"True" fiction versus fictional fiction

certainly, it can be done!

One of the masterpieces of Early 20th century literature, Ford Maddox Ford's "The Good Soldier," is told by one of the protagonists to a listener who sits and listens in a lounge. Not only does this device work, it enriches the novel and opens questions that readers can argue over forever.

elfin_odalisque said:

Missing the point. Dallas was a ratings topper from episode 1. The producers had a cast problem and invented a variation on the old trick, 'in one jump he was free.' they rode a series without a main character then continued as normal. It wasn't scripted - just necessitated, and you don't address the OP's question.

Click to expand...

I think the ultimate topper was Days of Our Lives. Whenever a character would "die" then come back it would be discovered that either the dead person or the new person was...

A clone. yes Victor Kiriakis (I know that's wrong but its not worth googling) could create clones. It wasn't Roman, it was Roman's clone

And yes I watched Days of our lives for a few months......strange things happen when you get put on third shift, can't get used to it and get insomnia....

sr71plt said:

Not really, in commercial terms. What do you remember about the first run of Dallas? JR's shooting and the shower reveal. It's a lot more than most people remember from other programs running at the time. And lasted a long time in memory--long enough to give the new Dallas more than a "hey what?" audience. Dallas itself was a purposeful over-the-top Texas production.

Click to expand...

Of course people remember the shower reveal. And almost without fail, the memory is also accompanied by a giant or two or three. Virtually every critic and television historian points to that episode as the beginning of the end for Dallas.

I remember the "Moldavian Wedding Massacre" cliffhanger fiasco from Dynasty too. Doesn't mean it was good writing or plotting.

stlgoddessfreya said:

The essential difference between "It was all a dream!" and "I made that up!" is that a dream usually doesn't add anything to the story other than erasing what the audience thought happened - effective for revealing psychological truths when used for short portions of a larger story, empty calories when it's the majority of the story. Making it up, though, actually means there's some motivation behind the teller doing it and creates another layer to the story, like Baron Munchhausen or even, in a mix of the two concepts, Walter Mitty.

Click to expand...

Freya, I think you've nailed it. When that device is used, it works only when there was a reason for the "liar" to have done what she or he did. I myself was about to mention "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty" (the story, not the movies), in which Thurber uses the device to show Mitty's need to be living in the alternate universes he imagines, which is really what the story is all about.

There's a little bit of that device in Clint Eastwood's "Bronco Billy," because it's eventually revealed that the characters are not who they say they were, but have their own reasons for being that way. And let's not forget "The Sting" where characters and plot devices turned out to be red herrings. In both cases, the device worked because, on some level, we enjoyed being fooled.

The recent Lone Ranger movie, (as bad as it was), used the same device and had Johnny Depp (Tonto) tell their story to a young boy. It's a common plot device to use, it just needs to be used properly to make it work.

jehoram said:

Freya, I think you've nailed it. When that device is used, it works only when there was a reason for the "liar" to have done what she or he did.
<snip>
...the device worked because, on some level, we enjoyed being fooled.

Click to expand...

You beat me to it! (Agreeing with Freya, I mean.) But I see more possible types of "unreliable narrators". At one extreme, the liar. At the other, the unwitting dreamer, ho hum. In between: narrator is drugged / drunk / delirious / concussed / controlled. IOW, the 'untruthful' story may result from mental manipulation. (Cf. THE MATRIX.)

I'm thinking of (over)using the device. A few people are sitting together, telling stories of their experiences. Some tellers are truthful and accurate. Some think they're truthful, but they've been manipulated, and their stories are implanted; or they're impaired, essentially dreamers. Some know they're liars, and may have different reasons for lying. Nothing is as it appears. Don't look too close.

Carnevil9 said:

Sorry for the clunky thread title. I'm curious if anyone has thoughts (or better yet, actual experience) with the following concept:

You write a story. It doesn't have to be a Lit story, but it could be. It is written in first person, with the narrator telling a wild and imaginative tale of some extraordinary experience or other. It could be about sex, or a mystery, or sports, or the supernatural, or whatever. The story has a beginning, a middle, and an end, and you are pretty sure it is a good story.

Then, at the end of the piece, it turns out that the narrator was sitting in a bar and telling a tall tale to some listeners. It never really happened to him. He just made it all up.

Do you think real-life readers of your story would be upset at this ending twist? Would they feel cheated? Would they feel like they'd had the rug pulled out from under them?

On the one hand, nothing has changed. It's still just fiction, made up and written by you, the author, which they knew all along. The little twist at the end doesn't really change the story that they just read in the least.

On the other hand, if they were invested in believing certain capabilities about the (albeit fictional) narrator, and his sexual prowess or skills at catching bad guys or in the sporting arena, or whatever the hell the story was about, then the twist might make them feel as if they'd been duped. It's illogical, sure, but I can imagine it might happen.

So what do you think? How would readers react? Thanks for any thoughts!......Carney

Click to expand...

Carney, your last paragraph expresses myreaction to a T.
I don't think it's 'illogical,' though. We are dealing with the logic of human emotions. if I've willingly suspended my disbelief then I resent being brought up short with a donkey-punch, yanno?

There was a common gambit that 19th century writers used, where they set the narrator in a bar or wherever, and let him tell the story. Saki's Clovis, for one, and Lord Dunsany had a character named Jorkens.

Jorkens' stories sometimes ended with an "And then I woke up" type ending. One of them involved him flying over green hills, then white snow, then pink snow, where he landed. the cold on his face woke him up-- he'd passed out, face first, onto a dish of Neapolitan ice cream...

Stella_Omega said:

There was a common gambit that 19th century writers used, where they set the narrator in a bar or wherever, and let him tell the story. Saki's Clovis, for one, and Lord Dunsany had a character named Jorkens.

Click to expand...

Arthur C. Clarke used this for his short-story collection "Tales From The White Hart". I'm not sure but I think it might have been intended as a way of telling his readers "this is going to be less hard-SF than my usual stuff".

Completely off topic ...

The OP brought to mindf a bunch of cowboys sitting around in a bar listening to a character tell a story. Made me think of an old story I once heard. At the end of a thrilling yarn full of narrow escapes and lusty senoritas he winds up his story:

"There I was, stuck in this narrow box canyon, sheer walls every side except one, and in the open side there's a hundred Comanche charging right at me, out for blood on account of I cheated them in a deal."

A young cowboy on his first trail drive looks in awe at old hand and asks,

"What happened mister, what happened?"

"Why son I died, sure as I'm standing here they killed me dead."

Stella_Omega said:

....

There was a common gambit that 19th century writers used, where they set the narrator in a bar or wherever, and let him tell the story. Saki's Clovis, for ...

...

Click to expand...

I loved Saki, read a compilation of his stories in the seventies. Wasn't it Clovis in "The "Uneest-Cure"? I can't remember any other specific stories but that one sure impressed itself in my mind, at least the general idea of the plot did.

'Twas a dark & stormy night, and the Captain said to the Mate "Tell us a story. . ."
and the mate took a swig of his grog and said: "We wuz 'eadin' for trouble . . ."

BuckyDuckman said:

During the actual climax of the story, their plan fails horribly. They're met by Russian tanks and blown off the face of history. All that remains is a detailed journal that spells out a method of resistance . . . a journal that is found by an illiterate hobo who uses the pages for lighting a fire, thus finishing the job of the commies by erasing America's last hope.

...
Yes, I got the author's point, and it has clearly stuck with me through the years, but it was such an unsatisfying story, I wanted to make sure no one else accidentally wasted their time reading the damn thing.

Click to expand...

Wasn't that device used in Dances With Wolves? I'm sure I've read it since too.

What really annoys the logic part of me is if they're telling a story, then the method for delivering the story is destroyed, there would be no story.

What is the expression? 'History is written by the victors.' Because usually the losers are all dead, therefore it's a little tricky for their story to be told.

How about infinite regress? A story within a story within a story within... the original story. Loop the narrative so it refers to itself, three or so levels down. At its simplest: A guy walks into a bar and tells a story about a guy who walks into a bar... Now stretch that out with a couple other tales, and voila!

Aside: A poet walks into a b'ar.
The grizzly b'ar is not amused.

Handley_Page said:

'Twas a dark & stormy night, and the Captain said to the Mate "Tell us a story. . ."
and the mate took a swig of his grog and said: "We wuz 'eadin' for trouble . . ."

Click to expand...

just filling in so Lit won't tell me it isn't a long enough answer.

Hypoxia said:

How about infinite regress? A story within a story within a story within... the original story. Loop the narrative so it refers to itself, three or so levels down. At its simplest: A guy walks into a bar and tells a story about a guy who walks into a bar... Now stretch that out with a couple other tales, and voila!

Aside: A poet walks into a b'ar.
The grizzly b'ar is not amused.

Click to expand...

Padraic Collum, The King of Ireland's Son

Carnevil9 said:

Sorry for the clunky thread title. I'm curious if anyone has thoughts (or better yet, actual experience) with the following concept:

You write a story. It doesn't have to be a Lit story, but it could be. It is written in first person, with the narrator telling a wild and imaginative tale of some extraordinary experience or other. It could be about sex, or a mystery, or sports, or the supernatural, or whatever. The story has a beginning, a middle, and an end, and you are pretty sure it is a good story.

Then, at the end of the piece, it turns out that the narrator was sitting in a bar and telling a tall tale to some listeners. It never really happened to him. He just made it all up.

Do you think real-life readers of your story would be upset at this ending twist? Would they feel cheated? Would they feel like they'd had the rug pulled out from under them?

On the one hand, nothing has changed. It's still just fiction, made up and written by you, the author, which they knew all along. The little twist at the end doesn't really change the story that they just read in the least.

On the other hand, if they were invested in believing certain capabilities about the (albeit fictional) narrator, and his sexual prowess or skills at catching bad guys or in the sporting arena, or whatever the hell the story was about, then the twist might make them feel as if they'd been duped. It's illogical, sure, but I can imagine it might happen.

So what do you think? How would readers react? Thanks for any thoughts!......Carney

Click to expand...

I may only attest to my own personal reaction.

I have an inclination which is difficult to overcome. I have a distinct and permeating .... irritation .... towards Flashbacks and dream sequences.

Though some authors have the ability to construct engaging, even critical, flashbacks, they are few in number that can do so in a manner I find compelling.

Dream sequences have the dubious honor of irritating me with a slightly more pressing degree of aggravation.

My aggravation with Dream sequences is simple. They don't happen.

I am not referring to a contextual conversation which has been engaged in a dream (like a dream walker talking to a character in their dreams so they wake up with new information).

I am referring to: A. The nightmares and dreams which are sometimes used to try and build a character's background in a descriptive wave of metaphysical images. B. Dream adventures that teach the reader something about the character's ... personality but that don't happen. C. Dream adventures where the character does despicable acts, because the author doesn't want the character to do these acts in the waking world. Guess what? It didn't happen. The character DID NOT do those acts. Get some coffee and move on.

Though I can understand ONE dream that establishes a tragic event through nightmare, delving into more than one is filler.

There are few bits of information in dream sequences or flashbacks that cannot be better disseminated to the reader through engaging character dialogue. I find dream sequences, and most flashbacks, cheap and lazy; an easy cop out for not building a compelling character interaction scene that would draw out the relevant information.

In case of flashbacks, I have read SOME that are extremely well done and do not fit the 'cheap and lazy' mold.

Now, would I feel offended if I read a book and at the end is some individual at a pub telling a tall tale?

Yes and No.

If the individual in question really IS telling a tall tale and there is NOTHING in the reality of that 'in book storyteller' that says the story is 'true' (a flash of amber eyes, something around the mans/woman's neck with a special symbol ... something ... some innuendo) I would be severely disappointed. I would have, in essence, read ... a dream sequence.

IF the book begins WITH the individual in question at the 'bar' and I see that it is a tale, I would not be so disappointed. I know what's coming and I can set my mind to the proper frame of mind.


I cannot attest to all reactions. I merely hope my point of view has provided you with some help on the inquiry.

Montanos