when people think fiction is true

Nathan, here's what I don't get. Why does it bother you so much if a writer, in answer to a question by a friend or acquaintance, about the genesis of story, says they "made it up"? You are probably technically correct that the answer is simplistic, but why get so worked up about it?

Every author of fiction makes things up. The author took imagery from their inner self and put it into words. Unless they plagiarized the story or made a factual report, they did in fact make it up. They selected, combined, and created a finished product. They assembled it. They chose various ideas from their intellect and subconscious, and "made it up" into a tale. Unless it is a news report or academic study or somesuch, it is fiction, which the New Oxford American Dictionary (Second Edition) defines as "literature in the form of prose . . . that describes imaginary events and people." If I wanted to write a story about an arrogant academic, I might base some of it on my reaction to your comments here, but that doesn't mean I'm talking about the real you, only about what I observe and feel, my ideas, which I am making up into a character or a scene. For events and people to be at all realistic, they must be based on events and people we have observed or learned about.

I get that it would be "intellectually lazy" to put out "I made it up" as an academic analysis or detailed response to someone seeking to deconstruct a work, but I don't think that's been the issue here. I don't think you are the only one here who understands that what we know is based entirely on our experience, and that every story has to, at some level, be based on that experience. We all get that, I think.

Just because people don't state it in the detail you want, in the form you want, doesn't entitle you to accuse them of intellectual laziness or dishonesty. Even if, which I doubt, you take the time to answer every question you are asked in mind-numbing detail, doesn't mean everyone must.

If I take impressions and conceits about people and places I know -- which is the only way I can know anything -- and put them into a world I have chosen, I have "made it up."

 

If ever the pot called the kettle black.

 

First off, apologies for the late response - was finishing up dinner.

The relationship between the subconscious and the conscious (or rather, the imposition of the subconscious on conscious action) is far from new, but I gather you mean perhaps more in terms of writing specifically? Please do correct me if I've misunderstood your intent there.

It's actually more based on behavioral psychology and the Modular View of the Mind than Freud, but now that you've pointed it out I do see a correlation. Wholly unintentional, but of course that's the nature of perception and understanding. And looking at it purely from a Freudian point of view, I would certainly agree that it would not be favorable in the least.

You're 100% correct in bringing up the Barnum Effect - I have to admit, I hadn't considered that angle myself. Thank you for pointing it out.

I'm going to be difficult though and say that I wonder whether it's as black-and-white as all that. Both theories are well-established in the relevant fields, but not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Is there a possibility of it perhaps being somewhere in the middle? A combination of subconscious influence along the same strain of your dream analogy (not direct, but impressionistic) and the Barnum Effect? The more I sit and ruminate on the matter, the more inclined I am to personally believe so, but I'd also have to admit that the situation would likely lie closer to the Barnum Effect along the spectrum.

Apologies if you misunderstood me or I failed to make my intent clear - what I meant is only that I find that the act of saying "I made it up" and leaving it at that is somewhat lazy, not you yourself. I'm also 100% open to acknowledging my fault in the matter if you didn't leave it a

Correct, I'm new to the forum, but please don't mistake that for being new to the industry.

Thank you for the welcome though, and my sincerest apologies for us getting off on the wrong foot in (I believe) our first interactions with each other.

Again, my sincerest apologies for having given that impression. It certainly wasn't my intention to give you a hard time or start a fight of any sort; I merely intended to give my opinion as a fellow writer and an editor.

I do apologize once more for my having come across as aggressive. I have Asperger's symptoms (though not a full diagnosis), so I don't always come across the way I intend to. I tend to parse information on a predominantly factual basis rather than allowing for emotive reading - in general, that is. (It would be more accurate to say that along the spectrum between Factual and Emotive, I lie significantly closer toward Factual, but not with a complete absence of Emotive. "Factual" here not meaning objective fact but subjective perception of fact, of course.)

Hope that made sense?

A salient point, and it drives home to me how I misrepresented my intentional message. There was no intent of stating that it bothers me personally - I was merely giving a response to the stimulus presented. It then became an unnecessary tit-for-tat, for which I hold large responsibility due to my attempts to better clarify what I meant... and preconceived notions (based on my initial response) getting in the way of that being understood.

I was in fact agreeing wholeheartedly with what others have said in this thread, while having them then disagree with me. As I mentioned, I have strong Asperger's symptoms, so that's what got me worked up: having someone else say I'm completely wrong, but then restating exactly what I said as their input.

Again, that's partially perception, I highly doubt anyone intentionally did so - which is why I tried to use relevant quotes from their own responses in an attempt to say, "This is exactly what I'm trying to say." I completely recognize that I don't always come across the right way, and in an attempt to clarify when challenged, it's my default to expand on what I said and better illustrate it using relevant quotes from other participants of the discussion.

As an example - these quotes 100% summarize exactly what I was attempting to say. The act of saying "I made it up" is not in the least wrong, and I've never said that it was. I was merely questioning why anyone would ever simply leave it at that and assume it's a satisfactory answer (as you said, it's simplistic).

I'm not the best with verbal communication, but I try to look at it in the same way as I try to look at written dialogue. I personally have a dislike for small talk in the same way as small talk (as a general rule - there are always exceptions, of course) has no place in dialogue. If something said isn't pushing the narrative forward, it's lazy writing. I don't expect grandiose detail, but I tend to expect some measure of substance. Because of the way my brain is wired, I feel the same way about actual conversation.

When someone takes the time to say, "This resonated with me," "I made it up" as a standalone response feels (to me) insubstantial. I think we can all agree that we want our writing to resonate with our readers, but their resonating too much and the Barnum Effect coming into play isn't (again, in my opinion) an excuse to respond insubstantially.

I hope that better clarifies where I was coming from and what my perspective was when formulating responses.

Originally I intended to respond to this separately, but I've actually addressed in the last few paragraphs. Just didn't want you to think I was ignoring it, so I left the pasted quote in.

 

I did not know the Asperger aspect to this dialogue and it does seem to make it all fit together better. I now know better where you are coming from; at the same time, I suggest you keep in mind that other people are coming from other perspectives, and they/we are entitled to have those perspectives respected. Small talk and shades of gray are important for most people; just because you don't like them doesn't make them wrong, or you right, or vice-versa.

Maybe we should all re-set and start over.

 

I think that all of the crique of your post comes down to a simple problem:

You are insisting that every time a reader perceives a possible unconscious connection the author has made to his real life, they are correct.
AND
Every time a writer claims that the fiction is not based on the writer's life, they are wrong.



No one believes that authors don't unknowingly put real experiences into writing sometimes. But you appear to be insisting that you know for a fact that Deadrats is wrong when he says that those characters are not based on the two friends who believe otherwise. Given that you don't know any of them and haven't read the piece in question, you seem to be operating on a theory of mind you find so convincing that you have thrown all other logical possibilities out the window - like that the reader has erred.

And if that isn't the case, you have certainly miscommunicated to such a degree that a pretty large group of intelligent people think you are insisting something different.

My own experience interacting with Asperger's people is that there is a tendency to seek out theories of mind to help decode the often illogical emotional behavior around them - and occasionally they may latch onto such theories past their rational usefulness.

 

I do think that lots of inspiration for my writing comes from somewhere. I periodically see the ways that it draws from a buffet of personalities and anecdotes and interactions.

That's Mom, that's Dad, that's that good part of Mom, that's a thing that I never realized, until writing it, that Mom and I have in common, eew! That's the interaction between my two very different first grade teachers. That's the way that my perfectionism manifested itself when I was five. That's the policeman that handled the crosswalk when I was four, "my" policeman. I realized recently that the character who has third billing in my WIP is in part my policeman, and the realization made me cry. A little under fifty years later, I still miss my policeman.

But I had that realization roughly eighteen months after I created that character. It makes no sense, IMO, to call a writer "lazy" for not realizing the source of their inspiration. Was I "lazy" before I had that realization and suddenly less "lazy" after I had it?

I think that a lack of conscious awareness of the inspiration makes the writing better, not worse. As long as you don't know what you're drawing from, you're not tied to that inspiration--your creative mind can take precisely what you need from it, and no more. ("But he's YOUNGER than the policeman! But his job is different! But but but..." "Shut up. I took what I needed.")

Edited to add: And I realize that you may not disagree with this at all. Any chance that instead of "lazy" you maybe mean "disrespectful" for certain situations? Someone opens their heart up to an author and the author says, "Yeah. I made it up," instead of, "No, I don't know where it came from, but I'm glad that it touched you." ?

But here, we're not talking to the open hearts of readers, so we don't need to edit the fact that as far as we know, right now, we just made that thing up.

Edited to add: Oh, wombats. My policeman is in there at least twice.

Sheesh.

 

"Hey," she said, "I read your book. I really liked it."

"Thanks, I'm glad you did."

She looked down, as if unsure of herself. "I was wondering," she said timidly. "That one scene, where the two characters... you know, the steamy romance... was that... um... was that... us?"

It wasn't them, and the heroine certainly wasn't her, but telling her that wouldn't help anything. "Do you like the idea of it being us? Of you being her, and her you?"

She looked embarrassed. "Well, kind of. She's such a powerful character, so in charge of her world. And that love scene... wow, can you write. It made me... well, you can imagine."

"I imagine I can."

"Well, anyway, I liked the book. When's the sequel out? Is she in it, too?"

"It seems like she should be."

 

I definitely try to bear in mind how others may perceive a topic differently (and how I address or interact with said topic) differently. I admittedly fail from time to time, and I wholeheartedly recognize that this was one of those cases.

Thanks for helping to keep me accountable here, @GrahamLewis - I do appreciate that.

Precisely why I attempted to use what @John Calligan and @Tenderiser had said (with their analogies regarding the writer being like a sculptor, and the process of subconscious impressions being similar to the way dreams work, respectively) to better illustrate what I did mean.

There was definitely a miscommunication on my part, which I wholeheartedly recognize and again humbly apologize for. Thank you too for helping to keep me accountable, @Fallow.

You've definitely hit the nail on the head here.

I think there may still be some misunderstanding here... As I tried to explain in my last response, my intent was definitely not to call @deadrats lazy. It was my seeing an instance of someone saying "I made it up" and leaving it at that. It's definitely a story that's been made up, and my point was (is) precisely as you say - we don't always realize the source of inspiration. But simply saying "I made it up" in a way that appears to dismiss entirely the notion that there is or was any sort of external inspiration comes across as lazy. I definitely don't think it's at all lazy to not recognize one's own source of inspiration immediately, or even for a long while.

But that was a miscommunication on my part.

Precisely the point I was attempting to make once I started having to expand on and explain what I'd meant. With my responses to the quotes that @Tenderiser shared especially - albeit from the other direction. In the same way that it being a subconscious inspiration allows the creative mind to take only what it needs, the story has inherent meaning regardless of the inspiration. If that makes sense?

 

I mostly follow what you're saying now.

I'm going to suggest, as a sort of meta, that the word "lazy" may have a stronger negative connotation than you're seeing. And "dishonest" is pretty strongly negative as well--both of them, IMO, cross the line from evaluation to insult. Your responses after that have seemed far more reasonable, which is why I'm hoping that you'll be open to comment.

If you had said, for example:

Going so far as to simply respond "I made it up" when asked about your inspirations for a story seems dismissive of the person asking the question, and of an interesting opportunity for discussion.​

I suspect that this conversation would have been a fair bit friendlier.

 

With regards to myself, definitely a real newbie to WritingForums.org - but I know exactly what you mean, based on my experience in other forums and groups.

@ChickenFreak I can most definitely see what you mean. That's incredibly valuable input for me, thank you very much - I truly appreciate it. I'm the first to admit that I can often come across as unintentionally abrasive. Your suggestion in blue is highly, highly appreciated.

 

@NathanRoets please accept MY apology for the newbies post. There have been a couple of new posters arguing black is white for reasons known only to themselves, and I shouldn't have lumped you in with them. You've been very gracious and I could take a leaf out of your book when responded to goading.

Hope you stick around!

 

You really are spending a lot of time grandstanding about this. There have been several "old hands" that seem to have taken so much offense over a discussion of relatively unimportant matters that they have engaged in personal attacks and off topic posts to keep a non-issue going.

If this is so important to you, may I recommend that you and anybody else who feel that my presence is so awful take it up privately with the staff, instead of disrupting threads with angry denouncements and conspiracies? This isn't a thread about members you don't like or a counseling session.

 

@Tenderiser no apology necessary (but much appreciated and certainly accepted)! I didn't take it as a personal jibe, more as a general observance sparked by the way I came across in this thread. It certainly helped me to take a step back and realize how poorly I was communicating my intent. My Asperger's is a reason, but shouldn't become an excuse, if you take my meaning.

Definitely enjoying the forum and plan on sticking around!

 

@Fallow - That was out of line. Regardless of anything else, she was making an apology.

Edit: And she wasn't speaking to you.

 

No, she was speaking ABOUT me, in public, in a thread I am also participating in, continuing a pattern of behavior. But I'm sure you would be "out of line" if I made repeated passive aggressive disparaging remarks about you, as long as I addressed them as an apology to a third party:

"Sorry I was rude to you, but things have been stressful lately for me since someone on the forum told me "Go fuck yourself.""

 

I think she may have been referring to some recently banned members, that's how I took it. I just thought it was rude to slam her when she was making an apology.

 

I think she has been directly rude to me in this same vein several times recently, so I have a different view. So you might consider that you might not have had all the facts when you decided to chide me. Apologies don't usually include putting the blame for your behavior on other people.

 

I'm well aware of the way certain members can come off around here. The fact that she didn't engage @Bone2pick after his comment makes me feel that her apology was genuine.

Edit: That wasn't a slam at you @Bone2pick, just saying that it could have gone either way and an apology came out of it.

 

Oh, the irony.

 

I think fiction can be a reflection - how much is hard to say. Most of what I write is a pudding of past experiences/present experiences/ and future hopes. Sometimes I wonder if people don't really understand the construction that goes into fiction and so they can not see how manufactured it actually is. You as the writer have ultimate control but you have to place things in the right area and move your characters like a chess game. It's such a balance of conflict/reaction that although it appears real it's all a game played by one person.
And therefore characters have to be constructed to help out the plots/conflicts/themes. I think all friends and family see are bits and pieces. It's like abstract art. They're trying to find a pattern they can respond to.

 

It isn't what I recognize in myself but recognize in previous posts from Tenderiser to me. I don't have to be in the wrong to have someone's accusations sound familiar.

My "behavior" that was objected to was taking a particular position about a factual matter and discussing aspects of it as new information as they came up, to which I was derided by several senior members - primarily for taking a contrary view of something they believe was a settled manner. I thought we were talking about stuff, but suddenly the conversation was about people's character - which I would find confusing if it wasn't such common forum behavior. Or if other members weren't posting about black kettles.

I have asked Tenderiser and other members that keep disrupting threads to air their ire to stop disrupting threads this way, but it hasn't worked. @Tenderiser - you have made your disrespect known to me - you can give it a rest. Unless it remains important to you to convert more people to your POV.

 

The original back and forth crap might have made you defensive, however if she's apologizing then I don't see any reason to continue an attack. If you felt she was referring to you then I don't know what to say, I didn't take it that way.