So what say you?

[Chava]

Here's one to the philosophers out there....

Can Literature "tell the truth" better than other arts or areas of knowledge?

other knowledge areas being history, sciences, sociology...etc.


I think that science can only tell you a limited amount of information, it can count my toes and analyse my eye colour, as well as test my IQ, but poetry can describe my emotions, my thoughts, a short story my opinions on the world...
So literature is the glue that enables you to gather the whole picture. Rather than a singular point of view.

Keeping in mind of course the ambiguity of literature and the unreliable narrative or lyrical I.

So, what say you? Is literature truth? And what the heck is truth anyway?

[Redzeppelin]

I don't know if it can tell it "better" - but it may tell it in a way that resonates particularly well with the human heart. Stories resonate deeply with us - shared human experiences are very powerful (think about the success addicts have in support groups where people tell their "stories"). I don't know it literature is the best teller of truth, but I think it has the ability to speak widely to people in a way that perhaps the visual arts may not be able to. But any response to your question will reveal the bias of the poster.

In terms of the other areas - history and such - I think literature can tell the truth better because it is the expression of a human being trying to comprehend and express the reality of the world s/he lives in. Beneath the story is something more true than any scientific treatise or historical account. Facts speak - but the truths of the human heart - that which William Faulkner said all great literature explored - those speak loudest.

[Chava]

I suppose one could argue that Literature also has the power to speak FOR people. Can't think of any right now, but surely there are great works, written on behalf of "people" as a message to someone else?

Socio-realism particularily in plays from around the 1920's... And here's the irony, because you have to consider the author, a danish playwright, Holberg, wrote a play about the hierarchial society of 1800 denmark. upon first read it seems that he is supporting the poor and the uneducated holding the nobility in contempt, but in fact he has no desire to promote the case of the poor, he is infact a firm believer in the feudal system.
It's strange because it can mean different things to different people, and so the truth of literature, depends not only on the author, the intended audience but also of the reader in question...

This is spinning out a bit.

[Pendragon]

Well, literature is written from the viewpoint of the heart of the writer, making it more than just dry fact-- some of the emotion of the writer will come through. You will be able to feel the story, poem, play, song, etc. History is a recording of facts, and facts are often distorted into what the person writing the history thinks should had happened, or in many cases, what the historians were ordered to put down as fact by their rulers. It can be dull, dead, and dry. Literature, even badly written, is better at telling the story than a cold fact, forget human emotion text. ;)

[Chava]

The beauty of literature is the manipulation by the author, we feel sympathy, hate, empathy, remorse, only to discover that whom we supported is the villain, or that the villain is a hero.
Attempting to read a novel and visualising it from the point of view of a different character than that of the autor's intention, is very entrtaining...

[Virgil]

I don't know if it can tell it "better" - but it may tell it in a way that resonates particularly well with the human heart. Stories resonate deeply with us - shared human experiences are very powerful (think about the success addicts have in support groups where people tell their "stories"). I don't know it literature is the best teller of truth, but I think it has the ability to speak widely to people in a way that perhaps the visual arts may not be able to. But any response to your question will reveal the bias of the poster.

In terms of the other areas - history and such - I think literature can tell the truth better because it is the expression of a human being trying to comprehend and express the reality of the world s/he lives in. Beneath the story is something more true than any scientific treatise or historical account. Facts speak - but the truths of the human heart - that which William Faulkner said all great literature explored - those speak loudest.

Wow, that is a great answer. I agree whole heartedly.

[Chava]

It might be interesting to ask... what makes literature good? Why do we read it? Are we in fact stimulated into reading to discover truths?

Think about books like Cry the beloved country, or even books like clockwork orange. There is an important message from the author as with most books, Alan Paton (i think he wrote cry the beloved country...) writes about a real social circumstance, and illuminates the great tragedies of apartheid.
Antony Burgess illustrates a theoretical situation, is there less of a truth element in this?
It's difficult to distinguish.

[Pendragon]

Maybe. But then you have Twain's own Notice at the front of The Adventures of Huckelberry Finn: "NOTICE: Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot.

By Order of the Author,
Per G. G., Chief of Ordnance" :lol:

[Bii]

Are we in fact stimulated into reading to discover truths?

Perhaps this is sometimes the case but often people read to escape or for entertainment. If you look at the types of books which fall within the bestseller list there may be some books there which are communicating some form of message or 'truth' but the majority are popular because they are entertaining.

That being said, I don't think that means that even the books which are entertainment don't reveal some 'truth'. I think all books reveal something of the author, and the views held at the time that author lives. Jane Austin is a prime example of that, on the face of it her stories are basic romance novels, at their heart they are an expression of the motivation, challenges and social structure of the time.


Think about books like Cry the beloved country, or even books like clockwork orange. There is an important message from the author as with most books,

I'd entirely agree with the type of book you are referring to. Would you say the same of a Mills & Boon?!!

[*Classic*Charm*]

This topic is about my least favourite subject in the entire world: "Truth". Has there ever been a word so uncommitted? I think it's impossible to say whether or not literature tells more "truths" to the the human heart, because there is no universal "truth". "Truth" is mearly a representation of a person's deepest and most unforgiving feelings, and is therefore personal. If one cannot distinguish what is "true" to them, that is, what appeals to their most raw and unexposed core (one might say their soul) then literature can be no more enlightening than watching paint dry. For those of who who say that literature describes your emotions and opinions, my belief is that you are one of the lucky ones. You know what appeals to the most intimate and spiritual part of yourself. It is the same as those who say that art expresses what they feel, or music, or any other occupation or means of expression.

What does is exist is understanding. "Truth" is mearly a representation of the most thorough understanding humans are capable of.

That's just my take on the whole shebang.

[Redzeppelin]

This topic is about my least favourite subject in the entire world: "Truth". Has there ever been a word so uncommitted? I think it's impossible to say whether or not literature tells more "truths" to the the human heart, because there is no universal "truth". .

The danger in asserting this point is that it also means that your own statement carries no truth either - except for you. Once "truth" is relegated to a totally subjective identitiy, it loses any meaning whatsoever. It's interesting to me that people who put forth the idea of "no universal truth" seem to assume that their words are, of course, "true" beyond their own opinion. How can that be? How can any string of words be accepted as "true" if all that is required is my personal, subjective belief in their "truth"?



"Truth" is mearly a representation of a person's deepest and most unforgiving feelings, and is therefore personal. If one cannot distinguish what is "true" to them, that is, what appeals to their most raw and unexposed core (one might say their soul) then literature can be no more enlightening than watching paint dry. For those of who who say that literature describes your emotions and opinions, my belief is that you are one of the lucky ones. You know what appeals to the most intimate and spiritual part of yourself. It is the same as those who say that art expresses what they feel, or music, or any other occupation or means of expression.

What does is exist is understanding. "Truth" is mearly a representation of the most thorough understanding humans are capable of.

That's just my take on the whole shebang.

How does one "distinguish" what is "true to them"? If "truth" is simply what I think, why "distinguish" because that verb implies two equally valid choices - one of which is "better" than the other. Aren't they now all equally valid? As well, your final definition of truth - while very well said - seems at odds with the idea of "personal truth." Don't you mean "the most thorough understanding each individual is capable of agreeing upon to him/herself"?

Finally, if literature were as empty of "truth" as you imply, why should certain books continue to speak to generations even hundreds of years later? Why should any book speak to more than one person at all if they contain nothing of somewhat universal truth within them? The enduring nature of certain works of art - literature, music, painting,etc - fly in the face of the idea that "truth" doesn't really exist - because things that are fully subjective ultimately have no true reality to anyone outside the individual.

[*Classic*Charm*]

The danger in asserting this point is that it also means that your own statement carries no truth either - except for you. Once "truth" is relegated to a totally subjective identitiy, it loses any meaning whatsoever. It's interesting to me that people who put forth the idea of "no universal truth" seem to assume that their words are, of course, "true" beyond their own opinion. How can that be? How can any string of words be accepted as "true" if all that is required is my personal, subjective belief in their "truth"?

"The danger in asserting this point is that it also means that your own statement carries no truth either - except for you."

Actually, that's exactly my point!! Where a person uses the word "truth" in a sentence, can it be substitutted by what it represents? Such as the way a number can be substituted by what it represents?

For example: (random sentence, not meaning to offend)

"Are we in fact stimulated into reading to discover truths?"

Can a person substitute in a concrete definition of what we are to discover by being stimulated into reading? One can only insert what they consider to be be represented by the word "truths". You might say that my statement carries no truth but for me, and I'm saying that that depends on whether or not you are able to give "truth" a physical meaning. I am not assuming that my words are true beyond my own opinion, because my belief is that "truth" does not exist beyond person discovery, or opinion.


How does one "distinguish" what is "true to them"? If "truth" is simply what I think, why "distinguish" because that verb implies two equally valid choices - one of which is "better" than the other. Aren't they now all equally valid? As well, your final definition of truth - while very well said - seems at odds with the idea of "personal truth." Don't you mean "the most thorough understanding each individual is capable of agreeing upon to him/herself"?

Perhaps distinguish was a poor choice of verb. I did not mean to imply that a choice was involved. My belief is that "Truth" is not what you think, but what most appeals to your subconcious- such as a learning style (being a visual, or auditory learner). We do not choose how we best learn, it just is. Your learning style, however, is concrete.

As for my final definition, what I mean is... "the most thorough understanding of oneself each individual is capable of."


Finally, if literature were as empty of "truth" as you imply, why should certain books continue to speak to generations even hundreds of years later? Why should any book speak to more than one person at all if they contain nothing of somewhat universal truth within them? The enduring nature of certain works of art - literature, music, painting,etc - fly in the face of the idea that "truth" doesn't really exist - because things that are fully subjective ultimately have no true reality to anyone outside the individual.

Once again, I'm not saying that literature is devoid of "truth". I am simply saying that one must be able to substitute in something concrete for the word "truth" before it can have a meaning or effect. When one says that literature is empty of truth, of what is it, exactly, empty? Truth is a representation. My point is that it is the individual who must conclude as to what it represents. (When I say conclude, I once again do not mean to imply that there is decision-making involved, merely discovery)

As for the enduring nature certain works, I don't believe that what endures is "truth". I believe that what endures is concrete- emotion, and the characters, and relationships that evoke emotion. Emotion is universal, and if that is what everyone can substitue for the word "truth", then I stand corrected.

"Are we in fact stimulated into reading to discover truths?"

If everyone can say that we are stimulated into reading to discover emotion, for example, then you are correct- "truth" is universal. But if "truth" means the same thing to everyone, why wouldn't we call it what we all think it represents? If truth is universal, why is it not concrete?

Please forgive my opinionatedness...I am but a seventeen-year-old procrastinating from studying for a Biology exam haha.

Oh how my head spins...

[Redzeppelin]

Actually, that's exactly my point!! Where a person uses the word "truth" in a sentence, can it be substitutted by what it represents? Such as the way a number can be substituted by what it represents?

What I mean is this: once you state that "truth" is subjective, your own words and the "truth" that you claim becomes as false as any other statement. Why should your words hold any truth in them?



I'm saying that that depends on whether or not you are able to give "truth" a physical meaning. I am not assuming that my words are true beyond my own opinion, because my belief is that "truth" does not exist beyond person discovery, or opinion.

How then do you expect anybody else to take your words seriously if their "truth" only exists in your head? Why take anybody's statements as "true" if truth doesn't really exist?



Perhaps distinguish was a poor choice of verb. I did not mean to imply that a choice was involved. My belief is that "Truth" is not what you think, but what most appeals to your subconcious- such as a learning style (being a visual, or auditory learner). We do not choose how we best learn, it just is. Your learning style, however, is concrete.

"Truth" is what "appeals" to my subconscious? So "truth" is what I prefer or like? Really?




Once again, I'm not saying that literature is devoid of "truth". I am simply saying that one must be able to substitute in something concrete for the word "truth" before it can have a meaning or effect. When one says that literature is empty of truth, of what is it, exactly, empty? Truth is a representation. My point is that it is the individual who must conclude as to what it represents. (When I say conclude, I once again do not mean to imply that there is decision-making involved, merely discovery)

Truth is "representation"? What does that statement mean? What do you mean "substitute something concrete" for truth? Truth is an abstract concept - like love, justice, mercy, hope, charity - etc. Are you telling me that those things only exist in concrete form?


As for the enduring nature certain works, I don't believe that what endures is "truth". I believe that what endures is concrete- emotion, and the characters, and relationships that evoke emotion. Emotion is universal, and if that is what everyone can substitue for the word "truth", then I stand corrected.

Emotions are not "concrete" - they are "feelings" which are highly subjective and should not be the basis for assessing reality. Plenty of books are full of "emotions" and characters who have them - but those things do not create works that endure. What if I wrote a book that had plenty of emotion and characters, but this book reflected people, emotions and relationships in a way that you knew was not true - that people did not behave this way, or feel that way in these situations. Would that book be valuable? Would it be read for centuries to come? Doubtful.


If everyone can say that we are stimulated into reading to discover emotion, for example, then you are correct- "truth" is universal. But if "truth" means the same thing to everyone, why wouldn't we call it what we all think it represents? If truth is universal, why is it not concrete?

Your insistence on "concrete" reality causes problems because abstract ideas do not have concrete reality. Concrete reality provides us with examples of the abastract idea/concept, but those examples are not the thing. Example: a heart is not love: it is a symbol for love. A skull is not death: it is a symbol of death. Love, death, truth have no concrete physical reality - but we use those terms to categorize concrete representations.

You think well for your age, and I'd not have guessed by your writing (that's a compliment :) ) - but I'm not confident I've followed your line of thinking. Perhaps because I'm an English teacher I defend books as I do - because books that lie do not last. They disappear. Books that tell the truth - and tell it best - last from generation to generation.

[*Classic*Charm*]

You're pushing my mind further can it can go- thank you!!

I do agree with you to an extent, but I'm having difficulty making my point coherent anymore. I know what I mean, but that doesn't help out those to whom I'm trying to communicate. I absolutely see the argument you make with my references to concrete versus abstract; at this point, I'm lacking the ability to clarify my thoughts. Let's try it this way (I'm having such fun!!):

My hostility (well, not quite that bad), is focused more toward the use of the word than what it means. For example, my english class recently finished Conrad's Heart of Darkness. When it came time to prepare a seminar on the novella, so many people produced theses along the lines of:

The author uses (insert literary device here!)to illustrate the truth about the immorality of the characters' actions.

This is what bothers me: What is "the truth" about the immorality of the characters' actions? Do you see what I mean? It's as though people cannot actually grasp what they're trying to teach others about. Why do people refuse to actually make what they are proving concrete? Why not say:

The author uses (insert literary device here) to demonstrate how isolation from society encourages the characters to act immorally.

This is still a weak thesis, but it's more concrete. Do you see what I mean? To me, using "the truth" as in the first example shows a lack of understanding of the text, yet teachers seem so willing to accept it.

Am I wrong? Redzepplin, you're a teacher- is there something I'm missing?

And as for defenciveness toward books- under any other circumstances I would be the same (Miller's The Crucible SPEAKS to me!). As I said earlier, "the truth" is my least favourite topic, and yet I start off on a tangent! I may be studying science, but I'm an english student at heart! Thanks for keeping me on my toes.

[Redzeppelin]

OK - now you've made your point clear. I agree - the term "the truth" cannot exist in a vacuum: you must specify the "truth" you claim. If a student made the statement you gave, then yes, I'd challenge the student and ask "Fine: now what 'truth' about immorality does the novel present, because there are a number of true statements that could be said to be made?" From that angle, you are right. "Truth" is a category, under which we must provide specific clarifications. We just finished Heart of Darkness in my AP class and I totally understand how such generic statements really say nothing at all.

So yes: you are on track. "Truth" exists in literary texts, but the exact nature of what the truths are must be specified/clarified by the reader. HOD does contain some very pertinent truths about the human heart - but without clarifying what truths exactly are revealed, well - we'ver really said nothing constructive.

So - you and I have been arguing on the same side. All we needed was some clarity, which you've provided. Bravo - you come across as very thoughtful and intelligent - and your refusal to accept vague statements about literature makes me wish you were one of my students. Nice job :D

[*Classic*Charm*]

Thank you!! :D :D It's nice to have some stimulation now that English is over for the semester. Semester 2- Writer's Craft, here I come!!