What makes a writing "Fiction" versus "History"?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: What makes a writing "Fiction" versus "History"?

Post by neilgodfrey »

austendw wrote: The trouble with this, Neil, is that this isn't necessarily an appeal to "historicity", it's an appeal to "scholarship." For example, in his Life of Theseus, Plutarch uses all of these rhetorical tropes, which "appeal to having obtained the narrative itself from some source", but as Plutarch acknowledges that the stories are probably fabulous, he is not appealing to the "reality" of what is being said.
You have given the answer to the problem you raise. That's the "beauty" of the historical style -- the sources are stated and assessed for their reliability or otherwise. That's exactly what a reader of history appreciates. Plutarch has succeeded as an ancient historian by distinguishing between "fact and fiction". He can tell readers there is much "fiction" in his source material that he is passing on. Thus an agreement between author and audience is set up such that the author can make some assessment of the value of the historian and his work.

austendw wrote:This isn't "an appeal to accepting the "reality" of what is being written"; it is an appeal to accepting the breadth and/or depth of Plutarch's scholarly research, and the scrupulousness with which he lays out the different versions, the differing narratives, he puts before us. Whether the reader takes them as historical or legendary or a fuzzy mixture of both, is determined by the reader's own sensibility/credulity; it is certainly not determined by Plutarch's explicit discussion of his sources.
Exactly. And that's what makes historical writing different from, say, a fairy tale or one of the "erotic novellas" popular 1st century bce to 3rd century ce.

Notice, too, that the author opens the invitation for readers to exercise their judgment and to engage in some form of vicarious dialogue with him. He does this by informing his readers of the very things you attribute to "scholarship". That's what history writing is about.

All writing implies some form of agreement between author and audience. It can never all depend on the author alone.

The point is that historical writing enables the dialogue with readers, the engagement of the reader with the ideas, the narrative, in the context of learning something of the author's interest and how he came by his material.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: What makes a writing "Fiction" versus "History"?

Post by neilgodfrey »

Historian.jpg
Historian.jpg (30.22 KiB) Viewed 4539 times
Explanation:

The historian begins with his biases and interests and through those he interprets various sources with a view to forming an idea of "what happened" in his own mind. He orders these events and happenings into a narrative of his own devising. It will probably differ in details from previous narratives by other historians.

The historian generally makes his identity explicit to the reader along with stating reasons his readers can have some confidence in him as a "historian". (Occasionally the author may not state his name in the text but he nonetheless addresses readers directly with a personal "I", and his background and qualifications become clear as we read. In these cases the identity of the author is otherwise known and his work appears in various collections under his name.)

The historian will also indicate the reliability of his narrative by alerting readers to the fact that it is derived from certain sources and he will sometimes indicate why he thinks some sources or narratives they tell are more reliable than others.

Through these techniques the historian sets up an agreement with the reader that allows the reader to make his own judgements and arrive at his own understanding of the history. Naturally historians will generally make their own biases known and they will give their reasons why a reader should agree with them. Such an argument in itself is a form of dialogue or agreement between author and audience that allows the audience a means of critical distance.

Contrast works that combine historical with nonhistorical narrative:
Fiction.jpg
Fiction.jpg (36.32 KiB) Viewed 4539 times
The "historical fiction" author (I mean author of any writing not ostensibly presented as "history") has different interests and biases and uses historical sources along with other "nonhistorical sources" to create a new narrative according to his or her interests. These interests are not the same as those of the historian.

The author then derives information and interpretations from all the sources which he weaves into a narrative to suit his interests and, he hopes, those of his audience. He does not explain to the reader that "this bit" comes from his imagination, "this other bit" comes from something he once read.... The audience as a rule has no way, from the text alone, of teasing apart what's "historical" and what's not.

Normally it becomes impossible for the audience to distinguish between what is historical and what is not. The work does not serve the function of history and as a rule history cannot be reconstructed from it. The author normally gives the audience no handle for doing so. (Very often the author plays the role of another imaginative character in the story, or alongside the story. Sometimes the author removes any personal narrator presence entirely and leaves the audience with the final story alone.)

The only way the audience can know what is derived from or reflective of history in such a work is if they already know their history from some other source. Return to the first diagram.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: What makes a writing "Fiction" versus "History"?

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

First, I liked austendw's formulation of the "historian's" reward better than any of my own. Yes, there is a kind of history writing which earns for its author recognition on account of their work in doing scholarly research, whether that effort uncovers truths or only well-worn falsehoods.

Thank you.

Neil

Loved the pix. They restate your position efficiently. Bravo.

In modern times, a scholar's source-claims might be checked, and the mere possibility of checking is some precaution against fibbing. Even nowadays, however, the more prominently articulated motive for insistence on sources isn't primarily to prevent fraud (there are other mechanisms for that), but to foster reproducibility of the search and to reduce the cost of readers' reuse of the author's literature search results. In first reports of research results, sources also aid in the evaluation of the novelty and importance of the report.

Pliny's "disclosure" serves none of these purposes. The letter isn't a first report. "I heard" is nearly the opposite of "What follows is reliable information." "I heard" is the very opposite of "I performed extensive research." "I heard" is irreproducible, and if we do reuse the information given, then all we've got is "Pliny says," which we'd have with or without the I heard's.

And yet, supposedly if somebody re-edits Mark so that all his and immediately's are recast as I heard's instead, then we would have a Godfrey-standard-compliant work of history.

That dog won't hunt, Neil.
The "historical fiction" author (I mean author of any writing not ostensibly presented as "history")
Then what you mean includes non-fiction which doesn't consume its readers' time with unverifiable, self-serving or vacuous claims about its composer. Calling that a variety of fiction can only be confusing, since it is non-fiction by hypothesis. I'd counterpropose the term "third-person journalistic commentary." Earlier in this discussion, I gave the modern example of the performance piece 8.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: What makes a writing "Fiction" versus "History"?

Post by andrewcriddle »

neilgodfrey wrote:
austendw wrote: The trouble with this, Neil, is that this isn't necessarily an appeal to "historicity", it's an appeal to "scholarship." For example, in his Life of Theseus, Plutarch uses all of these rhetorical tropes, which "appeal to having obtained the narrative itself from some source", but as Plutarch acknowledges that the stories are probably fabulous, he is not appealing to the "reality" of what is being said.
You have given the answer to the problem you raise. That's the "beauty" of the historical style -- the sources are stated and assessed for their reliability or otherwise. That's exactly what a reader of history appreciates. Plutarch has succeeded as an ancient historian by distinguishing between "fact and fiction". He can tell readers there is much "fiction" in his source material that he is passing on. Thus an agreement between author and audience is set up such that the author can make some assessment of the value of the historian and his work.
If you are suggesting that a reader in the ancient world would have regarded a narrative without the parade of scholarship which we find in Plutarch as being fictional in our sense then I think you have to justify this. It is not IMO prima-facie plausible. (There is a real problem about whether a reader in the ancient world had a clear concept of prose fiction as distinct from truth error parables or lies.)
neilgodfrey wrote:
austendw wrote:This isn't "an appeal to accepting the "reality" of what is being written"; it is an appeal to accepting the breadth and/or depth of Plutarch's scholarly research, and the scrupulousness with which he lays out the different versions, the differing narratives, he puts before us. Whether the reader takes them as historical or legendary or a fuzzy mixture of both, is determined by the reader's own sensibility/credulity; it is certainly not determined by Plutarch's explicit discussion of his sources.
Exactly. And that's what makes historical writing different from, say, a fairy tale or one of the "erotic novellas" popular 1st century bce to 3rd century ce.

Notice, too, that the author opens the invitation for readers to exercise their judgment and to engage in some form of vicarious dialogue with him. He does this by informing his readers of the very things you attribute to "scholarship". That's what history writing is about.

All writing implies some form of agreement between author and audience. It can never all depend on the author alone.

The point is that historical writing enables the dialogue with readers, the engagement of the reader with the ideas, the narrative, in the context of learning something of the author's interest and how he came by his material.
If you mean by "erotic novellas" works like Callirhoe and regard such works as earlier than say Mark then I am dubious.

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: What makes a writing "Fiction" versus "History"?

Post by neilgodfrey »

Paul the Uncertain wrote:
In modern times, a scholar's source-claims might be checked, and the mere possibility of checking is some precaution against fibbing. Even nowadays, however, the more prominently articulated motive for insistence on sources isn't primarily to prevent fraud (there are other mechanisms for that), but to foster reproducibility of the search and to reduce the cost of readers' reuse of the author's literature search results. In first reports of research results, sources also aid in the evaluation of the novelty and importance of the report.
The primary reason for pointing to sources that is common to both ancient and modern historians is to establish credibility or authority for the account. Ancient historians generally wanted to impress readers with the understanding that their work was going to offer something "more true" or "better" in some way than that of their predecessors. (Why else write a new work?)

Pointing to third party sources is part of their agreement with readers to establish that they are indeed writing according "to the evidence/records" -- or writing "genuine history".

That includes, if it so interests the author, making clear what is fiction or myth in the record. Or pointing out what is in doubt as to the evidence extant.

That's what ancient (and modern) historians do that is distinct from, say, an author of historical fiction.
Paul the Uncertain wrote:Pliny's "disclosure" serves none of these purposes. The letter isn't a first report. "I heard" is nearly the opposite of "What follows is reliable information." "I heard" is the very opposite of "I performed extensive research." "I heard" is irreproducible, and if we do reuse the information given, then all we've got is "Pliny says," which we'd have with or without the I heard's.
Pliny is telling his reader why he believes in ghosts. He accordingly cites stories he has heard to add credibility or justification to his argument. This is a more conversational way of doing just what historians do more formally.
Paul the Uncertain wrote:And yet, supposedly if somebody re-edits Mark so that all his and immediately's are recast as I heard's instead, then we would have a Godfrey-standard-compliant work of history.
Recall that I said the techniques of historicity are also used in fiction when the fiction strives for verisimilitude. I have attempted to point to more than just one detail being necessary to establish a function of a work.

My diagram points to more than just "I heard" references to sources. Notice the very different roles of the authors and authorial uses of narrator.

The Gospel of Mark would not be any closer to history if the "immediately"s were replaced with "I heard"s.

Did the author hear from the Muses (as Greek authors said they did) or did he hear from God or an angel? Or did he hear from gossip? Where is the author and where is this gossip heard? Who is this "I" in "I heard"? --_ That last question is critical.

These are the sorts of details we gather by the many sometimes obvious sometimes subtle use of techniques as we read a text.

Paul the Uncertain wrote:
The "historical fiction" author (I mean author of any writing not ostensibly presented as "history")
Then what you mean includes non-fiction which doesn't consume its readers' time with unverifiable, self-serving or vacuous claims about its composer. Calling that a variety of fiction can only be confusing, since it is non-fiction by hypothesis. I'd counterpropose the term "third-person journalistic commentary." Earlier in this discussion, I gave the modern example of the performance piece 8.
There are reasons authors write what they write and don't write. The function served by a historian's identity I have already explained. The function served by the absence of an author's or even narrator's identity in work is also well understood. Both create different types of authority.

The omniscient tale that comes to us without the mediatian of a personal narrator, as much of the biblical writings do, has an authoritative tone that in context sounds ultimately heavenly/"biblical".

(I recall you referring to Mark as a "performance piece". If that's what you are referring to here then surely that suggests even more strongly that it does not function primarily as a work of history.)
Last edited by neilgodfrey on Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: What makes a writing "Fiction" versus "History"?

Post by neilgodfrey »

andrewcriddle wrote:If you are suggesting that a reader in the ancient world would have regarded a narrative without the parade of scholarship which we find in Plutarch as being fictional in our sense then I think you have to justify this. It is not IMO prima-facie plausible. (There is a real problem about whether a reader in the ancient world had a clear concept of prose fiction as distinct from truth error parables or lies.)
Start with Herodotus. It is evident from his text what he expects his readers to understand and criticise.

Next move to Thucydides, it is evident from his text .... and so on.
andrewcriddle wrote:If you mean by "erotic novellas" works like Callirhoe and regard such works as earlier than say Mark then I am dubious.
We don't know when Chariton wrote exactly: anytime is possible between 50 ce and 200 ce.

I could make the same point about other works we might loosely bracket as "historical fiction" from the Hellenistic era. Mark did not imitate the erotic novellas if that's what you are thinking I suggested.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: What makes a writing "Fiction" versus "History"?

Post by neilgodfrey »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Then what you mean includes non-fiction which doesn't consume its readers' time with unverifiable, self-serving or vacuous claims about its composer.
There is a circularity here, I believe. If we assume that an author does not make his identity explicit because it would turn readers' interest away from the work we are assuming motives, interests and reasons on both the part of the author and the audience that are in fact the point of the discussion.

Is a work history or not history? That is a question of motive and reason for a text being written (and read).

When we opine that the author learned his story from a character named in the story, or that he wants his readers to hear the historical story without being distracted by its assurances of its authenticity, then are we not assuming what we really should be setting out to prove -- that the text is indeed written as history or not?
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: What makes a writing "Fiction" versus "History"?

Post by neilgodfrey »

It is worth reading how at least one ancient author distinguished between "fiction" and "history":

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/luc/wl2/wl211.htm
They are intended to have .... any verisimilitude in the piling up of fictions. .... [T]hey parody the cock-and-bull stories of ancient poets, historians, and philosophers; I have only refrained from adding a key because I could rely upon you to recognize as you read.

Ctesias, son of Ctesiochus of Cnidus, in his work on India and its characteristics, gives details for which he had neither the evidence of his eyes nor of hearsay. Iambulus's Oceanica is full of marvels; the whole thing is a manifest fiction, but at the same time pleasant reading. Many other writers have adopted the same plan, professing to relate their own travels, and describing monstrous beasts, savages, and strange ways of life. The fount and inspiration of their humour is the Homeric Odysseus, entertaining Alcinous's court with his prisoned winds, his men one-eyed or wild or cannibal, his beasts with many heads, and his metamorphosed comrades; the Phaeacians were simple folk, and he fooled them to the top of their bent.

When I come across a writer of this sort, I do not much mind his lying; the practice is much too well established for that, even with professed philosophers; I am only surprised at his expecting to escape detection.
When recognizes that a work has been sourced from an emulation or rewriting of Homer et al he is assured (in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary) that he is reading fiction.

What would he think of the gospels, especially given all the studies demonstrating that they are essentially "rewritten bible"?

Merely declaring personal experience is not sufficient to establish credibility as an author of "history".
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: What makes a writing "Fiction" versus "History"?

Post by neilgodfrey »

Josephus, likewise, points us to the fundamental of being able to reference sources in order to establish a work as a genuine effort at historical writing. In Against Apion he discusses reliable history and fiction posing as history:
But now as to our forefathers, that they took no less care about writing such records, (for I will not say they took greater care than the others I spoke of,) and that they committed that matter to their high priests and to their prophets, and that these records have been written all along down to our own times with the utmost accuracy
My point is that ancient authors and readers of history understood the necessity of "reliable sources" and their interpretations. If sources that were the basis of false "historical" beliefs then, as we saw above, Plutarch will make his judgement of the sources clear. That is "historical inquiry" as distinct from "fictional myth making".

The ancient historians (like modern ones) may have misinterpreted their sources or got facts wrong, but the point is that they were -- as indicated by Lucian and Josephus (and many others) -- that they were establishing an agreement with readers about the functions of their works "as history" and not something else.

I suspect all of this is clear enough in the world of the ancient classics.

It is damn biblical studies as presented by theologians often largely ignorant of the wider world of literature, including ancient literature, that has gone and confused the issue. :cry:

(and more recently some postmodernists, too ;) )
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: What makes a writing "Fiction" versus "History"?

Post by neilgodfrey »

Paul the Uncertain wrote:
Loved the pix. They restate your position efficiently. Bravo.
What I was hoping for was someone to pinpoint the spot(s) in the model that do not accurately represent the processes of writing and reading history and (historical) fiction.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Post Reply