Quote:
Originally Posted by issybird
No, it's the phrase, "That's the whole point of fiction." It most certainly is not. That fiction allows for personal response does not make it the point, much less the whole point, of fiction. It's a side effect.
|
I had much the same trouble with Kenny's: "That's the whole point of fiction, to allow the reader to explore, to be, to experience being someone else."
I will allow that vicarious pleasure can be one of the points of fiction. It may even be a very common point from the perspective of the reader, but it is less obvious how often this is a point from the writer's perspective (and so how often it is, or is not, a side effect).
If the writer is merely trying to portray a story as effectively as they can, it may be that any vicarious pleasure experienced by the reader is a side effect of that process. But sometimes a reader can recognise being manipulated by the writer.
(Of course this should not happen. The reader may be manipulated by the writer but they should not be aware of the fact.) So deliberate manipulation is certainly possible, and I'm quite sure it happens - probably more often than I've recognised.
Whatever. There are lots of reasons for fiction and a vicarious thrill is just one of them.
Love of language must come out somewhere pretty high on the list. The wonderful dialogue of
Pride and Prejudice, the playful twists of language in
Alice in Wonderland, the ... well, you can fill in your own.
The exploration of ideas is also pretty common, most especially, but not exclusively, in science fiction.
The statement of political ideals is not uncommon.
And the list goes on.
If there is any "whole point" of fiction, it must surely be to write something that isn't completely true. (It can be partly true. It can be a truth of sorts. But if it was completely true it wouldn't be fiction.)