I love stories. My favorite storyteller was Ray Bradbury. He knew how to spin a yarn that was both engaging and profound. But there was always that element of implausibility that existed in his stories. As much as I wanted to believe they were true, I knew they were make-believe.
Even his hilarious novel Green Shadows, White Whale screams of storytelling as embellishment of what Bradbury experienced while holed up in Ireland, writing the script for John Huston’s Moby Dick. While I love the prose in this book, Bradbury seems to stretch the truth to extremes with some crafty but challenging stereotypes.
Bradbury viewed his writings as metaphors, be they imaginary or based in reality. When I had a chance to interview him many years ago, we talked about how real life provides the basis for powerful metaphors. He talked about how his muse would shake him awake at night and he would sit down in front of his manual typewriter to craft stories based on his youth in rural Illinois or fanciful visions of long-dead Martians haunting Earth’s explorers.
Much of what he wrote was based on what he experienced or what was happening in the world around him. I never questioned the veracity of his stories because he never presented them as fact. They were intended to be enjoyed and, in instances like Fahrenheit 451, were meant to rattle our consciousness to the threat of censorship and authoritarianism. That’s why I also loved reading Zamyatin, Orwell and Huxley.
And that is what prompted me to pen this missive. My muse has been slumbering the last few months, probably frustrated that it has taken me so long to take up the pen again. Well, the computer, in this instance, will serve as my implement for storytelling.
Anyway, I have been bothered by a recent story a friend posted on his Facebook page about Mandela and Professor Peters. The crux of the story is how Professor Peters, presented as a bigoted white educator, insults and demeans Mandela, who always finds a peaceful way to upstage his antagonist. On the surface, it’s a metaphor for how to confront those whose views and actions are intended to oppress a people or a race.
The problem is the story loses some of its power when you hear that Ghandi experienced exactly the same thing when he was in college. And, lo and behold, his antagonist was Professor Peters.
Mandela and Ghandi faced the same hostility and responded in identical manners to the seething professor. I had to read each account twice to make sure I wasn’t dreaming. I wasn’t. The people who shared these stories did so with the conviction that they actually occurred.
And that brings me to the conundrum I face. I love a good story. But where do we draw the line with stories as metaphors and stories that are fact based? Is it right to take real people and adjust their narrative to suit our purposes if the result honors their intents and legacy?
Whether it’s Mandela or Ghandi, I want to believe they each encountered a Professor Peters in their lives and responded in a peaceful, nonviolent way. It sets an example for how we can model our behaviors. And for that reason, the stories - though identical and likely implausible - serve a higher purpose.
I’m sure Bradbury would appreciate the stages of the story and the elegant responses of the protagonists towards their aggressors.
The issue I have is how casually we share stories without indicating they are fact or metaphor. I think it speaks to a broader problem we have faced for years where people selectively choose the facts to share because they reinforce their beliefs.
There is a laziness in how we ingest the news and stories. We read or watch a news story and, because it came from an official source we prefer, ascribe credibility to it without question. We don’t challenge the source, question their motivations or dig deeper to uncover more facts. We accept it as gospel.
This bothers me because I grew up learning how to differentiate between fact and fiction or fact-based fiction. My training as a journalist instilled in me a desire to find the truth but also know the truth was both elusive and changing. It was not my job to create a narrative that fit my beliefs or values but share the facts and details with the reader and allow them to come to their own conclusions. And, when necessary, update the story with new facts or details.
At the same time, I was gobbling up countless science fiction books and short stories, many of which served as metaphors for the good and bad of humanity. I could separate them from reality but also know they had the power to influence my way of thinking about the world around me.
You probably see the parallels between both forms of storytelling. Both have the power to influence people and change the world around us in good or bad ways.
One, the fictionalized story, is often written with the intent to instill change or, at least, get people to understand what is happening around them. Such stories often are framed in ways to circumvent censors and authoritarian leaders who seek to suppress facts and reality. That’s why stories like We, 1984 and Brave New World addressed imminent threats facing people a century ago.
The other, the news story, is intended to provide the facts and reality for the reader and viewer to absorb and learn. In its purest form, the news is presented in a manner that is nonjudgmental and void of opinion.
I will be criticized for taking a more idealized view on this topic. Some people will argue - and rightfully so - that even purely fact-based stories can be taken out of context.
I counter that we need to readjust our mindsets to be more skeptical of what we read, hear or see. We need to challenge our news sources to share more facts, more detail and more context so we can better understand what is happening around us.
At the same time, we need to do a better job of differentiating the news from metaphorical stories that support our belief system. These two should remain separate. Both are essential in our lives but they should never be mistaken for one another.
Comments