The Nature of Fiction

My friends disagree, but what I like most is for fiction to say something about the real world, to present an idea or ideas. This extends to movies as well.

New Criticism focused on the work itself, without even the author, and said that there is one specific idea in any body of work that the reader is supposed to "get." It is not until we get to Historical/Cultural/Biographical Criticism where we not only have the author, but we have The Real World aside from the work itself. HG Wells, prior to WW1, wrote many science-fiction novels on what he believed what the "Great War" was to look like, with planes and even tanks. There was a novel, which we read parts of, called "When William Came," a right-wing propaganda tale of British neglect of European politics and a certain "softness" that resulted in Britain's fade from the world stage, when the Britons begin to speak German (WW1-era).

In movies, an excellent example is THX-1138, George Lucas' first film made in 1971. It was a science-fictionalization, set in the year 2550, of how he sees the world in the 60s-70s, and he mocks Communism, religion, industry, and explores society's perception of love and sex. Accurate? I think so.

My other friend is getting into the Cyberpunk novels of the 70s, specifically Philip K Dick. Cyberpunk is described as a science fiction sub-genre depicting "high-tech low-life," advanced dystopias rich with high crime rates, and Soviet-level corruption in pseudo-democratic (more fascist-leaning) governments. Examples would be: To a certain extent, A Scanner Darkly, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, Neuromancer, Ghost in the Shell, Equilibrium, Armitage, Armitage III: Polymatrix and Blade Runner, Cowboy Bebop, Outlaw Star.

Maybe I should find a good cyberpunk novel. I might like it.

One of my friends, in the group of friends first mentioned here, can watch Kingdom of Heaven, his favorite movie, and not even consider what the director is trying to say about religion and political power. If you want to offend me, read a big name piece of literature and say, after I ask about it, "so?"

"It's just a book." "It's just a movie." Lots of books are "just books." Lots of movies are "just movies." But other books and movies try to be more than that, an idea. It is those books and movies that I read and see. Because I want something out of them, that idea, the reason that they exist. Janet Evanovich, James Patterson, countless Romance and mystery writers simply write to make money or to entertain Falwell's "flock." But others, though they needed money (like Dostoevsky), did communicate profound things through their work. Dostoevsky was a compulsive gambler and wrote, "The Gambler" to get debt money and rushed the end of Crime & Punishment because of an issue with his publisher and he needed his advance.