We will be convening here at the ZigZag café, Suisse, on Thursdays for conversation and dialogue. I invite you to stop by every Thursday for the question of the day. Your thoughts and participation are most welcome. Pull up a stool, avec un café, un thé, ou un chocolat chaud, et un croissant, and join in here on Thursday at the ZZ café.
For today:
What do you see as the major similarities and differences between writing history and writing fiction, and why might they matter, especially in respect to the biblical accounts?
6 comments:
Greg,
I would argue that the difference between fiction and history is located in the intention of the author (i.e. What is the author doing?). Was it the author's goal to write with historical accuracy, or is the author making their point, instead, through fictional elements? This does not imply that all written history (or fiction) is of the same quality. However, it does imply that one of the first questions we should ask when engaging any piece of literature is "What exactly is the author trying to do in this text?"
Rhett
Rhett,
Thanks. This is good. Permit me a couple of questions: You pointed out one difference (any similarities?), and connect that to the author's act (doing). How would we get to the author's goal of say, historical accuracy or making a point through fictional elements? What kinds of markers help us distinguish the two? Or, if the goal is historical accuracy, and we discover the recounting is closer to fiction, than what?
Greg,
One similarity would be that authors of history and authors of fiction are both attempting to get at the truth, but they are doing so in two different ways. If we confine the discussion to the biblical text, then I think we can say that those biblical authors who were concerned with providing a historical recounting of events and those who had other concerns (e.g. praising God (psalms), sharing wisdom (proverbs); announcing future events (prophetic and apocalyptic literature), etc) were all concerned with illuminating certain aspects of the nature of reality, history, and God's salvific action in the world. However, both author and text are limited and they can only shine light on particular elements of the truth. A text can speak truthfully, but not exhaustively.
Regarding markers that could help the reader recognize the text's illocution (what the text is doing)– I think this issue brings up the importance of genre study in textual analysis. For example, an important text regarding genre, as you and George know, is the creation narrative in Gen. 1-2. Is the goal of these chapters to provide a literal historical recounting of the creation of the world, or is the point first and foremost of theological significance, in which the power of YHWH is portrayed as supreme over all of creation and above all other gods?
I don't believe the turn to genre criticism is conclusive, but it is necessary, and sheds a lot of light on biblical interpretation. One problem, it seems to me, that can arise from an overemphasis on genre comparison is that we might not recognize the creative potential of the author to form a text that simply does not "fit" with the conventional literary forms being used at the time. For example, in what genre should we categorize the gospels (history? biography?)? They don't seem to quite fit the framework of any one category.
Finally, concerning the possibility of an author to not achieve what they were hoping to achieve (e.g. historical accuracy)- I believe that our approach to this question would depend upon whether we were discussing the Bible or another text. This is not to say that there are not real difficulties relating to history and science in Scripture, but that a faithful and trustworthy God has spoken through and personally bound himself to the words of Scripture in a way that he has not with any other text.
Rhett
Rhett,
I appreciate your response and the thought you've put into it.
One similarity I thought of was on the level of imagination. Both historians and novelists recount stories that pass through and are in some sense constructed by imagination.
One query worth some thought might be - how God personally binds himself to the words of Scripture that lament about his absence.
One similarity I see is that the biblical writers rely heavily on allusion, just like much of the best fiction does. Allusion taps deeply into the story part of history and connects two events/themes/consequences, and so on. Allusion is powerful because we learn best when we connect new information/understanding to established knowledge. Connections help us understand both things better.
Western histories don't do this with literary devices like the biblical histories do. Though they will connect one historic event to another explicitly in hopes that their readers might learn from when history "repeats itself."
Renea,
Thanks. These are good insights. Seems like allusion creates a space for imagination to operate and to make connections and links that otherwise might be missed.
We all to often shy away from the relation between fiction and historiography, but needn't do so, when distinctions are also in place. This relation - distinction perspective gives freedom, whereas a collapse of the tension between them, binds us to reductionism, which takes it away.
Post a Comment