Melding of Fact and Fiction
In "False Documents," E.L. doctorow states that there is no common distinction between nonfiction and fiction and that instead, "there is only narrative." History is generally based around what we might consider a fact. A general view of the world from a point of objectivity. We don't really know if this point is objective or not, but we believe it to be so. In this way, do we really know what's fact and what's not? Can this point of objectivity even exist? Many facts that human civilization have believed to be true have in fact been disproved and refuted time and time again. We all know times where history doesn't exist. Our view of the universe, our understanding of the human body, and our interpretation of recent history are all facts that have been changed time and time again. We may have false facts surrounding us at all times. As argued in "False Documents," fact is often communicated through language or film. It only exists in the mind of the viewer of history and combined with other facts, an observer can create a judgement/interpretation of history. Our factual world is constantly changing and in that way, our basis of fiction and history is also fluctuating.
Some might not even consider the idea of history and fiction being melded together. This idea goes against the core beliefs and singular truths we were raised on and going against these beliefs seems outlandish. What do we really have that proves or disproves this idea of history and fiction being one and the same? History's proof of existence is the ramifications it has on the present moment and the evidence it leaves behind. If everyone has the same interpretation of history in judging this evidence (however wrong it may be), does that fictional idea become fact? Could a fictional interpretation become our past reality? Knowing these false facts, we would make judgements on what validates a fiction or nonfiction work. Fiction would be overlapped with history, and so we may never really know what determines history or fiction.
Fiction can also fill the gaps of what may be history. In Doctorow's Ragtime, he fills these pockets of history with his own events that he may or may not have made up. These pockets of history have no written record or images to corroborate the story but only the beginning and the end. For example, we know from historical evidence that Evelyn Nesbit escaped the media for some reason but Doctorow inserts his own reality into this history by stating that she visited Tateh and the little girl. He doesn't directly contradict history but rather works around it, utilizing these little pockets of empty time. In this way, a semblance of what we think of as historical fiction is created.
He also combines history and fiction in a way that we cannot make an appropriate judgement on if an event is really fact or fiction. An example of Doctorow creating these unlikely events is his simulated interaction between two historical characters in Ragtime: Harry Houdini and Harry K. Thaw. He connects these two characters in the jail through a very strange interaction that ultimately results in the fictionality of this event being in a state of limbo. The event contains what we think of as historical characters, but the event may not really be our history.
The Thaw/Houdini example is an especially interesting case, as Doctorow has to break a basic factual "rule" in order to bring them together in this fictional "pocket"--the inconvenient fact that Houdini DID perform an escape from a famous jail, and it was known as the "Tombs," but it was in BOSTON instead of New York. Same difference? Not if you're a baseball fan! So in terms of making his fiction compatible with the historical record, Doctorow has to do a bit of fudging here--this encounter pretty much could not have taken place in real life. So within this clearly fictional context, he narrates a scene that no one (except Thaw and Houdini) witnesses, and we are told that "Houdini would tell no one"--reminding us that even first-hand journals are not 100% reliable sources of fact, as journal writers self-edit in countless ways (often simply by omission--lots of stuff doesn't get recorded).
ReplyDeleteIt's fun to try to figure out the "rules" for a novel like this, and the points where the author is willing to bend them. As we'll see, a LOT more bending is going on in _Mumbo Jumbo_, and it will be interesting to see what the class makes of the apparent lack of any rules at all.
I believe that objectivity exists, and specifically objective truth. However, the question we should be asking is whether or not we are able to observe it. For instance, the objective truth of history exists; events did occur and they have real ramifications on the present. Whether or not we can access it through the fog of subjective interpretation and recordings is another matter entirely. In a way, objectivity is surrounded by the cloud of subjective interpretation, blocking our view of it. In a similar vein, history is a subset of fiction. It is the cold hard facts of what really happened in our world, while fiction encapsulates that and other imaginary events that occurred. Now, it can be debated that recordings of history and history books exist somewhere in between history and fiction, but that is a topic grand enough for an entire blog post.
ReplyDeleteWe've been talking about these postmodernism ideas for a while now, and I like how you've synthesized a lot of that. I remember someone (Ryland?) mentioning that history differs from fiction in that it has a tangible, direct impact on the world, which we might be able to measure today. This may take the form of a record or a physical object, but even that is unreliable and changes over time. Also, as something communicated through language (written or spoken), history depends on personal understandings of language and culture, which are both influenced by one's identity and background. My opinion is that striving towards objectivity is great in a lot of situations but tends to suck when you have many equally useful perspectives, which is key to a lot of history.
ReplyDeleteI think points of objectivity do exists, but we often won't ever know if they're right or wrong unless there's video/scientific evidence, media coverage, and/or lots of witnesses that all agree. I feel like the facts that have been refuted were thanks to scientific evidence. Otherwise, we don't really have anyone to tell us what is and isn't fact. But anyways, Doctorow uses the lack of media coverage/witnesses to use fiction to mold pieces of history together, which is super fascinating.
ReplyDelete