I was really intrigued by Julia Kasdorf's claims about Mennonites' use of language in her essay “Bringing Home the Work.” She writes, “Mennonites have not been in the habit of changing details to suit the story: from our very first confessions of faith we've expected language to be a useful, solid bucket to hold truths as clear as water” (41). I suppose Kasdorf means that Mennonites don't traditionally pay much attention to the aesthetic appeal of language; they see language only as a transportation of the truth. This brings up the interesting question of whether language is ever completely truthful. By its nature, language is not the actual, solid, physical truth of what it refers to; it is only a symbol that attempts to communicate a single thing. But for different people, that symbol can signify lots of different things—each of which is truthful for each person. Anyhow, this idea that Mennonites try to use language that communicates truth as effectively as possible makes me wonder what sort of language/words are more truthful than others?
It seems that the advantage of using language solely to communicate truth would be that in this case, language can only clarify reality. I guess traditionally Mennonites valued the honesty of language and would see any deviation from the task of baring out the truth through writing as dishonest. This would violate both religious and cultural values of honesty.
But there are also lots of advantages to using language in more creative ways and being less concerned about always portraying the exact truth in writing. When I'm writing, I can't really get into a creative flow if I am constantly thinking about telling a story exactly as it happened. The part of the brain that is concerned with truth seems entirely different from the part that deals in imagination and creativity. Prioritizing truth also might sacrifice some of the poetic beauty of language. Some words just sound lovely together, and if the beauty of the sound can convey truth through emotions rather than facts, I think that language hasn't compromised honesty. When worked poetically, language can inspire me on an almost spiritual level, and it seems like Mennonites, of all people, should be able to recognize the truthfulness and the value in that sort of spirituality.
We talk a lot in our Memoir class about the distinctions between truth and fiction and how much we value truthfulness. I've been surprised that so many people feel so strongly that we need to stick to the absolute truth in our memoir-writing. I feel that making up details actually enhances the honesty of personal experience. I am more concerned about how I remember an event than how it actually happened—it seems that memory reveals more of the emotional truth of experience. While this makes “truth” more subjective, I feel that it also makes it more valuable. Also, because by its symbolic nature, language can never completely be “a solid bucket to hold truths,” as Kasdorf describes it, it seems less important that writers strive to express truth in exact, physical, realistic terms and more important that we let imagination reveal our more internal emotional truths.
I too have found it interesting that so many people find truth and fiction to be completely polar subjects. For me, there is a pretty clear difference between what happened and what did not happen, but I see those things as different from what is true and what is false. For example, I often find more truth in fiction writing, but it tends to be a human type of truth, not necessarily historical or factual truth. I guess I would see either fiction or non-fiction as just a means to an end.
ReplyDeleteI am interested in knowing how far you think people can go in adding things that probably never happened before it goes from being called a memoir to being called fiction. Also, would some of the descriptive images be too descriptive, just right, or not enough. Is there always a "creative way" of explaining things that are either positive or negative in life?
ReplyDeleteThis definately connects to the memoir class that many of us are in and especially to our last assignment in which we were asked to tell three stories all with varying degrees of untruths in them (if I may make up a word). I think it is definately interesting to consider if the beauty of words that may not be true or if the truth is more important. As for me I lean more towards the truth being foremost in importantce but it there is definately a fine line between the truth and a lie.
ReplyDeleteI like this post a lot. I agree, if language is used like an airtight box to hold the truth, then it loses a great deal of its power. It loses its ability to morph and communicate experience more personally to readers.
ReplyDelete