The Two Sides of Fiction

Before I started reading Kemal Tahir's novel “Sağırdere”, I was struck by the following sentence on the back cover: "Every artist takes the people of the society they come from as their subject; for them, the greatest truth is the truth of their own people." I couldn't start reading because I kept thinking about it. It made me think about the values I incorporate into my own characters.

When approaching the issue from a fictional perspective, I find it helpful to divide it into two categories: Fictional (imaginary characters based on real elements) and “pure fiction” (imaginary characters based almost entirely on unreal elements).

(As far as I know, the concept of “pure fiction” does not exist, but I am not trying to create a new one. I am simply trying to make things easier to understand by making this distinction.)

Kemal Tahir and many others generally wrote about the people of Anatolia and local personalities to convey the narrative of their era. These characters can refer to real events and utter real dialogue. Through their interactions, we can discern traces of the past and use these to inform our understanding of history. They are ghosts, created in a manner appropriate to the narrative of the moment and the period.

And so it should be. If a writer wants to criticise, diagnose or offer solutions to social or individual problems, then this is how it should be done. Readers should be able to relate to the characters and the situations, events, and obstacles they encounter. They should be able to see parts of themselves in them. Otherwise, we are not bringing a breath of fresh air to the narrative; rather, we are creating a character that remains unresolved. A character that does not fit the narrative lacks uniqueness, often having a meaningless personality that hinders the narrative.

In summary, this type of character creation aligns with the aforementioned quote.

---

So, how should we judge characters that appear in purely fictional works that lack realism?

After all, they may be part of a completely fictional universe. If we are just beginning to discover that universe, as some of the characters are, to what extent can we evaluate the characters within it? What factors determine whether they are well-rounded characters?

I believe the most important factor is the author's ability to paint a clear picture. Even if the characters' issues, lifestyles, and social views are not relatable, they can still make us aware of the situation if they are portrayed in a coherent and blended manner. Nevertheless, internalising this is challenging.

Perhaps the reader's perspective is also important here. To what extent should we care about and take seriously the problems of characters in entirely fictional worlds? This may be the question for readers. It's also important to remember that shaping our expectations of a work in advance can enable us to read it without prejudice and embrace a more comprehensive perspective.

Honestly, works of fiction that engage with this kind of struggle tend to be longer than those that offer a purely fictional approach. Consider the average page count of books containing fantasy and science fiction elements, for example. This is because, in order for the narrative to be as strong as possible, it is necessary — if not essential — to explore unfamiliar topics. We have already questioned the necessity of this above.

Photo by Toa Heftiba on Unsplash

So let's read the quote again, bearing this new perspective in mind:

"Every artist takes the people of the society they come from as their subject; for them, the greatest truth is the truth of their own people."

I think the question can now be rephrased as follows: To what extent is there a degree of reality in our works depicting people from communities that we cannot be part of? Are these imaginary people completely false? Does this make us artists, or distance us from being artists?

If you think the question needs rephrasing, please share your suggestions with me. This will allow us to spend more time reflecting on it.

---

Now, let's start analysing the new question.

In a fictional context, every piece of work is essentially a lie. This is because, if there is even one falsehood in the narrative, the work cannot be accepted as entirely true. Each character that enters our imagination becomes part of the web of lies that we have created. There is nothing wrong or absurd about this.

I would like to break down the question as follows: “Can we write about a community we cannot be part of?” I have previously written about a similar topic, examining whether we can write about places and periods that we have not experienced. You can read that piece here.

Assuming the community in question is real, our knowledge of its values will lend authenticity to our narrative (we can think of people in any foreign country). Readers will be able to relate to it. In my opinion, this kind of research (whether online or in person) is necessary.

However, if the community in the narrative is fictional — for instance, if it is set on another planet — there are no limitations to what can be included. We can use whatever our imagination provides in any way we want. Of course, this will still affect how the narrative is perceived by the reader. Therefore, when presenting familiar values (political, cultural, traditional, artistic, and so on) under different names and styles, it may be helpful to establish some kind of system. This will enable readers to find relatable aspects, even though they know the described community is purely fictional. Perhaps values in this fictional order, which is completely divorced from reality, will be more open to discussion and interpretation than those in realistic fictional narratives.

As we delve deeper, it becomes clear that this approach will not distance us from artistry.

---

Personally, I find the second type of fiction more appealing, but that doesn't mean I dislike the first type. In fact, I'm sure both types present their own challenges. The first form requires us to read people better, observe them, and analyse them in order to portray them accurately. It also requires us to ensure that our sociological observations are as accurate as possible.

The second form may seem like an easy way out to many people. It's true that it doesn't require us to apply the above principles quite so literally. However, it is confusing and exhausting. It requires constant repetition and the creation of its own structure because it involves grappling with entirely unrealistic ideas. This approach is not for everyone, but I think it is better for disguising initial flaws.

So, what approach do you take when writing your stories, and why? Do you create fictional characters to inhabit real events, or do you become complicit in a grand lie as a writer?