The contest of that statement was when he was describing various text such as The War of the Worlds or The Blair Witch Project which are fictional stories but begins as if they were nonfictional events.
A nonfiction form lets you tell a really incredible story.
Anyway, I love the quote not just because of the context where it was used but because what that single phrase entails. The relationship between fiction and nonfiction is quite closer than most people think and honestly, I see no difference between fiction and nonfiction. Every fictional tale has, at its heart, a fundamental truth that can't be denied. And every nonfiction story is surrounded by bias, misinformation, or even a clear lie. Do you really believe that what you read in the newspapers or see on the news is all true?
I think critical thinking is needed, whether you're reading a work of fiction or nonfiction. Don't take necessarily everything at face value. When the president says this is the reason why he or she does something, that's not necessarily the entire reason they're doing it. What's the character's motivation? Is this the climax, or merely the beginning? What is the source of conflict?
Strangely enough, if there's anyone who taught me to doubt history, it's my college history teacher Ambeth Ocampo. History isn't any more factual than other stories--it just sounds more legitimate. I think the greatest advantage history has is time--the people of that era would know that a particular story is merely propaganda but future generations who read about that particular event won't know all the details and take the story at face value. Why does the Battle of Mactan have shrines to two heroes, one the invader, the other the native?
1 comment:
hehe we really got to sit down and chat, you me and [identity-protected]. :-D
Post a Comment