I chiefly read and write in the interest of escapism. Hence why so much of the writing I consume and produce involves fantastic locales and larger-than-life characters. From an early age, I remember not being able to understand the appeal in something that echoes what the reader likely already sees every day. My opinion on the matter has grown a tad more complex in the years since, of course, as I now understand that a basis of truth can be required to spin a convincing fabrication.
George Orwell's description of the "beetle-like" men in Nineteen Eighty-Four was likely influenced by the author's experiences working in the Ministry of Information, among many other parts of the novel. Orwell started with his own experiences, his own truths, and used them as a seed from which to mould an extreme but not entirely implausible vision of a possible future. In a tragic twist, his prophecy may have become somewhat self-fulfilling. In this way, it could be said that a truth gave rise to a non-truth, which then ultimately helped create another truth.
Maybe that's the power of writing, though. I'd bet good money that half the world's astronomers and physicists spent their entire youth with their faces buried in Frank Herbert novels or pressed up against an image of William Shatner. A playful yet respectful attitude to the truth can indirectly affect other truths. So not only is there arguably a place for truth in writing, the effects of said writing on the truth should not be underestimated.
I enjoyed this post. I couldn't really argue with any of your points. I liked how you even referred to William Shatner.
ReplyDelete