By writing a novel, there's no way to determine what the truth was, and no way to challenge it. This is why historians do not write novels.
Surely you're able to entertain that notion, without the expectation of adopting it in your own life, and let other people pursue their epistemologies without devaluing them?
> By writing a novel, there's no way to determine what the truth was, and no way to challenge it.
What I think the truth of the matter is here, is that you do not personally know how to challenge it and how to divine truth from it (or that these aren't skills as well developed as other kinds of analysis you prefer to engage in - your preferences being entirely legitimate, and meaning no slight against the skillset you've chosen to cultivate). You can interpret and analyze fiction and compare it to your experience. There's a whole field of literary analysis. You can challenge historical fiction through historical scholarship. There are actually innumerable approaches here.
I think part of what you mean is there's no objective way, and that reasonable people will come to different conclusions about what a novel means. I can see how you might interpret that as a problem; but other people see that as a strength, that by providing different value to different people, it's providing more value overall.
I object to people citing fictions as fact. I've enjoyed reading historical novels, and enjoy watching historical movies. But when I know something about the history behind them, it's often clear that the facts are distorted, sometimes egregiously, to suit the creator's agenda or to make it more entertaining.
> you do not personally know how to challenge it and how to divine truth from it
That's rather presumptious, don't you think?
I would too, I don't see anyone defending the quote you highlighted though. (Though perhaps they'll show up in time, hadn't been very long).
It's no more presumptuous than saying novels can't be learned from. It was meant in good faith; take as much or as little from it as you care to, and if it bothered you, I apologize.
It does? There seems to be only one, which I've posted twice now, and is an easy read. Cite that one.
> "some books bad => all books bad"
My actual words were fictions are not citeable as historical fact.
Watch the hollywood version of "Memphis Belle". Then watch the documentary "Memphis Belle" which was filmed by cameramen going on actual B-17 missions and getting shot at. All the footage is real, there are no actors. You can see the fear in their faces, the bravery, the hurt, the relief when they return. It's all terribly real.
My dad few 32 missions in B-17. He said the documentary nailed what it was actually like. The hollywood version, nope.
I don't know why you keep repeating this incorrect notion that fiction cannot depict things in a historically accurate manner.
Some fiction is trash. Some documentaries are also very misleading and have their own narrative. One should reference multiple sources when possible.
This is a misunderstanding of what I wrote. I didn't say that fiction cannot do this. I said it is wrong to cite it as the truth. If you've got evidence of the truth, cite the evidence.
> He said the documentary nailed what it was actually like. The hollywood version, nope.
Here you are comparing a fictional film with a documentary and dismissing the ability for fictional film to accurately portray the experience. This is not the case with all fictional films, and not all documentaries are actually superior or free from fiction/embellishment themselves.
I never said "cannot contain facts". You're arguing with your strawman.
> I don't think anyone is saying you should cite fiction alone
Just about everyone arguing with me is trying to justify citing "The Jungle" as valid source all by itself. It's a work of fiction.
Then I don't get the point of your exercise which seemed focused on dismissing the power of film to portray historically accurate situations.
>Just about everyone arguing with me is trying to justify citing "The Jungle" as valid source all by itself. It's a work of fiction.
Speaking of strawmen...
I don't know that I'll find time to do that (I'm not sure if that's on my streaming services, and I don't like war dramas but the documentary does sound interesting) but I appreciate the creative suggestion. I do think you may be missing the point; it's not that fiction is necessarily (or even ever) a better way to learn history or to understand the subjective experience of people in a historical moment, but that there are kinds of truth you can address with a novel that are difficult to address in any other way. Was the primary goal of the fictional film to "put you in the boots" of a solider - or was it to be a thrilling action movie? (Of course I haven't seen it, so I just don't know.)
Documentary is also a weird genre because it's a blend between fiction and nonfiction, and the seams can be difficult to detect. My understanding is that the sound design in nature documentaries is often artificial for example, to deliver the experience of hearing something - not to convey the literal sound that was picked up by a mic in situ.
I'll share with you that my favorite novel currently is Parable of the Sower by Octavia Butler. I think about it often; I think there is immense wisdom about adapting to a changing world, bearing hardship, and maintaining a certain kind of hope (not per say that things will get better, but that you will get better at responding to them regardless) in that book. Understanding that that particular kind of hope was possible, that hope could be something other than a naive optimism, reconfigured my conception of hope from something I had long ago discarded as useless into a tool of thought I use every day; that alone has had a profound effect on my life and outlook. (Here's a 12m summary if you care to see it https://youtu.be/6iVGuMyKFgA)
I imagine it would have been possible, in the abstract, for someone to write a book with that same wisdom as a how-to guide or self help book. But it wouldn't have been Butler who wrote it, because Butler was a science fiction author and Sower was a science fiction project. It's a kernel of her unique perspective, from a life different from my own in virtually every way, and for that reason it teaches me things that nothing else can teach me. And being a portion of her genius rendered in print, no one else could have produced it, so in practical terms this self help book is impossible (except, I suppose, as a derivative work).
Other times I understand things that have happened to me because they've happened to characters in novels I've read. In high school we read Catcher in the Rye, and I despised it because it seemed to be a book about absolutely nothing. I couldn't fathom the decisions the character made or his general misanthropy. As I got older and became familiar with depression in myself and others, the book clicked, and I find myself compelled to reread it. It helped me contextualize what I was experiencing and observing.