When I was a child, I found the idea that storytelling was called "fiction" and the relating of facts was called "nonfiction" to be very, very odd. The default mode of communication, this seemed to indicate, was non-fact. That seemed awfully backward to me. The idea that reality was viewed as non-something was mind-boggling. At the time, I figured there must be some reason that I didn't get it. Over time, I have come to see that it wasn't me that didn't get it. It is the general state of humanity that is confused about priorities.
Here's another backwards set of words: theist versus atheist. People who believe in invisible magical beings who supposedly violated known laws of physics in the past (but are somehow conveniently unwilling to do so now) are considered the norm. But people whose view of the world is based on the things that we can see and prove are considered so horrible that there are even states where they are not allowed to serve in public office. Convicted criminals are okay, but people who base their worldview on reality are not. How backwards is that?
As someone who has researched and written about historical subjects, and been involved in their preservation, I have become all-too-aware of the lack of respect for fact -- that is, reality -- among the general readership and even among the authors of historical works. Standards for factuality in my own area of study -- lighthouses -- are hideous. The reason that I try not to make public comments about other lighthouse authors is because it is very difficult to find nice things to say (Tom Taylor was one of the exceptions, and he was taken from us before he gained widespread readership). This lack of concern for fact -- or even a preference for fiction -- is, unfortunately, even present in the volunteers who regularly interact with the public at historic sites. What tour guides quickly learn is that fantastic stories "sell" better than most real history. While this is certainly a criticism of docents who do not stick to established facts, it is more a comment on the cultural information market that leads them astray.
If we combine the subjects of the previous two paragraphs, I hope you'll see why I consider religious historians to be inherently untrustworthy. What can call one's judgment regarding historical fact more into question than believing mythology collections to be historical tomes?
In the field of writing, those who produce fiction tend to be more highly esteemed, and marketable, than those who discern, assemble and relate facts and truth. I first gained some level of notoriety for my writing skills when I wrote some fictional works as a child. I won a couple of awards in school and attracted some attention from schoolmates with these writings. To gain notoriety as a nonfiction writer, even at a regional level, took many years of study, discipline, and practice. Yet many people -- especially fiction writers -- do not even consider writers of non-fiction to be "real writers." How's that for irony?
Do we even need to go into movies or television? In both media, documentaries are the stepchildren of the industry.
Who do we idolize in culture (pun intended, by the way)? People who sing made-up stories and professional fakes (we call them "actors") who act out stuff that not only never happened, but often is physically incapable of happening.
Awards shows? Look at the ratings of the Oscars, for example, versus the Nobel Prize broadcasts? What's that? You've never seen the Nobel Prize ceremonies on television? Thank you.
How about looking at amusement parks versus museums? Museums are rarely commercially viable, while amusement parks are often cash cows.
It's great to be optimistic. Even being pessimistic is okay. But go ahead and try being realistic and see where that lands you in society (see the third paragraph in this post).
I do wonder if we are starting to realize (pardon the pun) this problem at some level. We now have "reality" TV shows, which may allow us to pretend that reality is important, while still allowing us to avoid reality. Heck, if you're watched a reality TV show or two in one week, you're entitled to some good old-fashioned entertainment, right? In the real world, of course, MTV producing a show called "The Real World" is about as oxymoronic as you can get.
Americans, and humans overall, are better natural storytellers than historians. But I would argue that "are" and "should" are vastly different conditions.
All of this, at this point in my life, causes me great concern. I suspect that as long as American Idol gets better ratings than Nova, more Americans can name Oscar winners than Nobel winners, and Disney World gets more visitors than the National Archives, the US will continue to slide away from its former leadership position in the world. After all, how can (and should!) we expect people to look up to a society that values fantasy above reality?
XXX
No comments:
Post a Comment