Something that I believed at the outset of this course that I have now called into question regarding the differences between history and fiction is that history is more capable of constructing reliable and useful metanarratives than fiction. I based this on the inherent limitless nature of fiction; history must always depict and interpret events that the author asserts truly happened, whereas fiction can make the choice to include some or no factual events in its text at all. However after reading Hayden White's essay on this topic, I realized that he and others had largely removed fantasy and fantasy/sci-fi from consideration, and I think this addresses the issue that I had presented earlier. By cutting out the useless (at least to a historian) aspects of fiction, we are left only with the historical/realistic stories that provide some commentary or insight on reality, whether that be through untold stories or from untold perspectives.
Another problem that I had with equating of history and fiction as equally relevant narrative-constructing tools is that a work of fiction will ultimately come from a single author's perspective; no matter how learned and open-minded they are, it is up to them to present information in a certain way. Yet history is no different. It too begins as a retelling by a single person, and is only useful when considered from a variety of other perspectives. Even history books themselves usually have many authors. To examine a fictional story such as Ragtime with no context, and simply judge it based on its presentation of factual information is therefore useless and unfair. If one believe the mission of narratives is to explain the events that led to where we are today, then history may indeed be more relevant. But if one believes that we consume narratives to dictate proper actions and improvements from the past, then fiction may be a better solution, where we often see a greater and more honest emphasis on the human experience.
My understanding of history vs. fiction as clouded up as class discussions have taken place. It seems, as you say, that history is affected by the person telling the narrative just as a piece of fiction is. I agree that both are possible ways to tell how an event unfolded a much of the appropriateness lies in how we approach the text.
ReplyDeleteI think that fiction has just as much place in "explaining the events that led to where we are today" as history does. Doctorow wrote Ragtime very much with the present day in mind, and, in class, we would regularly analyze the book within the context of when it was written. In order to explain how all of time has led up to the present day, I think we must first achieve a good understanding of what exactly the present day is, which Doctorow partially seeks to explain. Ragtime does not simply seek to convey factual historical information, it is written to go against traditional narratives and offer possible alternative perspectives to the history of this time. In this way it's functioning identically to a researched historical narrative conveying one point of view of this period.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of your argument but I differ on the point that history is created as a retelling by a single person. In fact, to me, that is the crucial difference between history and fiction. A fictional world is only seen from one perspective, that of the author, while history can have many varying references, which can be combined to create an accurate view of what happened.
ReplyDeleteI would disagree that fantasy and sci-fi are "useless" forms of fiction from a historical perspective. They do concern completely made-up events, but they often include or are inspired by discussions about real-world problems, either past or present. I think that, when looked at in context, these can be just as historically valuable as a piece of fiction that happens to include an actual historical event.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, a lot of fantasy and sci-fi stories deal with themes and ideas from the real world. In a lot of cases, they provide a way for authors to write about hypothetical implications of or solutions to real-world problems, without seeming jarring to the readers.
DeleteYou make a good point that by "fiction," White primarily seems to have in mind realist, historical fiction--narratives that aspire to offer a recognizable picture of the world. This makes sense, in so far as he identifies the conventions of realist fiction as basically the conventions of historical narrative since the 19th century.
ReplyDeleteBut it is interesting to consider where (if anywhere) SF and fantasy and other obviously "fictional" kinds of literature would fit into this picture. Is time travel a science-fiction element? Because an imagined journey into the past, via a time-travel narrative, mimics closely the experience of reading history or traditional historical fiction, where the reader is imaginatively transported to an earlier time.
We'll see how these ideas shake out once we start talking about Vonnegut and Butler, both of whom deploy time travel as a way of exploring historical reality.