I think the real problem here was that, for many people, Jurassic Park represents truth for them as for how dinosaurs looked/acted/were.

This has nothing to do with Jurassic Park per se. 

Oh, okay. Don't mind me. *whistles and walks away*

to be fair, though, fiction is not always designed to portray what is not true. often times it's used to convey a situation in line with reality, sometimes focusing on certain aspects of the issue, or sometimes making the issues bloated in certain areas either to show how much of a problem the issue can become, or how ridiculous it is that it's even an issue. then there's fictional works that work with concepts of morality, doing the right thing, how to be a good person, whether the ends justify the means (etc, etc...)

like yeah, there is definitely fiction written for pure entertainment and as an escape, but there's also fiction written to enact social change, or to provide social commentary through its themes, meanings, symbols, metaphors, etc...

(idk what the entry is actually in reference to, but the line about how fiction is not to portray truth is what im more pointing out)

X: It's a cool possibility, you know. What if I only have one arm and don't come at the end of box? That would be a different world, right? That's the point of fiction. Exploring new possibilities, not portraying truth.

This is a bizarre interpretation as to what fiction is, considering by this definition realistic fiction is not true fiction.

I think it's not as black and white as you're making the issue. From what you said (and from what the entry says) this obviously isn't intended as a response to my Jurassic Park entry, so I won't treat it as such. (Actually, if I had to make a guess, this is probably about gender in fiction, though I could be totally off base). In general, though, a good baseline is that, when good fiction intentionally departs from reality, it should be obvious. That's not quite the word I'm looking for, but what I mean is, in terms of Jurassic Park (using it as an example because I'm never done criticizing Jurassic Park), if the errors in dinosaurs were intentional, and not either errors or attempts to mislead people on the nature of dinosaurs, then there should not have been an issue of a majority of people leaving the theatre believing that's what dinosaurs were really like.

In other words, it's a responsibility of fiction that people know what in it is fact and what is fiction. Sure, if I write a book where all women are blue, it's obvious to readers that it's fictitious, and isn't a comment on all women. But it's a little different if I write a book where all women are meek and stupid. The latter is easy to interpret as authorial intent to smear women, because it's not as simple as "when you're in fiction, you can do whatever you want". What you put in fiction reflects your beliefs as a person. How you write your characters reflects how you feel about them, and their different aspects. For instance, if I write a businessman who is greedy and cowardly, one would be remiss in dismissing the idea that I'm making a commentary on businessmen.

This is a little long and rambly, but I hope it makes sense. Fiction is not separate from the world we live in, but is, in fact, intertwined with it. Our world informs the world of fiction, and fiction influences our world. (Don't believe me? We have a hoverboard, just because of Back to the Future II.)

I can confirm that I do indeed have a right arm, but I don't come out of the end of a box

this is a grave injustince to me >:C

In other words, it's a responsibility of fiction that people know what in it is fact and what is fiction.

I'm gonna have to say no. If you honestly have that much trouble differentiating fact from fiction, that's hardly a books fault.

What you say about fiction reflecting a persons beliefs and opinions is absolutely correct, though. 

​If someone reads a book or watches a movie and thinks that it is indicative of something without bothering to look into it, that's nobody's fault but the reader/viewer's. By definition you're only getting a slice of a spectrum of different ways to look at what ever idea is being brought forth. Taking that slice and saying all things that that slice represented are accurate to that slice is ridiculous.

 

In other words, it's a responsibility of fiction that people know what in it is fact and what is fiction.

 

I'm gonna have to say no. If you honestly have that much trouble differentiating fact from fiction, that's hardly a books fault.

You make it sound like it's always obvious which is which. I assure you it is not. Especially in science fiction, the line between what is real and what is fictitious is blurred quite often. It's not the simple "yup i read that and that sure was fake" you seem convinced it is.

It makes no sense to me to say an author is not responsible for the content of their story. Yes, research could have prevented Jurassic Park's numerous errors from ever spreading. However, equally thorough research on the part of the creators could have prevented them from presenting such information as though it were factual in the first place.

 

In other words, it's a responsibility of fiction that people know what in it is fact and what is fiction.[/size]

 

I'm gonna have to say no. If you honestly have that much trouble differentiating fact from fiction, that's hardly a books fault.

 

Additionally, in a lot of cases books are trying to make a point to you, the reader. They want you to feel a certain way, to think a certain way, to think about something in a particular light or context, they're trying (by and large) to present an argument to communicate to their reader. Not every single book necessarily does this, but a great many do. So in a lot of ways, it is the responsibility of the author to present their information, their argument, without creating a situation where they are blurring and ignoring or outright lying about the subject they're talking about. In a lot of case, such presentation of information ends up with some poor responses from the readers, responses the author should have considered before writing the piece in the first place (and the author should have integrity with what they try to present as true, or even partially true -- they ought to do the research behind what they are talking about).

 

 

In other words, it's a responsibility of fiction that people know what in it is fact and what is fiction.

 

I'm gonna have to say no. If you honestly have that much trouble differentiating fact from fiction, that's hardly a books fault.

 

You make it sound like it's always obvious which is which. I assure you it is not. Especially in science fiction, the line between what is real and what is fictitious is blurred quite often. It's not the simple "yup i read that and that sure was fake" you seem convinced it is.

 

It makes no sense to me to say an author is not responsible for the content of their story. Yes, research could have prevented Jurassic Park's numerous errors from ever spreading. However, equally thorough research on the part of the creators could have prevented them from presenting such information as though it were factual in the first place.

 

I never said they weren't. They obviously are because they wrote it. I'm saying it's not their responsibility to clearly dictate what is fact and what is not. I'm all for more accuracy to source material, especially when that source material is mythology(Okay that's unrelated but that's my effort to get a handle on how you feel about the dinosaur thing.), but that's not their responsibility. 

This obviously doesn't apply to pretty much any form of non-fiction, as the things being said are now being stated to realistically represent something, rather then someones interpenetration of something. Though you should still pull from multiple sources, as that's good practice for sifting out bias and inaccuracies. 

Edit: Sorry, lots of thoughts.

I think the problem here is that, in realistic fiction, people tend to take details more literally than they would in fiction that's clearly intended to not be as realistic.
 
In this case, on one hand you have Jurassic Park, which is presented as being very realistic. I've not read the book, but I have seen the movie adaptation and the intent is to portray the dinosaurs in a way that will seem realistic to the average moviegoer, who won't know a thing about how inaccurately the dinosaurs are portrayed.
 
On the other end of the spectrum would be something like Finnegan's Wake, which—aside from its sheer incomprehensibility—is certainly not intended to be taken in a literal fashion. This is a very small minority in literature because most writers find it easier to write things literally.
 
This entire scenario means that inaccurate portrayals in "realistic" fiction begin to be accepted as fact. It's like when actors in movies who play instruments clearly are not playing the instrument, only about a thousand times worse when it comes to bigger details, of which Jurassic Park is an example.
 
(This is probably a worse rehashing of what Lucina was talking about above, but here it is anyway.)

I hesitate to interrupt the debate, but this entry was not about Jurassic Park or Mythology. Let me show this by starting over. 

Fiction does not accurately represent Tahu

People: In fiction, Tahu doesn't have a right arm!

People: In fiction Tahu is not the poster child of Bionicle.

People: This is a grave injustice against Tahu. Because Tahu can read that he only has one arm and is not the poster child of Bionicle, he may believe that he has no right arm and is not the poster child of Bionicle!

Tahu: Look, you suckers. I know that I have two arms [wriggles arms], and I know that I'm the poster child of Bionicle. And all of my fellow Tahus know that too. In fact, we're so confident of that we enjoy the fiction about us not having a right arm and not being poster children of Bionicle.

Tahu: It's a cool possibility, you know. What if I only have one arm and am not the poster child of Bionicle? That would be a different world, right? That's the point of fiction. Exploring new possibilities, not portraying truth.

Tahus: We have a different genre for that. It's called non-fiction.

[Tahus party and dance around wildly, shaking their Tahu-ly arms and throwing confetti.] 

X is a fictional construct, like Tahu. Tahu doesn't exist in real life as a talking guy. Xs are not people - they don't talk or have arms. It's entirely fictional.

So this entry has nothing to do with Jurassic Park or Mythology. It's actually a note against fiction being accused of misrepresenting itself.  It's the most common mistake I've seen in reading fiction - people assume that X is real, so they accuse X of being misrepresented. (But why assume that I was representing reality? Everyone knows talking Xs don't exist. And you assume that I was representing something else with it...why? See why this happens? It's a misunderstanding.)

Now I'm not going to argue that dinos and human females aren't real. The latter debate is good, but I don't really have an opinion on it beyond what I've said in previous entries. (Someone really wants to talk about Jurassic Park!)

Well, okay, I'll indulge this. Jurassic Park is an amusement park that recreated dinos (inaccurately, using a questionable science method) for an amusement park. How is that representative of what really happened when dinos really roamed the earth? For one thing, that science could be shoddy. For another thing, that's in "modern day" for the film, hardly the environment of Dinosaur Times B.C. (I don't know it, so just using that), which could have made changes in the dinos even if the science wasn't bunk. It gave off the signs of being not real. 

I don't think the point is that the fact it exists in its own fiction is the issue, but that when placed in the real world with the goal to represent what the creatures were in history and doing so inaccurately, it can cause many, many people to believe the inaccurate portrayal in a movie as what actually exists and can lead to a shift in public belief on what reality is/was.

What is represented in fictitious media is, often times, represented in that specific way because that's the mental image or portrayal a person has of the real object, creature, person, identity, concept and they're pushing that as what is real. The issue is: this can cause harm, as in, people who are not experts, who are not educated in the issue, will see this representation and have that as the only thing to base their real perception on. And so, fiction leaks into reality and you have people treating certain things differently, certain concepts differently, as media -- fictitious or not -- is influential to those who consume it.

Yes, you can say "This concept, this portrayal, is unrealistic and doesn't accurately portray what it sets out to portray" which is where literary criticism and critique in cinema and other mediums of media come into play. They serve to educate the viewers on what is reality, while also telling the creator of the piece of media to do a better job next time so they don't misrepresent facts in their production. (At least, in this context -- there's a lot more one can go into when criticizing a piece of media)

Of course there's a difference of, say, making the sky a bright neon pink for atmospheric effect so long as it's established as part of the fictitious world and not at all a part of what reflects reality. It's easier to do that in say, Lord of the Rings, where people can understand that Ringwraiths aren't actually real because of how ethereal and detached from our reality they are. But when, for example, you write about a specific subset of people and assign them a set of specific traits you, as the author, believe they have in reality and peddle out the work, that representation may feed into public's visualization of those groups of people as they exist in the real world as they are not so detached from it as the concept of a Ringwraith would be. That's why doing your research and understanding your subject is really important, even in fiction as it can have an impact on reality.

Well, okay, I'll indulge this. Jurassic Park is an amusement park that recreated dinos (inaccurately, using a questionable science method) for an amusement park. How is that representative of what really happened when dinos really roamed the earth? For one thing, that science could be shoddy. For another thing, that's in "modern day" for the film, hardly the environment of Dinosaur Times B.C. (I don't know it, so just using that), which could have made changes in the dinos even if the science wasn't bunk. It gave off the signs of being not real. 

But the problem is, all of that is theories coming off the main movie to explain its dino mistakes, not something explicitly stated in the movie. One of the scientists is a got dang paleontologist, for crying out loud, and he doesn't call out on any of it, even things that were well known to paleontologists at the time. For all intents and purposes, the dinosaurs onscreen are presented as being the real deal, completely accurate true dino facts. Anything that involves having to explain away the inconsistencies outside of what's given on the screen is going to mean jack diddly squat as far as what audiences take away from the movie.

That being said, I completely misunderstood the intent of this entry, though to be fair it was incredibly vague and somewhat misleading in its writing, especially considering Tahu cannot actually read anything because he only exists as a plastic toy/fictional character. However, I will agree with your points on it as far as fictional characters changing in different iterations.

(also you will find I always want to talk about Jurassic Park, though in my original post I was only using it as an example of a broader issue.)

Technically, a capital X doesn't come at the end of box...

X is a fictional construct, like Tahu.

No I'm not stop insinuating things

Okay I'm done being an idiot now

 

What you put in fiction reflects your beliefs as a person. How you write your characters reflects how you feel about them, and their different aspects.

 

I disagree to an extent. I've written stories about deranged conspiracy theorists who I portrayed as the only voice of sanity, stories about 1984-esque governments that I've written to have the government in-question reflected as just and right, stories about organizations who are for all intents and purposes fictional terrorist organizations but I wrote as noble rebel causes even though their actions indicate otherwise. Stories about abusers from the abuser's perspective, complete with presenting the reader with their justifications and rationales, stories about racists and homophobes and all sorts of unpleasant people wherein they're not demonized, and if anything their bigotry is normalized. Warriors who would rather die by the sword than surrender, religious zealots who view consequences in the physical world as unimportant, all manner of things.

In spite of all this, I can promise you with complete certainty that I laugh at the tinfoil hat brigade, I find the concept of a government like that of Oceania horrifying, and that I find terrorism pretty horrible too. I've been in an emotionally abusive relationship, so I'm certainly not attempting to minimize the helpless despair, conflicted emotions, and pain both mental and physical that come from being abused, and unless I've been lied to about what the words mean, I'm pretty darn sure I'm not a homophobe, a racist, or any other type of bigot. I'm also positive that, if offered a noble death in battle or a quiet shameful surrender, I'd take the option that involves living, and I've always made a point of keeping my philosophical beliefs to myself unless asked about them. I am none of these things I have written about in any way, shape, or form, and my views or opinions are not reflected in any way in these writings.

To discount the possibility that a writer is using a character they write in order to make a statement, or to assume that the characters they write have no relation to the way they view or experience things is folly, but to assume that the characters they write are automatically indicative of how they feel and what they believe and how they interpret things, and aren't just that way because it's interesting or a concept the author felt like exploring without any vested interest, is equally erroneous.