I need to write to convince today, not to entertain or intrigue. Both involve forms of storytelling; the former, however, permits almost no imagination, exploration, or creative flux. A short discussion of history and background is permitted, if for no other reason than to vet the author’s chops, so long as it doesn’t begin with “Once upon time.” Or drag on and on. Brevity, clarity, and clever ordering of facts are features of adept grantsmanship.
By contrast, imagine the unlimited freedom of mind the writer of fiction has! You might think this makes writing fiction easier than non-, but I would disagree. Exempting the overtly creative forms, non-fiction is like being dropped in a cornfield maze and pressed to find the way out; fiction is the dark side of the moon. And it can be very dark. I was reminded of this yesterday while reading a history of the publication of Vladimir Nabokov’s novel Lolita. A book I read and supposedly enjoyed some years ago. I’ve heard it said that to read a book is to have in front of you the mind of a man (or woman) laid bare. Indeed, certain readers of Lolita were convinced the prurient details were so well drawn…
Which brings to mind the convenient veil of the fiction writer, he (she) may always — always — dismiss critic’s claims that the character’s feelings, motivations, desires, etc. must really be the author’s own. This is merely fiction, the author will defend, fiction. Nobody can prove otherwise.