Fictional Reality/Real Fiction
Steve Ahlquist 9/30/2004
A text can be anything; writing, movie, comic, news report, web column or anything else that tells us a story. Whenever we approach a text we do so with the intent of discerning whether the story told by the text is true or not. This is true even when we approach a text we know to be fictional. We are searching for inherent truths, and a sense of verisimilitude. The truth value, or historical validity, of a text is often thought to be a binary proposition. It’s either “true” or it isn’t. By “true” we mean either it fits into what we consider the historical consensus, or it does not. I would argue that this point of view is overly simplistic and unhelpful.
The historical consensus is our timeline, and it contains all the things that have ever happened since time began. As a species, we use tools such as science and history to piece together our understanding of the timeline, and in so doing we hope to reach a consensus. For instance, and using examples only from the history of the United States, Neil Armstrong was the first man to walk on the moon; Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Boothe; and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. These are three facts, widely accepted as true, and they have all become part of our consensual history.
Historians have several methods for figuring out what is probably true about history, and what is probably not. Belief in the claims of history, as in science, are always conditional, as newly discovered facts can possibly alter our understanding of the past. In each of the cases above there are many clues upon which to base each claim. There are, depending on when the event took place, newspapers, diaries, birth and death certificates, photographs, videos, archeological evidence and artifacts. Each of these clues point to the fact of an event happening. When enough clues point towards the historicity of an event, historians become more or less convinced of the event’s reality. The event is considered to have happened, and the claim that the event happened is considered to be conditionally “true.”
When historians search far back in time, they often have less and less sources upon which to rely. For a long time Homer’s epics the Iliad and the Odyssey were the only historical sources upon which the truth of the Trojan War could be judged. It was thought by many modern scholars that Homer’s stories were simply in the vein of Hesiod, who told elaborate tales of the Greek Gods and their ceaseless interference in the lives of men. When the ruins of the actual Troy were found, we had a second, archeological clue as to the existence of Troy, (as well as the fact that Homer was the basis by which Troy was ultimately discovered, lending greater credence to his texts.) It was through this kind of corroboration that Troy emerged from myth and entered history.
Historians are also storytellers, and part of the reason they do the work they do is to teach us; not only about our past, but about how our past shaped us today. In that sense historians are no different from other dramatists, save that they claim that their stories are true, part of a verifiable, historical consensus, and not just “made up.” Creators of fictional texts use their stories to teach us about ourselves in much the same way as historians, though their techniques can obviously vary. Some of these writers do as much or even more research than a historian to ground their narrative in reality, trying to give their fiction more verisimilitude. Usually, if done well enough, the only way a casual reader can tell the difference between history and historical fiction is because most fiction has a wealth of detail unavailable to historians, and because fiction usually has a structure that makes the story flow and come to some sort of satisfying conclusion.
Many historians will employ fiction as a device to better tell their story. You may read the text of a conversation in a historical narrative. Such a conversation may be unheard and unreported by any witnesses, but you can be confident that such a conversation did take place, not with the exact words utilized by the historian, but close enough in spirit to be “true” in the sense that it imparts only knowledge that would further your understanding of the events described. This fictional conversation can therefore be considered a kind of non-fiction. Many documentary filmmakers use reenactments, and though we know that there is no film of Thomas Jefferson writing the Declaration of Independence, we have no reason to doubt that the film we are watching is depicting the event very much as it would have looked. Entertainments and historical reenactments have long informed and entertained audiences. Shakespeare’s plays are divided into Comedies, Tragedies, and Histories. His Histories, such as Richard III or the “Henry” plays are written with a definite bias. They are not history in the sense that they are historically accurate from our point of view, they are history as it needed to be told given the politics of Elizabethan England.
Which brings us to another point. Both novelists and historians (actually all creators of text), are liable at times to stray from the historical record. Sometimes it’s simply via omission. Did Ghengis Khan have six toes? Was Hitler a vegetarian? Does it matter, if we are talking about their military strategies? Does it matter if we are talking about their family life? It is impossible to give every single fact of a situation. Suppose that during the Cuban Missile Crisis JFK was momentarily distracted by a mosquito bite. Does anybody know this? As it happens, I just made it up. Did it somehow affect his decisions that fateful day? Does it matter? Our knowledge of the timeline is always incomplete, and errors of omission are unavoidable.
Other times the strict historical timeline is strayed from because we are attempting to understand motives. Why did Napoleon invade Russia, knowing as he did that such an invasion was doomed to fail? Was it Hubris? Syphilis? Stupidity? When creators of text attempt to describe what characters are thinking, or their motivations for certain actions, they try to understand these by drawing upon as much information as possible regarding a characters actions, speech and other evidence, and then try to divine motives and thought processes from these. It’s an imperfect process and many historical controversies are argued passionately by two equally informed experts debating the value, merit and meaning of all the available historical clues. Our knowledge of the timeline is dependent upon evidence, and informed by our inferences and deductions.
Another aspect of historical validity often taken for granted is what I might call our threshold of belief. A story about George Washington’s flying horse is dismissed out of hand as ridiculous, or at the very least highly fictionalized and definitely not part of our consensus historical record. But many people believe in things that are just as fantastic. Many people believe that Jesus could walk on water, or Moses that parted the Red Sea. Despite the fact that the only source for these kinds of claims is an ancient collection of texts of questionable provenance, these claims are taken as, well, gospel. Many of the people who wholeheartedly and unquestionably believe in Noah’s Ark will deride ancient and modern religions filled with figures like Valkeries and Ganesh.
This religiously biased historicity isn’t the only fantastic thing people are willing to believe. Today people believe in the powers of John Edwards to speak to the dead, UFOs, Big Foot, and guardian angels, just to mention a few. There are people who believe that people can be judged by the color of their skin, that the Jews control a global banking system, and that the United States is the Great Satan. Some people deny that Neil Armstrong stepped foot on the moon, and still others deny the fact of the holocaust. Clearly, for these people, history is a different kind of exercise. Our understanding of the consensus timeline must perforce contain only those claims provable through science and reason, not faith and belief.
So it becomes clear that not all historical claims are equally valid, and that as a historian (or novelist, or any creator of text that purports to be in some way “true”) it is important to have some sort of skeptical take on these types of fringe issues and conspiracy theories. That isn’t to say that there isn’t possibly some truth to some of these claims, but these claims, until proven true scientifically and historically, must be regarded as outside the mainstream historical consensus reality. They are simply not part of our timeline.
It starts to become clear then that in talking about what constitutes a historical text, I’ve begun sketching out the qualities of a consensus meta-text. From the point of view of a literary archeologist then, I have begun to define the “timeline.” The timeline is the ordered list of all things that have actually been proven to have happened in history. The timeline is different from reality in that:
a. It is a hypothetical construct. No one could actually compose a perfect, all inclusive document encompassing everything ever proved to have happened in history.
b. The timeline cannot contain any reality that no one knows of or can’t prove. It can’t tell us the names of every person killed in the city of Pompeii, and apparently it can’t tell us with absolute certainty who killed JFK.
The timeline is inherently a fiction, but one that cleaves itself as closely to reality as our minds and science can take us. It is what I call Fictional Reality, Level One. Most well-researched historical books are contained within this level. It is a meta-text because all researchers who purport to do history contribute to it. Their texts become pieces of a greater textual tapestry. When we think of history, we seldom think of reality, we instead rely on this construct, an ultimately useful but inherently flawed and somewhat accurate fiction.
Fictional Reality, Level Two is but one step away, memegraphically speaking. A creator of texts may step into the gaps of history, and construct a story that in no way violates the timeline. Such a story would in every detail weave itself into the timeline as though the author had first hand knowledge of all the events. There is no way to prove the events didn’t happen, save for the author’s acknowledgement that they made it all up. There are thousands upon thousands of such texts. Examples may include The Agony and the Ecstasy by Irving Stone and The Little House on the Prairie. These stories fit neatly into the timeline, filling in some of the gaps in the historical record.
Fictional Reality, Level Three is another step. In this level, we are cleaving closely to the timeline, and in fact we are not violating the timeline in any major way, but many of the characters and events have been fictionalized. Think of a television show, like Law and Order. The show is set in New York City, which is real. Crimes happen, as they often do in New York. The cops get involved, catch a suspect and turn him over to the District Attorney, which is what cops are supposed to do. The D.A. prosecutes the crime and if all goes well the guilty party goes to Rykers Island, a real prison. If you travel to New York, you will find cops, D.A.’s and Rykers, but you won’t find the Law and Order cops working homicide, none of the D.A.’s are real, none of the suspects are real, and none of the victims are real. You could check the non-validity of an episode of Law and Order with a couple of phone calls, or even read the disclaimer at the shows end, that says that the episode is not based on any persons living or dead. The show is “ripped from today’s headlines” and entirely believable, but it’s fiction, and not historical fiction.
This type of story does not violate the timeline it cleaves to. It bends the timeline a little, but it tries as hard as possible not to break it in a way that detracts from the believability pf the story. Some authors are so good at this type of fictional reality that the fiction they construct is often thought to be historically true. Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes and H. P. Lovecraft’s Necronomicon are two fictional constructs often thought to be part of the timeline. As far as I know, they are not. Not all creations from level three are easy to disprove, and the harder they are to disprove the closer these constructs move to level two. In general, if it cleaves itself to the timeline but isn’t true, then it’s Level Three.
Level Four is tricky. It’s similar to Level Three in that it sticks closely to the established timeline. Level four has an extra layer of unreality to it, in that the laws of science and/or the nature of the supernatural is in some way different from our own, allowing the inclusion of such things as ghosts, vampires, UFO’s, robots, time travel etc. Level Four reality accepts these types of things as real, and incorporates them into our timeline. One famous example of this is the novel Dracula by Bram Stoker. A real person, Vlad Dracul comes from Transylvania to England in a plot to conquer what was, at the time, the mightiest empire on the earth. Stoker adds to history the idea that Dracula is a supernatural being, and sets the novel firmly in the real world. A more recent example is the television series The X-Files, which is set very much in the real world with (mostly) real locations.
It’s at this level that the idea of “suspension of disbelief” becomes important. If you can’t get your mind around the concepts presented at this level of fictional reality, you’ll never understand what comes next. It’s a little sad, but extreme skeptics, realists and literal minded people sometimes have trouble understanding reality at this level. One might say that these people have trouble suspending their disbelief, or that they have no sense of fun.
Sadder though, may be those at the opposite side. Many people live inside a Level Four fictional reality, believing in the day-to-day existence of Big Foot, or that they have been abducted by UFOs. I would also suggest that people who fervently believe in the literal truth of the Bible, or the Koran, are also living in a Level Four fictional reality. A lot of time and energy is expended trying to prove the existence of some aspect of fourth level fictional realities, and so far to no avail.
So far we’ve been through four levels of reality, and the one thing all these levels have in common is that they all have pretensions to being a part of our timeline and in some sense “true.” The next level of reality (Level Five) is less interested in such pretensions. At this level the timeline is still recognizable as similar to our own, but there are enough glaring differences to allow us to know that it is not our world. For instance, the popular television shows The West Wing and 24 both feature characters that are present day United States Presidents, neither of whom are mentioned in any history book. These shows have entirely fictionalized aspects of history, but the world is still our world, still based in our real world history and mores.
In 24, Jack Bauer is a fictional agent for CTU, the Counter-Terrorism Unit, a fictional arm of the government, an agency well known in the fictional world he inhabits. Jack works for President Palmer, a black man elected to the position of United States President, (which as we know, happens all the time.) In one episode an atomic bomb is detonated outside Los Angeles, in another the President is attacked with a biological weapon. Clearly, this is not our world, and it’s a world that pushes the threshold of what is possible, but it is a very possible world, not too different from our own, and recognizably familiar.
Which brings us to Level Six. This level is yet another step from the established timeline, the prime reality. In this level we get all the reality of our world, combined with all sorts of unreality from our imaginations. In this world, not too different from our own, there are vampires and super-heroes, alien invasions and ancient tales of Middle Earth. Marvel Comics (for the most part) is set in a world at this level, as is the show Buffy the Vampire Slayer and its companion show Angel. The stories by Robert E. Howard about Conan and the stories by H. P. Lovecraft concerning the Cthulhu Mythos all can be considered Level Six. The world as we know it is never completely changed in these stories, but fictional elements abound, and fantastic events can become commonplace.
Level Six is also the last level that can be conveniently said to be real, or based on actual events. An argument could be made, for instance, that the previously mentioned Jack Bauer is based on a real government agent, combating real domestic terrorism. Sure, an atomic bomb didn’t go off outside Los Angeles in real life, but that’s just artistic license, the writers took the reality an extra step. In reality Jack Bauer may have deactivated the bomb, or something more mundane might have happened. Level Six might have the additional implausibility of Vampires and humanoid robots, but underlying “real life” realities might explain what we are seeing.
This idea of rationalizing a text to better fit the main timeline is an old one, and it’s an idea I want to return to in a later essay. Let’s just say for now that techniques for rationalizing supernatural events into the real world were developed quickly after the development of texts. As a species we always want to suspend our disbelief, even in the face of contradictory evidence. If an event doesn’t fit our beliefs, we are quick to mold the event into something that does.
Leaving verifiable historic reality behind allows us to explore Level Seven, the level of alternate history and hard science fiction, especially science fiction that concerns the future. In alternate history a creator ponders some sort of “What If?” scenario and then moves history forward from there. What If…the south had won the American civil war? What If…Napoleon had been victorious at Waterloo? These explorations of alternate timelines leave our timeline behind completely, the world becomes different from our own, a nuclear wasteland, perhaps, or a steam-punk utopia. Some historians dabble in “What If?” type speculation, trying to bring new understandings of history through their explorations of “counterfactual history.”
Though at first blush fiction concerning the future seems to occupy a different area of meme space from fiction concerning alternate history, upon further reflection we realize that they are actually one and the same. The only difference is when we begin to depart from our established historical timeline. The alternate historian picks a point in our past, and departs from there. The futurist starts from right now, or as close to the present as possible to begin the departure. Fiction set in the far future is assumed to share a common history with our own, even in those cases where our own history is so distant as to be almost unimportant to the protagonists of the future.
Text at this level of reality include The Man in the High Castle by Phillip K. Dick, Guns of the South by Harry Turtledove, the movie Blade Runner, and possibly television series like Star Trek, Babylon 5 and Firefly. I say possibly because we’re getting into a shade of difference here. In the case of hard sci-fi or alternative history we are taking what is known, and making guesses as to what will be, or could be, or could have been. When we start talking about alien races, we are hazarding guesses far outside our ability to “predict.” No one knows what forms alien life may take, and any attempt to describe it becomes fantasy. Vulcans, Klingons, and Romulans have no basis in our timeline, in our history, or in our reality.
For that matter, many science-fiction conventions are so far removed from possibility that they at best border on or at worst are actually fantasy. Faster-than-light travel is still thought to be a physical impossibility, or at best it’s an extreme-case hypothetical possibility. Even Artificial Intelligence seems a long way off, though I admit it seems more likely than Warp Speed.
Which brings up an interesting point that I’d like to explore via an example. When Jules Verne wrote From the Earth to the Moon I want to assume that he didn’t know that firing the rocket from a large canon would kill the occupants. As time passed and more was learned about the realities of space travel, the technical aspects of the book, scientifically accurate at the time of the writing became known to be based on inaccurate assumptions. Slowly, over time, more and more of the book would theoretically fall out of Level Seven and into Level Eight, a realm of fantasy and worlds that never were and never could be.
Is such a text to be reevaluated every time something new is learned? Do texts shift position as more is learned and understood about the Level One fictional timeline? One curious way of preventing a text from shifting levels is to go back to the text and reinterpret what is there, or to add details as needed to make the text fit in with our new perceptions of reality. For instance, we might decide that the astronauts of Verne’s work had special seats that allowed them to withstand the forces of inertia. Though not much exists in the text to support such a theory, the existence of such chairs is obvious from the fact that the astronauts weren’t spattered like jelly on the back wall of the vehicle’s cockpit.
Using such continuity altering tools may be a slippery slope, however. The temptation to take a text not at face value, but as a piece to be shaped to fit in a larger mosaic of texts is too much for many people to bear. Wold-Newtonians, for example, enjoy scouring media and retrofitting what they find there to fit into their peculiar, Level Four reality. I will talk more of continuity and the tools we use to shape it in a later work. Right now, it’s time to understand Level Eight.
Level Eight is the second to last level of fictional reality. At this level all pretenses as to actual time, space and possibility are dropped. Many things are recognizable, of course, but the worlds presented are fantasy, with no relation to our timeline. A text may start with the phrase, “A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away…” but that kind of information doesn’t exactly nail down the text in time and space. Watching the humans in Star Wars run isn’t exactly like watching a historical epic. It’s a fantasy.
Fantasies at this level have their own internal logic, and though they may contain some real world touch points, they are not hampered by real world logic. Faster-than-light travel or magic may exist. Bizarre aliens or ferocious dragons may be fought or befriended. Texts at this level may also be similar to Level Seven stories in that they talk of alternate histories or science fictional futures, but many of the elements conjured into the tales have no basis in reality. Since we have no clues as to how aliens might look, we are completely leaving reality behind, and making it up. This applies to the aliens of Poul Anderson’s classic novel The High Crusade as well as the aliens of Star Trek.
The last level of fictional reality, Level Nine, is most baffling, but merely the next logical step on our journey. At this level the logic of the universe violates not only real world logic and all the conventions of all the levels, but is also free to violate it’s own internal logic. Hence, in The Simpsons it is possible for the city of Springfield, a city established to be in the United States of America, to be proven, over the course of the show’s episodes, to not be in any of the nation’s fifty states.
Sometimes continuity is followed, as in the cases of Millhouse’s parent’s divorce, Apu’s marriage and children, or the death of Maude Flanders. Other times the continuity of the series is deliberately violated, and as Matt Groening made clear at the 2004 San Diego Comic-Con this continuity violation is done to both tweak observant viewers and for humorous effect.
Many cartoons flaunt reality in this way. The Cartoon Network has created Adult Swim, late night programming that is nothing but incongruous, non-continuity-driven shows, like Aqua-Teen Hunger Force, Sea Lab 2021 and Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law. Level Nine shows are both the easiest and the hardest shows to understand. In one sense the make no claim on you other than to simply entertain, but in another way the shows set out to deliberately baffle your sense of continuity.
Beyond Level Nine it’s hard to imagine what could be left. I can hypothesize a Level Ten, but such a text would, by definition, be completely incomprehensible, and perhaps in some fashion be unrecognizable as text. Perhaps a nonsense poem, or some piece of found art might qualify. There is a magazine, called Found, that simply reproduces bits of writing and printing discarded and then discovered. The objects exist strangely detached from the timeline, inviting us to fill in the reasons for the objects existence. These objects are detached as they are, become the noise in the signal, the sand in the bathing suit. It is independent, iconoclastic and unfathomable.
But I may be going too far here. We are at Level Ten, by definition incomprehensible. Were I to comprehend it, define it better, then I would be introducing by default the next level, Level Eleven, which by definition would be truly incomprehensible. I will leave it for now at ten, ten levels of reality that demark all of fiction and non-fiction, in fact all text.
I invite commentary and criticism. Indeed, I would hope that this paper will be torn apart and argued and defended and re-imagined in a more thorough form. I invite suggestions of texts that may or may not fit into my levels. And I present this idea as a tool, a means by which to judge texts. I’ve hinted herein that literary archeologists might be able to use this tool as a way of figuring out just how radically a text must be altered to fit into a new meta-text, such as Wold-Newtonry. I also think the scale could be used for judging the strength and relativism of cross-continuity cross-overs.
Just a thought.