Today's discussion on history and its association (at least in theory) with truth was very thought provoking for me. [I apologize in advance, I have a new (psycho) kitten and she keeps attacking me and running over the keyboard as I attempt to write, so please forgive any odd typos if I miss them.] I made a statement that it did not matter if a story or a history were fact or fiction, as just its presence made an historical impact. This argument is the basis of my discipline, literature, and as such is very important to me. In seeming opposition to this, I also have certain religious beliefs that I must believe are in fact "true." I was taught in (private) school that all parts of the Bible were absolutely true and that to question this is borderline heretical. This is where my earlier comments on the use of parables in the Bible helps me to rationalize the use of fiction to demonstrate truth, and feel like less of a heretic.
In an English class here at Davis, I was instructed to write a "true story" about myself. When I wrote it, I decided to tweak certain minor details to make the story flow better and to make it more interesting. I told myself that it really did not matter as long as I kept the overall structure the same. My teacher loved that story and gave me an "A." Looking back, even if I had completely made the story up from scratch, it would have been truly my story, so it could have been just as useful and just as "true," but perhaps considered less historical. For me, this is where the idea of history falls apart. How can a line be drawn between reality and fiction, and do we really want that line to be drawn? The most exciting and emotionally stirring "histories" are partially (if not wholly) fiction. For me, Aeneas is just as real as Napoleon, and Meredith Grey is more important than Martha Washington.
3 comments:
Your post flowed quite well and was interesting to read. I felt as though your tone was quite honest and reflective, and the narrative/argumentative style seemed to work well for the topic of history. I think that if you had eliminated the narrative aspect it might have been useful to utilize more concrete evidence, but I also felt that tying history into your personal feelings about "what is true" made a case on its own.
"Looking back, even if I had completely made the story up from scratch, it would have been truly my story, so it could have been just as useful and just as "true," but perhaps considered less historical. For me, this is where the idea of history falls apart. How can a line be drawn between reality and fiction, and do we really want that line to be drawn?"
This was a really interesting section to me, and it made me again reflect on how something can be "historical" and what the term "historical" implies. I wanted to learn more about why you felt your paper might not be "historical;" I think I understand what you meant as far as historical accuracy goes, but I would guess that many historical accounts have been embellished for similar reasons of style, flow, or interest. Again, I really enjoyed reading this post, and I hope my posts provoke thoughts as well as yours did for me.
I agree with your conclusion about how history meshes the line between reality and fiction. There are a number of stories that are considered to be history that are fiction. I especially enjoyed your connection with religion and why it is important to you to justify and rationalize how the stories in the Bible are true. I personal am agnostic but I feel that for every person regardless of their religious denomination needs truth in their scripture.
It is interesting to me that you explain your position as such: "I also have certain religious beliefs that I must believe are in fact 'true.'" Do you really feel your belief in 'truth' as a sort of compulsion? I also am very curious about the idea of "borderline heretical"—it seems to me that this would be a fascinating position to try actively to occupy! (Or rather, isn't this the position that humans—as thinking, questioning animals—are *always* in?) Finally, your question about history is very compelling: "How can a line be drawn between reality and fiction, and do we really want that line to be drawn?" I would speculate that no, we don't ever want this line to be drawn—in fact, we *are* that line, as a species that specializes in turning fictions into 'truths'. I wonder how humans would act (and interact) if we dispensed with the notion of 'truth' altogether; perhaps we would be, paradoxically, more honest with one another—not to mention ourselves.
Post a Comment