Writing Machines is the course website for English 170L at Pomona College in Claremont, California.
The importance of being truthiness
Submitted by Shock and Awe on 6 November 2006 - 3:24pm.
"As soon as we say 'I' we begin to lie." I'm very curious about this approximate quote of Shelley Jackson's. By extension we assume that, since Jackson is a writer and explores this quote in her writing, it can also be stated, "As soon as we write 'I' we begin to lie."
I'm curious about this not so much because I agree or disagree, but because I fail to see the importance. I have never seen pure objective truth as a goal of writing. Perhaps more so in a supposedly nonfiction autobiography (but even then not some inarguable mathematical kind of truth,) but never in a fiction, even one based on real characters. The goal is to take little snippets of truth, character tics such as a boy who expresses himself through his toes, and meld them together into a character that reads as true, regardless of whether he or she is or not. The truth that writing strives toward is the truth of empathy. The establishment of an emotional connection between writer and reader.
While I think it is interesting to break down and explore this relationship through a postmodern lens, I don't think it will ever be more than that: an interesting exploratory exercise. The nature of what we say or write when we use 'I' is much more complex than simple truth or falsehood. It is an assertion of self, an affirmation of autonomy, and a link to a world of experience not one's own, full of, as one's own perspective also is, truth and deception, clarity and delusion.
»
- Shock and Awe's blog
- Login to post comments
I am also pretty interested
I am also pretty interested in the idea of truth in fiction and non-fiction. I agree that objective truth isn't a very interesting goal of writing, but I don't think such a truth exists in the first place.
In response to your contention that you don't see the importance in Jackson's quotation, that's it's only an exploratory exercise, I have to disagree. Because I write myself, I am definitely sensitive to the idea that there is "truth" in fiction, that stories come from lived experiences. Going down that road, it would seem that fiction/non-fiction (autobiography) shouldn't be separated and defined so strictly, because they are all truths on a continuum.
But I don't believe that. When we say "I" (in the literal, "I" the author sense) something happens. When we say "I" in the context of an autobiography it changes the way other people read your story, it changes reader expectations. It changes the way the author writes.
I think these changes merit consideration, and not merely for academic mental masturbation reasons. There are stakes for how truth ends up being defined in literature. In light of huge problems like our own President lying to his country about the Iraq War, and little problems like the James Frey memoir debacle, it's clear that truth has a tenuous position in our culture. And I think it's worth exploring.
"I"?
I enjoyed reading both of the above points as well as the comments magoo made in class about what it means to say "I" and if there is a true "I". I think that whether or not the assertion of "I" is true is important in what the writer is attempting to achieve. In other words, I think it's dangerous if the writer firmly believes that he or she is writing a truth about him or herself and is using this as a means to tell others how to be or act. I think that it's important for both readers and writers to keep in mind how unachievable "I" is.
Also, as Frabby says, the way a writer uses "I" changes both the way he or she writes and read expectations. Interestingly enough, in the research I've done for my paper, which is on diaries, I've basically learned that writing "I" is untrue, no matter what or who you are writing for. I assumed that writing "I" and what you think, do, believe, etc for a public, online audience is drastically different from writing "I" for a private journal. But the more I read, the more I see how performative any diary is, because we can't know ourselves and can't ever truly proclaim "I" in a complete and honest way.
Hmm, I'm not sure if I explained that in the best way, but I find this discussion fascinating (and eery, too, because I need to reflect on my own use of "I" : )).