Interpretive Freedom
In Relation To Fiction & Non-Fiction, Also Science & Art
(more on this topic can be found here: http://proto.conskeptical.net/post/155133440279/regarding-the-interpretation-of-text)
Some people seem to read almost exclusively fiction, some people almost exclusively non-fiction. (Biography appears to sometimes combine the best or worst elements of each into something that can be simultaneously both, or neither.)
As a child, I used to read a lot of fiction, while non-fiction was something for referring to, but not for devouring. After I left home and started to discover the big wide world for myself, I drifted away from fiction, reading perhaps a handful of novels a year, sometimes none. I developed a taste for non-fiction, mostly as inspiration and instructional material for what to try next in my explorations of life. For the last decade or so, probably 95% of my reading material has been non-fiction. Occasional biographies reminded me of the joy of fiction, but still I could very rarely prioritise straight-up ‘stories’. There were at least a couple of, rather half-baked, reasons that I articulated for myself:
- Film feels better suited to emotional portrayal, while the written word felt more suited to high-density, time-efficient intellectual content. The emotional aspects of storytelling were what interested me, so I went to film for that.
- I was getting plenty of ‘story’ from ‘real’ life (fact is stranger than fiction after all), so why bother reading somebody else’s made up stories?
This all changed a few weeks ago, correlated with my seeing Arrival at the cinema. It was so surprisingly intriguing (a film about linguistics? OK…) that I got a copy of Stories of Your Life And Others (Ted Chiang) containing the short story that inspired the film. I devoured the whole thing fairly rapidly, and in so doing realised a hidden assumption that had undermined my ability to prioritise fiction:
The desire to consume fiction implies a dissatisfaction with ‘real life’, and is a distraction from ‘real life’. Fiction is escapism.
Reading Stories of Your Life And Others changed all that for me. It is undeniably fiction. Classified as science fiction, but unlike any other sci-fi I had ever read. Very entertaining. Wonderful emotional themes, despite it’s written format (aside: Nonviolent Communication boggled my mind in the way that it opens up the emotional dimension of verbal language). And crucially, it didn’t feel in any way like escapism. Having read Stories of Your Life And Others informs my experience of everyday life in ways that I value a lot, in ways that non-fiction has not.
Noting the value of escapism as a valuable tool for rest, and also its danger as an addiction, Stories of Your Life And Others freed fiction from escapism’s grasp:
Fiction doesn’t have to be escapism.
The Forces of Fiction and Non-Fiction
So, if fiction isn’t necessarily escapism, what is it? Considering the meaning-making aspect of life experience, maybe fiction and non-fiction allow us to develop the meanings in our lives in different ways, because they have implicitly different modes of interpretation. Tentatively:
- Non-fiction: there is an implicit/assumed correct, single interpretation which the author attempts to communicate. The reader’s task is to understand the author’s intended message in the same way the author understands it. The purpose of non-fiction is to disseminate a standard interpretation of the subject at hand, and in so doing creating a community of uniform understanding.
- Fiction: relaxes any or all of the above constraints. There may be multiple interpretations, notions of correct interpretation might not apply, and the author’s intent may be irrelevant or of optional interest. The reader’s task (if there is one implied or explicit) can be varied and tends to be optional; the fictional material is there for the reader to engage with on the reader’s own terms for the reader’s own reasons, if any. Insofar as fiction might have purposes, they are probably to do with stimulating creativity in the reader, and in so doing creating communities of diverse understanding.
So, my hunch is that, as they exist as cultural tendencies today, non-fiction represents the impulse to share understanding unmodified, a standardising, cohesive force, while fiction represents the impulse to provoke new understandings, a diversifying, creative, expansive force.
These two forces can enter into antagonism when excessive diversity of meaning hampers shared understanding, or excessive uniformity of meaning hampers the (collective) ability to create new meaning for/from new situations. These two forces can also be complementary, when the fictional force is able to generate desired meaning and the non-fictional force is able to preserve/transmit new meanings for as long as desired.
Without fiction, new meaning cannot be created, and old meanings age, decay and become irrelevant. Without non-fiction, new meanings cannot survive long enough to find their way to times and places where they are valued.
Crudely, f0r authors, non-fiction is for helping others think something particular, fiction is for helping others think about (something). For readers, non-fiction is for learning thoughts that others have already had, fiction is for stimulating/allowing one’s own thoughts to arise.
Interpretive Freedom
Now that we have identified the forces of fiction (creativity) and non-fiction (standardisation), we can employ them independently of their traditional vehicles (fictional and non-fictional materials).
What would it be like to approach a text-book with a creative mind, not to be tram-lined into standard modes of understanding, while still appreciating them, in juxtaposition with your own understandings?
What would it be like to notice that science is associated with standardisation, but that the creative force is vital for the ongoing development, relevance, morality and democracy of science?
What would it be like to notice that art is associated with creativity, but that standardising forces are also prevalent? Artistic communities are dependent on standardisation for their cohesion, but often fall foul of needless and suffocating standardisation. What would it be like to appreciate art in multiple ways, with and without reference to the intentions of the artist, or the opinions of various schools of aesthetic art/fashion?
What would it be like to have the process of reading associated not with just one or other of the creative and standardising forces, but to have reading associated with them both, so that they can both be in play regardless of what is being read?
What would it be like to speak with others with attention to the relevant balance of sharing intended meaning and also generating/sharing fresh/unintended meaning? (That is truly alive conversation.)
This is where the deep, underlying need for art and science to be unified comes from. And why story books are far more than simply escapes.
Healthy meaning making requires the forces of creativity and standardisation to be constantly and fluidly in motion and exchange, within every individual, relationship, community, society and civilisation.
(more on this topic can be found here: http://proto.conskeptical.net/post/155133440279/regarding-the-interpretation-of-text)
