> Steve, maybe you don't really need the mediations, the 'lies,' of art
> because you have the ability, or will, to tell your story in flat prose.
This is completely inaccurate, Mark. I read,. write, and care about both
"fiction" and "non-fiction," Nor do I think either exists by itself in any
human utterance, certainly not the things I write think or believe. If you
go back to the origin of fiction vs non-fiction part of the conversation
thread and read carefully you'll find that what I've said (as opposed to
what I've been interpreted as saying) is that the need to classify something
AS fiction is evidence of the need to promote that distinction. Why bother
classifying if you fully accept the relative nature of any human action or
impression? Except that the LACK of distinction has made the classifier
nervous.
In fact, I think the nervousness about what might be called personal
historic expression comes not from whether it is "fiction" or "non-fiction"
(of which it neither, exclusively) but a fear of the irrational emotional
expression, particularly of love, happiness, sorrow, and anger, which tend
to be intimately connected with a person's understanding of their own life.
And having others identify them with it. And shame them for it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sun Nov 18 2001 - 12:13:00 PST