From leahmwilkinson at aol.com  Thu May 22 08:57:43 2008
From: leahmwilkinson at aol.com (leah tijcup)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 16:57:43 +0100
Subject: [Bups-dis] Stories: Fact versus fiction
Message-ID: <8E74A176-5764-4AB5-BA27-8CBDF39B3628@aol.com>

Dear all,

What?s the difference between the way that we engage with stories  
describing real events, and stories describing fictional events?
Stories based on real events seem to generate a different  
psychological reaction.
We can know this from observing how film-makers tend to be eager to  
tell us in the opening credits that the story they?re about to tell is  
?based on true events?; even when most of the time, such films  
represent a distortion of the facts. Or from how the autobiographies  
of incurably bland celebrities usually top bestseller lists. Or from  
how countless cases of people who?ve been condemned by society for  
publishing ?real-life? accounts of their drug or alcohol addiction,  
(you know- ?Scraping the bottom of London?s barrel; one man?s battle  
with crack?) that have turned out not to be true.

It seems that people have a pressing need to separate truth from  
fiction; and that they elevate ?true stories? to a higher status. But  
there?s something puzzling thing about that.
The most obvious difference between the two seems to be that stories  
based on true events give us an assurance that the thing actually  
happened.  But the majority of fictional tales pertaining to the  
experiences had by people- when not fantastical in the sense of  
involving entities that don?t exist (giants, winged horses, whatever)-  
contain elements that probably have been experienced by someone,  
somewhere.

What does it matter if the experiences had by the protagonist of a  
film or novel can actually be matched up to the experiences of  
specific individuals? Why should this make such a significant  
difference to how we engage with the story?

The second part of the puzzle for me pertains to whether, assuming  
that we do indeed react differently to fact and fiction, there?s a  
difference in how we psychologically process them.
Does the fact that people tend to react differently to ?fact? and  
?fiction? suggest the existence of two different corresponding types  
of belief, for example? In ?Fearing Fictions?, Walton argues that this  
is the case; he coins the term ?quasi-belief? to account for what  
happens when we watch, for example, a scary movie. We enter into a  
state of ?quasi-belief?, where we ?make-believe? that the event is  
really occurring, but simultaneously know that it?s not. We don?t fear  
fictional entities, we ?quasi-fear? them; being told a story triggers  
entrance into ?make-believe? mode.
Walton invokes the idea of quasi-belief to explain the difference in  
behaviour between someone who is afraid because they believe they?re  
being attacked by a dinosaur, and someone who is afraid because they  
see a dinosaur coming towards them on the television screen.
But I?m not sure how much philosophical work the term ?quasi-belief?  
really does in this context. It seems to me that Kendal simply states  
that there?s a difference in how we engage with real and fictional  
situations without really explaining why. (Check out the article as  
food for thought- it?s on J-stor, and only 10 pages long: Fearing  
Fictions Kendall L. Walton The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 75, No. 1  
(Jan., 1978), pp. 5-27 Published by: Journal of Philosophy, Inc.)

So, I suppose the question I want to confront is why individuals place  
such importance on distinguishing fact and fiction when it comes to  
engaging with stories. The fact that we do is, I think, interesting.  
Secondly, I want to ask what people think about, or whether people  
think there is, a mental process that distinguishes the two. Is  
Kendal?s account reasonable? Do we psychologically engage with fiction  
in a specific way; and can this be described in terms of ?believing?  
in a different way? Any ideas? Anyone?

Best wishes,
Leah