The Purpose of Fiction

When creating a blog, it is necessary to choose a name, something that will theoretically sum up the basic idea of the general content of the posts the blogger intends to make. When I started up this blog a month ago (speaking of which, YAY! Monthiversary blogpost!), "Everything Unreal" was the second name idea I came up with (the first being something along the lines of "Faerie Stories").

Why?

Well, because I love fiction. I love stories that aren't true and unrealistic or adapted editions of stories that are true. I planned on basing all my posts on fictional stories that I'd read or watched or written. And the reason I ultimately chose "Everything Unreal" over "Faerie Stories" is that I enjoy different types of fiction, from Sci-Fi to Historical to Mystery, not just fairy tales.

At least, that's what I thought when I started blogging.

Lately, I've been thinking a lot about the purpose of fiction, the reason that people write books and make movies, their motivation in telling the stories they tell in the way that they tell them. In fact, if you scroll down you'll see my last post, a piece about landscaping in which I pretend to be polite as I express my annoyance with a few modern taletellers. These thoughts about fiction's function in our society have been provoked and intensified by several different recent experiences, which I suppose I might as well outline below.

First of all, in my landscaping post I mentioned watching a silly movie and reading two of the works of Orson Scott Card. I feel like I don't really need to dwell on the movie anymore, except to drive home the point that I think all such films starring non-actors portraying non-characters and essentially lacking plot are inexpressibly annoying and have no purpose whatsoever, but I will write more about OSC. Yesterday the class for which I was reading Ender's Shadow met to discuss the book. It was a lengthy discussion covering many points, but one brief exchange particularly applies to this post. The teacher asked us students what we thought Orson Scott Card's feeling about Battle School is. Does he view his creation, the main setting of the book, as a positive institution or a negative one? We seemed to come to the consensus that he considered it to be a bad thing, at which time one of my classmates asked quietly, "Then why did he write the book?"

See, that's what I've been wondering since I started Ender's Game.

Later yesterday, my mother and I got into a brief conversation about R-rated movies. If I remember correctly, the conversation was brought on by my mention of an upcoming movie called 12 Years A Slave, which is apparently based on a true story about a free Northern black man who was kidnapped by Southerners in the early 1800s and forced to work as a slave for the next twelve years. I brought it up because I think it looks goodish and therefore have a vague interest in seeing it, but will be unable to because it's rated R.

Now, in the case of this film, the R rating is probably caused by excessive amounts of violence toward slaves, and quite possibly by scenes of a sexual nature as well (as in, um, rape-y sexual; some of those slave owners had some pretty severe issues). But seeing the rating on a trailer for it got me thinking about other movies, movies rated R thanks to frequent, completely unnecessary uses of questionable language or overly gory violence or sickeningly clothesless immorality; the very same movies that constantly seem to be winning Academy Awards and high IMDb ratings and critical acclaim. My mom said that frequently the winner of a Best Picture Oscar will win, not because it was really the best movie made that year, but because it was shocking or weird. So, is the purpose of fiction to shock and confuse us?

But the primary inspiration for my recent ponderings on fiction's calling is another book I've been reading, also for a school assignment. It is called 'Salem's Lot, penned by Stephen King. I finished it earlier today, and my relief in doing so was great.

The basic plot of the story is this: there's a small town in Maine called Jerusalem's Lot where almost every citizen is corrupted and nasty. They're all drunk, having affairs, killing small animals to relieve stress, spying on people through binoculars, abusing children, or just being unspeakably nasty because they can. One fine day, two creepy guys move into the creepy haunted house overlooking the town, and then people start dying. And then the bodies start disappearing. And in the end, it turns out that one of the creepy guys is a centuries-old vampire who has started turning the townsfolk. Then, by the end (spoiler alert) all the unpleasant people in town are rampaging vampires and the very few bearable people in town are dead. The only two survivors are the two characters obviously based on Stephen King (no, seriously; I'm surprised they weren't named Stephen and King).

So now I'm asking myself: what was the point? Was it supposed to be thoroughly entertaining? Well, I wasn't entertained. Were the readers supposed to be scared? Was it meant to jumpstart debates about..... stuff? Is it intended to teach some moral lesson like "Don't be as revolting as these people because otherwise the vamps will get you"? Was Stephen King trying to explain to the world that in the case of a vampire attack he would be the sole survivor?

Whatever the case, I don't even want to think about what Stephen King's landscaping contributions would look like.

I guess it's rather silly to question why fiction is created. Obviously, the creator always feels they have a story the world needs to hear. Even those who create things just for the money wouldn't create something they didn't think they should create (well, I'm only assuming that, but I prefer to think the best of people whenever possible).

I think the real question is not why people create fiction, but why people experience fiction. Why do people read Orson Scott Card and Stephen King and watch movies without plots or movies full of gratuitous everything? Who creates the demand? I know why I read and watch fiction; I seek to be entertained. I watch things and read things because I think I will feel happier and more fulfilled when I'm through with them. But I often feel like I'm in the minority on that point. It seems like a great many people choose what fiction they will familiarize themselves with and then come back to again and again and re-experience based on a desire to be scared or shocked or flummoxed or flabbergasted and yes, technically I'm just listing a bunch of synonyms but I wanted to showcase my impressive vocabulary.

I still love fiction. There are gobs of books and movies and TV shows and characters whose very names cause me to squeal and giggle childishly. Because for me, the purpose of fiction is to cause squeals and giggles of delight and to improve the mood and revitalize existence. To misquote Jane Austen, let other eyes dwell on guilt and misery, if that is what they desire. I'll be over here with my fairy tale books and superhero movies. Bye now.

~Pearl Clayton

PS. If this post was kind of garbled and silly, please don't hesitate to let me know in the comments. I was a bit out of it and rather emotionally compromised for most of its composition.