What is truth? Pilate asked Jesus.
It is one of the greatest questions with which philosophers
and theologians grapple. It is also a question that we should consider any time
that we reach for a book.
“Is the story true?” we should ask. “Did it truly happen?”
“Is it based on fact, or did it totally spring from the author’s imagination?”
“Does it offer us any insight into the nature of our world, or is it solely an
attempt at escapism?”
On some occasions the answers come easier than they do on
others. In any case, though, there are three types of “truth” for which we
might search when reading a book.
First, there is what we might call “literal truth.” An event
is literally true if it really happened just as it’s described. It is what we
hope to find when reading a newspaper, a biography, a memoir, or a history
book.
Second, there is “embellished truth.” An event truly
occurred, but not in exactly the way that it seems in the book. For example, in
historical fiction, the events that are recounted truly occurred, but the
specific characters are not historical, or perhaps, a character was historical,
but the author supplies dialogue of which there is no record.
We find embellished truth when a real event is altered in
part. The alteration might occur, to protect the participants, or perhaps the
alteration helps the event to better fit into the story. Perhaps the event
occurred in the author’s life, and it seems in the story, happening to one of
the characters. We find embellished truth when the characters behave in ways
that are consistent with a particular period in history. That is, the things
they do are things that might well have happened in the circumstances that are
described.
Finally, “philosophical truth” refers to the meaning that an
event has. Does it tell us something true and important about a character? Does
it convey some ultimate truth about humanity in general?
Consider the following excerpt from my new book, The
Handfasting.
He
actually had proposed, once. It was when men were being drafted into the army
to fight in Vietnam. The rules were changing, and he’d discovered that he
couldn’t be drafted if he got married within the next four weeks. A friend of
his had done just that, and Bill made the suggestion to Melissa, partly in
jest, partly not. He was shocked when she’d agreed, but she gave him two
conditions. First, she would not be married in name only. After pausing to let
him consider the full meaning of her words, she said that Bill would have to
explain things to her father. “I’m guessing you’ll be safer in the army than
you would be talking to Daddy the morning after our wedding night,” she had
told him.
She was
probably right—Bill had no wish to tangle with Melissa’s father. He enrolled in
college and generally managed a C average. When he came up short—three times in
four years—his uncle sat on the county’s draft board, and he managed to keep
Bill out of the army.
We find all three types of truth in this passage.
It is literally true that in the nineteen-sixties, men whom
were married could not be conscripted into the United States Army. The policy
was altered in the middle of that decade, but the new policy did not apply to
men who married before the date of its implementation.
It is literally true, that conscription could be avoided
while one was enrolled in college and making satisfactory
grades. Finally, it is literally true that each county or parish in the country had a board that selected those who actually would be
called into service, and those boards had some discretion in who they called.
grades. Finally, it is literally true that each county or parish in the country had a board that selected those who actually would be
called into service, and those boards had some discretion in who they called.
The passage is an example of embellished truth only because
Bill and Melissa were not real people. Bill’s behavior, however, was very real.
Men did propose marriage to avoid having to serve in the army. (My older
brother jokingly suggested that he might do exactly
that!)
that!)
Since Bill was fictional, so, of course, was his uncle, but
board members did prevent their sons, their nephews, and sons of their friends
from being called into service.
In each case, the characters behaved as some people truly
behaved when they found themselves in similar circumstances
The excerpt is an example of philosophical truth because it
highlights certain aspects of Bill’s character. It highlights characteristics
that we see time and again throughout the book. He is self-centered. He’s only
interested in his own good. He tries to get what he wants, even if someone else
is hurt in the process. This set of characteristics is not unique to Bill. Many
of us have known people like him.
We should always consider the truth in the books that we
read, the literal truths as well as the other types. All three are important.
We should learn to distinguish among them and to appreciate all of them.