Feeding My Ignorance

Has there ever been a work of fiction that didn't - in some way - draw on reality?  This is, of course, sort of the reverse of my previous thoughts on whether our memory of reality is accurate or intermingled with its own fictions.  In some cases the "fictional" world is created within a reasonably accurate representation of a specific environment.  In others a "new world" is imagined in which the characters interact - often in a very similar way to what we are used to.

...

Again we are traversing the line between real and imaginary, its just that this time we are focussing on scenarios created specifically for fictional happenings.  The ever so slightly bizarre thing about this is that our views of past "realities" are so often based on fictional representations.  The world of the victorian era is - for many people - typified by the novels of Charles Dickens.  (this was further 'confused' by the recent BBC creation of a work of fiction featuring Dickens' fictional characters)

Others have painted similar descriptions - Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky and others inform us of life in Russia - Mark Twain showed us one side of America - Jack Kerouac another - John Le Carre conjured up the atmosphere of the cold war-  all of these authors (and many, many more) wrote about THEIR times and places and it has become the common view of people in later days - to all intents and purposes these are the 'authoritative' histories.  No doubt in years to come the same will be said of (some) contemporary writers and people looking back will think that these are accurate 'paintings' of the early 21st Century.  We can only hope that those that do gain such longevity are those which most accurately represent reality.

There is another genre to be considered - those authors who set their novels not in their 'current' world - but in some past instantiation - ancient Rome - the Crusades - an Abbey in 13th Century Shrewsbury - the Napoleonic wars - again there are plenty of examples.  These, of course, add an extra layer of confuscation.  To what extent are the "creations" accurate - and to what extent are these 'accurate' representations then 'stretched' by the fiction woven round them.

The trigger for this was a couple of contrasting views of "reality" in the two tv programs that I watched last night.  In one case there was a huge effort by the creator(s) to ensure that things were as "real" as possible.  In the other, the world was (in one sense) idealised - it purported to be a current reality, but the storyline kept "the outside world" very much away from any opportunity to interfere with the action.

It is the former that I want to dissect a little more, not with respect to the actual story, more with respect to the way 'reality' still needs to be skewed a bit.

The drama focussed on the differing effects that a single event has on those who are "touched" by the event.  The "important" thing - and what drew me into the drama - was that it avoided the 'obvious' (and often wrong) immediate effects and started to show the wider effects - the "unintended consequences" if you like.

The 'most' interesting thing about the whole concept was that something that was a "happy" event by any independent and objective measure actually turns out to be "complicated" for all involved - no one escapes without some sort of suffering as a result of the event.  There may be a "happy ever after" but it comes at a cost to everyone who is involved.  This makes everything a bit more "real" - or at least it all feels a bit more real - as there are rarely situations that are really all "sweetness and light".

A similar "mixed feelings" was present in another drama over the weekend - although that was addressing things from the complete opposite angle - no way could things be described as happy - for anyone - but in that case you realised that it wasn't simply a case of people doing "bad things" - very often they had good reasons and were acting out of a desire to do the "best" thing.  Unfortunately, in these scenarios they had not thought about "the bigger picture" - so often that is the problem when someone is "out for revenge" - its not as simple as payback!!

Both of these programmes proved extremely good at pulling out the effects on those who, at first glance, might be seen to be peripheral to the main action.  Although coming from opposite directions, both actually had a rather pessimistic premise that in many situations there are more people harmed than are benefitted.

Going back to last night's tv - whilst for most of the characters there is, to a degree, a stereotypical response (or at least a stereotypical portrayal) there is one (at least) who finds a real conflict between his personal and his professional reactions.  It will be interesting to see just how this ambivalence is resolved.  It is relatively rare for this particular dichotomy to be investigated on TV.

It is something that we often find in "real life" though where we "want" to act in a particular way but circumstances dictate that we "must" act in a different way.  This can be for any number of reasons - not just the personal/professional dilemma addressed in the series.  What is always true is that it highlights the "there is no right answer" situations that we so often face.  Sometimes we think that it is the exception - that usually there is a "right" answer.  The reality is that no matter how "right" an answer is for ourselves - there is almost certainly some people for whom it is not very right at all.

This touches upon the "no wrong decision" discussion that I have previously had - no one EVER makes a wrong decision (when measured at the point of making that decision) - it is only in retrospect that we can see where there is a "better" decision.  Knowing that does not remove our responsibility for a decision, but it should heighten our awareness that there WILL be people affected in a negative way regardless of how good our decision is.  Will that make us think more about the "unintended consequences"?  Probably not in many cases, but an awareness of the fact that there will be downsides as well as upsides in every action should at least make us more "responsible".