Fiction or forgery?
14/03/16 04:45
Umberto Eco was an Italian novelist, essayist and philosopher who passed away last month. It would be impossible, and perhaps even misleading to attempt to summarize his contributions to literature or to philosophy in a single blog post, but there are some quotes and concepts that have been stirring in my mind recently.
Last week I re-listened to a recording of an interview with Eco in which he was speaking of the art of fiction. I won’t get an exact quote but he said something like the following:
We sometimes think that the difference between forgery and fiction is in the intention of the writer or speaker. We think that because it is partially true. If the intention of the writer is to mislead the reader than what is produced is a forgery. But there is another level to the process. The failure to distinguish between forgery and fiction often lies in the prejudices of the reader. When an untruth reinforces the prejudices that the reader brings to the work the result is an even more serious kind of forgery.
He cites the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This fabricated text purporting to describe a Jewish plan for global domination was known to be untrue very shortly after the time of its publication in the early years of the 20th century. Yet the fabrication persisted. Henry Ford funded the printing of a half million copies distributed throughout the US in the 1920s. This turned out to be among the worst kinds of forgery because the lack of truth was evident. The plot that it purports to report, of course is something that never has and will never come to pass because there was no such plot. Yet people have used this text as the basis for discrimination, violence, and genocide. The forgery led to violence of the worst kind.
This kind of storytelling is not merely fiction. It is not a literary art. It is a forgery and the worst kind of the abuse of literature. It is impossible to know for sure the motivation of the writers of the document. What we do know is the result of its publication and dissemination. Violence and genocide based on a lie reveals a forgery that played on the prejudices of those who read the book and who paid for its distribution and dissemination.
One of my favorite Umberto Eco quotes is this: “When men stop believing in God, it isn’t that they then believe in nothing: they believe in everything.”
Read that line again and allow it to sink in.
The job of religion is to encourage people to seek clarity of what they believe in part because the failure to know what you believe in leads to the capacity to believe in destructive lies. If you don’t know what you believe in you become vulnerable to forgeries of the worst kind. You might find yourself swept up in the response to a danger that does not exist. Violence in response to a perceived but nonexistent threat is still violence. Killing in the name of an untruth is simply murder. There is no virtue in such an action.
Eco was born in 1932 in Alessandria, Italy and his philosophy was forged in the embrace of authoritarianism that swept Europe and led to the Second World War. He knows by personal experience and by the tragedies and violence of the 20th Century the danger of embracing such ideologies.
Unfortunately not enough people have read his serious works, let alone his novels. I say that because there are still plenty of people who are responding to their fears by embracing authoritarianism. Exaggerated threats give rise to fear. It isn’t just in foreign countries where democracy is under threat from within. When candidates for office in our country engage in intentional lies for their own benefit, promote mass deportations, fail to renounce associations with KKK leaders, encourage violence against protestors, claim that the world’s 1.5 billion muslims all hate all Americans, and stir up anger to promote their own political aims, it is clear that there is a forgery in process. There is intent to mislead people and draw them away from the truth. But, as Eco warns, the forgery is far more dangerous because it plays into the prejudices of those who listen.
I am not usually one to try to convince others to change their political opinions. I feel blessed to be a member of a community with a wide range of ideas and opinions, where I can have civil conversations with those who disagree with me. But as a person of faith I know that it is important not to sit by in silence. Too many Christians were silent when Hitler rose to power in Germany. Too many Christians failed to speak up when genocide erupted in a so-called modern state. There were, however, a few courageous voices. I have always admired Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s dissidence and courage in the face of Nazi fascism. I have wondered if I would have his courage to speak up were I to have lived in his time. What Eco reminds us of is that each of us must speak when confronted with the realities of ideologies that are forgeries based both on the intent of the speakers and the prejudices of the listeners.
I do not know for sure, but I wonder if the days aren’t approaching when once again Christians of conscience will be required to speak up in defense of those who are wrongly targeted by authoritarian leaders who are more interested in their own power than in justice for all of the people and who manipulate the fears of others to enhance their own grandiose ambitions.
I am not yet ready to make large public statements. I prefer to watch and study and observe and think. I am more of a philosopher than a political commentator. Still these are perilous times for American democracy and times that will require courage and vision from our leaders. These are times when we all would do well not to accept the speeches of the politicians on face value or the enthusiasm of crowds on the amount of noise they generate. Careful critical thinking and conscientious moral action are required of each generation.
We are no different than our forebears.
Last week I re-listened to a recording of an interview with Eco in which he was speaking of the art of fiction. I won’t get an exact quote but he said something like the following:
We sometimes think that the difference between forgery and fiction is in the intention of the writer or speaker. We think that because it is partially true. If the intention of the writer is to mislead the reader than what is produced is a forgery. But there is another level to the process. The failure to distinguish between forgery and fiction often lies in the prejudices of the reader. When an untruth reinforces the prejudices that the reader brings to the work the result is an even more serious kind of forgery.
He cites the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This fabricated text purporting to describe a Jewish plan for global domination was known to be untrue very shortly after the time of its publication in the early years of the 20th century. Yet the fabrication persisted. Henry Ford funded the printing of a half million copies distributed throughout the US in the 1920s. This turned out to be among the worst kinds of forgery because the lack of truth was evident. The plot that it purports to report, of course is something that never has and will never come to pass because there was no such plot. Yet people have used this text as the basis for discrimination, violence, and genocide. The forgery led to violence of the worst kind.
This kind of storytelling is not merely fiction. It is not a literary art. It is a forgery and the worst kind of the abuse of literature. It is impossible to know for sure the motivation of the writers of the document. What we do know is the result of its publication and dissemination. Violence and genocide based on a lie reveals a forgery that played on the prejudices of those who read the book and who paid for its distribution and dissemination.
One of my favorite Umberto Eco quotes is this: “When men stop believing in God, it isn’t that they then believe in nothing: they believe in everything.”
Read that line again and allow it to sink in.
The job of religion is to encourage people to seek clarity of what they believe in part because the failure to know what you believe in leads to the capacity to believe in destructive lies. If you don’t know what you believe in you become vulnerable to forgeries of the worst kind. You might find yourself swept up in the response to a danger that does not exist. Violence in response to a perceived but nonexistent threat is still violence. Killing in the name of an untruth is simply murder. There is no virtue in such an action.
Eco was born in 1932 in Alessandria, Italy and his philosophy was forged in the embrace of authoritarianism that swept Europe and led to the Second World War. He knows by personal experience and by the tragedies and violence of the 20th Century the danger of embracing such ideologies.
Unfortunately not enough people have read his serious works, let alone his novels. I say that because there are still plenty of people who are responding to their fears by embracing authoritarianism. Exaggerated threats give rise to fear. It isn’t just in foreign countries where democracy is under threat from within. When candidates for office in our country engage in intentional lies for their own benefit, promote mass deportations, fail to renounce associations with KKK leaders, encourage violence against protestors, claim that the world’s 1.5 billion muslims all hate all Americans, and stir up anger to promote their own political aims, it is clear that there is a forgery in process. There is intent to mislead people and draw them away from the truth. But, as Eco warns, the forgery is far more dangerous because it plays into the prejudices of those who listen.
I am not usually one to try to convince others to change their political opinions. I feel blessed to be a member of a community with a wide range of ideas and opinions, where I can have civil conversations with those who disagree with me. But as a person of faith I know that it is important not to sit by in silence. Too many Christians were silent when Hitler rose to power in Germany. Too many Christians failed to speak up when genocide erupted in a so-called modern state. There were, however, a few courageous voices. I have always admired Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s dissidence and courage in the face of Nazi fascism. I have wondered if I would have his courage to speak up were I to have lived in his time. What Eco reminds us of is that each of us must speak when confronted with the realities of ideologies that are forgeries based both on the intent of the speakers and the prejudices of the listeners.
I do not know for sure, but I wonder if the days aren’t approaching when once again Christians of conscience will be required to speak up in defense of those who are wrongly targeted by authoritarian leaders who are more interested in their own power than in justice for all of the people and who manipulate the fears of others to enhance their own grandiose ambitions.
I am not yet ready to make large public statements. I prefer to watch and study and observe and think. I am more of a philosopher than a political commentator. Still these are perilous times for American democracy and times that will require courage and vision from our leaders. These are times when we all would do well not to accept the speeches of the politicians on face value or the enthusiasm of crowds on the amount of noise they generate. Careful critical thinking and conscientious moral action are required of each generation.
We are no different than our forebears.