Toward the end of the novel, “A River Runs Through It”,
Norman Maclean tells us that his father once asked him, “You like to tell true
stories, don’t you?" And Norman
answered, “Yes, I like to tell stories that are true”. Then he asked him,
“After you have finished your true stories sometime, why don’t you make up a
story and the people to go with it”? and then added, “Only then will you understand
what happened and why.”
I’m not sure what to make of the Reverend Maclean’s comment. While I have a few ideas I am not certain how
writing a fictional story would help anyone understand a family tragedy. Apparently Norman was not clear what the
comment meant either. Norman
remembers the comment in a series of questions his father had asked which left Norman
confused. He says, “Once my father asked me a series of questions that suddenly
made me wonder whether I understood even my father whom I felt closer to than
any man I have known.”
The comment and questions caught my attention because I love
stories. I use stories when I teach, when I guide and when I counsel. Stories
do help me and others understand complex issues. And of course I know Jesus
used parables.
When Jesus told his parables, most often he did not explain
how they should be interpreted. He did not say whether they were true or not. He
often just told the story.
He did not say, “You need to take this story to be literally
true”. But he also did not say, “Now, you cannot take this story literally”. He
just spoke. He just told the parable and let it be. He knew what he was saying
was the truth and that was enough.
Sometimes I think people get so hung up on making sure they
and their listeners believe a story to be literally and factually true that
they can ironically miss the true meaning and power of the story. Without
knowing it, their qualifying comments dim the radiance of the story. And at the same time there are those who are
so afraid of being labeled as a fundamental Bible believer that they say again
and again to themselves and their listeners, that the story cannot and should
not be taken literally. In a similar
manner but for different reasons, they also can miss out on the depth, power
and meaning of the story. In essence, I think we can ruin a story and empty it
of its’ power and as C.S Lewis once said,
miss out on its “Mythological radiance”, by making too many
qualifications, apologies and explanations.
I know when I tell stories to kids and they look at me with
those knowing eyes and ask, “Is this story true”? I then know that with their question they have
answered my own question about stories. While I usually do not answer their
question I most often say in my mind, “Of course the story is true”.
Jesus just told the stories. The Bible tells us stories. We are
best to just tell the stories or listen to them and perhaps only then will we
understand.
Thanks for more thought provoking words Anthony. I can offer one idea about whan the senior Rev. might have been hinting at: the concept of using embellishment to highlight a story. Even if one tells a story that is nominally true, but one adds a few made up details, it may serve to bring the original experience to the reader in closer to a true form. It is hard to convey the original experience through words alone, since the reader can not see, smell, hear and feel the story in it's original form. But adding some carefully selected items to enhance the story can help re-create the original experience (or lesson). - Andy
ReplyDeleteI see what you are saying, and I think there is some truth to it. My own thoughts ran along the lines of: when you create characters in a story, they develop in their own way, and the story unfolds in ways you do not forsee. You start intentionally inculcating certain traits, but you don't really know where those will take the character or the story. Much like children.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I am guilty of perpetually arguing away the literalness of stories, while claiming they are still true. I'm sure I miss the power, as Anthony says.
Andy and Tim, Thanks for your comments on stories. I think you are both on to something in regard to how a story seems to have a life of its own and at the same time, how it allows us to breathe our own life into stories (or embellish). Maybe in a fictional story we can develop characters who take actions that we actually want to take in life, in our own real lives, but perhaps are unable. In the case of A River Runs Through It, it is a real life tragedy and Norman tried to act in some way to help but seemed largely unable. "In the end I could not save him". But maybe in a fictional story, we can create a hero, who performs some deed that saves and prevents the loss. And in creating this fictional story we understand what we could have done,(or not) "Only then will we understand what happened and why". Anthony
ReplyDelete