I really must finish some thoughts....

Ok. So as many of you know, our discussion in class today became a bit excited over history and fiction and how they relate. Though I communicated most of what I had to say today in class, I would like to revisit some of the ideas that have been floating around our room during class. I anticipate a varied, scattered post. You should too.

Let's start with some conclusions. First off, history is very like fiction and vice versa --they have plot, characters, setting, and (maybe most importantly) narrative. Before opening our first reading I could have written that down though. When stated, initially the comparison seems easy, but being the smart kids that we are at Uni, we have to make the simple complicated. We read Doctorow and now we have an issue: namely, that in his novel, the historical and the fictitious meet, mingle, and are practically indistinguishable. This deepens the initial comparison to the question: what delineates history from fiction?

Again, the question seems simple enough and the answer plain as day: one is true and factual, the other is false and contrived. But how is one to define fact or fiction? From whose perspective is it judged? and the question deepens. The clear line that separates historical truth from imaginative stories is now blurring in your own mind as you try desperately to define what is true and false for yourself. The threat of human bias causes this a paranoia that subsequently forces you to ask if there is any truth. The stories told in textbooks are severed from the real world as they morph into mere representations of truth. This sequence causes a sense of panic. History and truth are being turned into stories and fiction. It's disorienting. But why? Why do we care so much about events that we had no part in?

We care because it gives us context. It gives us a reason to act the way we do, to like certain people and fight others, to care about this and not that etc. We are built upon it and thinking that our foundation may crumble because it lacks truth is a scary thought. We want to be an extension of something substantial and undeniable, not something created and influence-able. At the same time, we are thinking about the future, when we are the history (if that makes sense...). How does it feel to think that we merely exist and then are replaced by mutable shells of our once factual being? It's creepy. So if fiction and history are so inseparable,  is this concluding that truth is nonexistent or at least, extremely difficult to identify?

If this is what you deduce (as this is what I originally got from all of this foolishness), this debate seems thoroughly depressing and annoying. Those who are backing this belief that there is no truth are SO ANNOYING. Much like Doctorow's political stance, these people are able to deconstruct and tear down the long established monoliths of truth, fact, and history, but unable to reconstruct anything to fill their spot, leaving an unsightly void in the world. When I realized that they would have to leave some such void in order to champion the there-is-no-truth-in-the-world and, in a discussion with such educated and intelligent individuals, this hole produces a problem. YOU JUST CAN'T DO THAT. It's like you don't like the design on a shirt, so you just cut it off the front of the shirt but you don't resew in anything to fill the whole so you are left with a obvious problem. Thus, I determined that my conclusion from their observations was incorrect so I began to explore other avenues that the evidence could open. I came up with a much more suitable solution.

These writers aren't saying that there is no truth but rather that there is SO much truth. Using fiction, they show that distinct perspectives are true; rather that there being one real truth there are practically infinitely many and they are constantly changing. Or, in other words, the fiction deepens and expands the truth rather that discrediting it. (Man this is really falling into place.) Doctorow tries to show that history is dynamic and changing. Using the truth of perspective, it is! All the time. The analogy to witnesses to a car crash was brought up in class today, if you ask witness A what happened the day of the crime, then wait a week after he/she has seen all the media about the accident and tell me that the story won't have changed.

So, I know this is long and winded but let me make like a few more significant points as to WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? Well, this means that though historical writers use these perspectives, they can't quite use them the way fiction writers can. A historian can't just make up a character to reinforce a argument or a point of view while a novelist can. This gives a novelist a whole extra bag of tricks to enhance their writing. It's hard to convey meaning through facts and dates but emotion can be communicated easily. If writing history is like playing soccer, then writing historical fiction is like playing soccer... and being able to use your hands --it is often discredited as cheating but is way more effective than kicking the darn thing. Historians and novelists have similar jobs for similar purposes but everyone must recognize that there is a difference. It exists; there is no way around it. Still, even though I have come to some conclusions, the question is still out there and I definitely plan to revisit it later in the semester.