Our
Grip topic for March is “Fact versus Fiction”. You might think we
authors would be experts on this dichotomy. After all, each of our
books leads off with the requisite boilerplate:
“This
is a work of fiction. Names, places, characters
and incidents are either the product of the author’s imagination or
are used fictitiously, and any resemblance to any actual persons,
living or dead, organizations, events or locales is entirely
coincidental.”
Of
course, this is utter nonsense. Every one of us draws on personal
experience in penning our stories: places we’ve lived or traveled,
people we’ve known, events in which we’ve been involved. Even
when we write scifi, historical or paranormal tales, we can’t help
weaving in threads from our own lives.
Try
untangling the fact from the fiction, though, and you’ll quickly
find yourself enmeshed
in a web of uncertainty and contradiction. How much do you have to
distort a happening from your past before you can label it fictional?
If I use a former lover as the inspiration for my hero, can I
honestly claim the
character is a figment
of my imagination? And places! Anyone who’s read
my work knows that setting plays a major role in almost every one
of my stories.
In my books, I return again and again to locations that have personal
significance. But like the recurring places in my dreams, these
locations shift and mutate as I explore them. Against the familiar
background of Boston or New York, Bangkok or San Francisco, I paint
streets that don’t exist, establishments borrowed from other
locales, venues constructed entirely out of thought that nevertheless
fit neatly into the so-called
real environment. Like
Pokemon characters, the alterations I superimpose on my settings
become part of the landscape.
I
can’t tell you exactly what’s fiction. I can’t tease out the
so-called facts, either. My life memories are hopelessly muddled
together with my stories. Indeed, in some cases I “remember”
scenes I’ve written more vividly than circumstances that really
occurred. For instance, my erotic thriller Exposure
includes a dramatic sequence in which the heroine Stella is trapped
in the basement of her old Pittsburgh row house. The villain sets the
paint-soaked rags and scrap wood ablaze, hoping she’ll be
incinerated and his guilt won’t be exposed.
I’ve
never been in a fire, or been subjected to anything remotely like
this. Still, I seem to
remember that horrific
experience
—
the ferocious heat, the choking smoke, the smell of chemicals and
charred wood, the way I gasped as the fire sucked the oxygen from the
air, the stinging pain when the flames singed my flesh, the desperate
push to climb to the tiny window and squeeze through, the
utter exhaustion and despair after, as my home crumbled to ash...
I
recently received a vivid reminder of how fact and fiction
interpenetrate, how one morphs into the other until they’re
indistinguishable. My story Reunion
is possibly my most autobiographical work. It’s based on an actual
rendezvous with my long-time master G, many years ago in a Boston
hotel. In preparation for that encounter, I ordered a lovely black
satin corset from Frederick’s of Hollywood. I intended to model it
for G, as he’d often suggested he would enjoy seeing me so attired.
I
still have that corset. I remember donning it in that hotel room,
strutting around wearing nothing else, basking in G’s admiration
and lust. That’s all chronicled in my story.
However,
in an email conversation last month, G told me he’d never seen me
wear the corset. I protested that he had to be wrong. I recalled the
experience in luscious, arousing detail. In
his typical know-it-all Dom fashion,
he unearthed an old email from me, sent a day or two before our
meeting, in which I told him with
regret that the
garment was not likely
to arrive in time.
What
are the facts? Is he right? Am
I? Could there be two alternate realities, one in which we fulfilled
that mutual fantasy, one in which we
did not? Where is the line between what really occurred and what I
imagined?
The
more I think about the question, the more convinced I am that fact
and fiction truly cannot be separated. After all, everything we think
we know is mediated by perception and interpretation. As we move
through our daily lives, we’re constantly making up stories to
explain the world around us. The radically different world views
espoused by people of different religions, races, and political
persuasions make it clear that “facts” are an illusion.
Okay,
so maybe culture and society are based on imagination, on trying to
make sense of things and fitting them into our belief systems. But
what about science? Surely the evidence from scientific research has
a more solid claim to being factual and “real”.
Do
I need to remind you about the climate change controversy? Or to look
at a less divisive issue, consider the solar system. When I was in
school, there were nine planets. That was a well-known fact. Now
astronomers have discovered a whole range of additional objects
orbiting around the sun, beyond Pluto. Scientific knowledge depends
on what can be measured. As new instrumentation and new monitoring
techniques are developed, scientific “facts” change. In
addition, social and cultural forces strongly influence the very
questions science thinks it’s worthwhile to ask.
What
about documentary evidence? Easy to forge, and getting easier all the
time. Are you aware of DeepFake
videos? Before long, anyone will be able to claim you said or did
something you’d never actually
consider,
and to back that up with filmed proof. Historical so-called
facts
can be manipulated with equal if not greater ease.
You
might find this train of argument alarming. It’s comforting to
believe in the existence of some sort of external reality. When I
start deconstructing experience, though, I conclude that, at best,
fact and fiction are regions on a continuum of certainty. Perhaps it
is a waste of time and energy to try drawing a clear line between
them.
As
for me, I’d rather devote that energy to creating new stories.
Great post, Lisabet, and very accurate. Our minds do tend to play hide-and-seek with the facts at times, especially regarding unpleasant experiences. A psychologist friend told me that quite often, we'll re-arrange the outcome of something uncomfortable or embarrassing so we can feel better about it.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Tim!
DeletePeople might be a lot more tolerant of one another if we could admit that "facts" are actually interpretations.
This sounds absolutely terrifying as it applies to the current state of our government, where statements heard and viewed by thousands can be later denied with impunity, and trollbots on social media crank out deliberate lies. I don't think I can give up on the notion that some facts exist, or at least come as close as current means can determine. It's kind of like the theory that our entire reality is actually a type of massive video game; we still have to live as though it were real, because our actions have predictable consequences. We feel pain, or joy, or hunger, or love, or sympathy, according to the terms of our world, whether that world is "real" in the sense we think it is or not.
ReplyDeleteAt some level I agree. When I started writing this post, I wondered, "how far am I willing to go in smudging the line?"
DeleteIt's pretty scary, but it's very likely we can be *made* to feel hunger or pain or arousal purely through brain stimulation, without any "real" stimulus present.
But I guess even if there are no facts, we have to live as if there are.