is literature supposed to correspond to reality?
This is a post I have been eager to write since the moment I created a blog about literature
A lot of people tend to think that the more truthful and close to reality a text is, the better it is. They find it important to compare fiction texts with real life and when there is a misalignment of text and what we know of ‘reality’, readers can become disenchanted. So, what is at the crux of these ideas, and why they are inherently flawed?
Specifics of the fiction world
First, it is crucial to understand that the key feature of the fiction text is that it does not have a function of disseminating information, a function of imparting new knowledge to other people, laconically speaking. It has a different function — a function which aims the message as such.
Fiction focuses on the message itself, not on information transmission [3].
Because of semantic transformations a word in the poetic language becomes a symbol. There occurs a special fiction world which recreates an image of reality, but it does not contain direct information about reality. Every level of fiction text (the characters, the objects and the eventfulness) manifests fiction world as a possible, but not a real one.
Fiction world is just an equivalent of the real world. Fiction world does not copy the reality, it only reproduces the patterns which are typical for our reality. More than that, text contains a set of signals which indicate it is literature, a fusion of reality. Fictionality of the text is constantly exposed by the text itself. The function of this self-delusion is to induce affective reactions in the recipient, because fiction actually performs its function only if we realize it as fiction [2].
Why there is a belief that literature must correspond to reality?
I do not think I have a definitive answer to this question. Possibly, it is because the fiction world is similar to the real one and people think they are supposed to draw distinct parallels and compare the text with reality.
In Russia there may be such a belief because decades of socialistic realism accustomed people to the thought that literature must give an objective depiction of reality and this habit still holds sway and shapes the way we think about literature. Although I think this idea of literature corresponding to reality is typical not only for Russian people.
Now we are switching to the main question…
…is literature supposed to reflect reality faithfully?
Roland Barthes* stated, that «the claim that “realism” is the prime motivation of narrative must be largely discounted. <…> in any narrative, imitation remains contingent. The function of narrative is not to “represent”; it is to put together a scene which still retains a certain enigmatic character, for the reader, though this does not belong to the mimetic order in any way» [1].
*Roland Barthes (1915–1980) — a French literary theorist, critic, philosopher and semiotician. His works influenced development of many schools of theory: anthropology, structuralism, literary theory and post-structuralism.
«Mimetic order» means imitation, representation of the reality. It is not a literal imitation, but an act of knowing the outside world. So, Barthes means that fiction text does not aim to describe the reality.
Now let’s turn to W. Iser’s* thoughts on this issue and look at his analysis on Thackeray’s «Vanity Fair» (italics in the quotes are mine).
*Wolfgang Iser (1926–2007) — a German literary scholar mostly known for his reception theory.
«The esthetic effect of “Vanity Fair” depends on activating the reader’s critical faculties so that he may recognize the social reality of the novel, both as a confusing array of sham attitudes, and exposure of this sham for realities true and tested. Instead of being expressly stated, the criteria for such judgments have to be inferred. They are the blanks which the reader is supposed to fill in, thus bringing his own criticism to bear. In other words, it is his own criticism that constitutes the reality of the book. The novel, then, is not to be viewed as the mere reflection of a social reality, for its true form will only be revealed when the world it presents has, like all images, been refracted and converted by the mind of the reader. “Vanity Fair” aims not at presenting social reality, but at presenting the way in which such reality can be experienced» [4].
«The predominant aim is no longer to create the illusion of an objective outside reality, and the novelist is no longer concerned with projecting his own unambiguous view of the world onto his reader» [4].
«Instead, his technique is to diversify his vision, in order to compel the reader to view things for himself and discover his own reality. <…> For this insight to take root in the reader, the fictional world must be made to seem real to him» [4].
I do not think I will be able to explain it better than Iser, but now just a short summary. Everything said before means that literature processes the external world and depicts it in a descriptive way, creates the effect of reality, but does not copy it trying to achieve objectivity.
It is extremely difficult to describe all the issues of interpretation and reading process in one short Medium post, but I hope to devote more articles to this problem, because perceptive questions of literature are endlessly posed! (I did not know much about this part of literary studies when I was getting my bachelor’s degree, although we have of course been told about perception, interpretations and other hermeneutic issues).
P.
Literature:
- Barthes R. Introduction a l’analyse structurale des recits // Communications 8. Paris, 1966.
- Companion A. Démon de la Théorie. Littérature et sens commun. Moscow, 2001. 335 p.
- Jacobson R. Linguistics and Poetics // Style in Language. Cambridge, 1960. P. 350–377.
- Iser W. The Implied Reader. 1974. 317 p.
If you enjoyed this post, you can read some of my other texts:
