an impact that food safety laws were changed. Were these laws changed based upon information that was fictional? Similarly, Abraham Lincoln said that Harriette Beecher Stowe's novel Uncle Tom's Cabin had caused the Civil War. Was the Civil war fought over a fictional account of a fictional character?
In fact, we can take a step back and ask - why do we have categories like fiction and non fiction at all? The answer is that it simplifies things for both readers and writers; and for everyone in publishing such as agents, publishers and booksellers. When a reader goes to the fiction area in a book store, they expect a story that has been made up. When they go to the non fiction area in a book store, they expect something that is largely based on fact. Is the fiction story based on reality at all? Almost certainly. A writer who spent his or her entire life locked up in a closet would not be able to write a fictional story that anyone would want to read. And a non fiction story without any literary or narrative embellishments would be dry as dust.
We refine these categories further in genres such as romance, mystery, horror and so on. This is also done to simplify things for readers and writers. Is it possible to write a book that is romance, mystery and horror? Absolutely? But, you risk confusing the reader, the writer and everybody in between. To be fair I should mention that there are some confusing genres such as historical fiction. Is it pure fiction or is it based on things that really happened? Well, it depends on the book, but few if any are pure fiction as few if any are completely based on things that really happened.
So, why shouldn't a writer stick strictly to the accepted categories and not confuse anyone? There are two reasons: 1) sometimes you can't say what you want to say without bleeding from one category to another; and 2) while popular fiction is highly respectful of categories, quality fiction is driven more by theme and message than category.
Before I wrap this piece up, I should get off my high horse for a moment. Categories are not altogether a bad thing. When I buy a Big Mac, or some Dunkin Donuts I do so because I know what to expect and the producers of these products deliver that reliably. There are several authors whose books I enjoy for the same reason. They may not be the haute cuisine of the literary world. But, they are enjoyable and entertaining. They keep people reading. And there is a lot to be said for that as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment