Melvyn Bragg persuasively argues against those who dismiss autobiographical fiction.
It is often thought that autobiography cannot reach into the core of fiction; that the author’s own direct experience is too limiting a factor. That only if you step wholly outside yourself can fiction be formed. But why not step inside yourself? The brain, we now know, is more complicated than the universe, and we are just at the beginning of the exploration of what happens in there. What better laboratory for fiction than the brain that writes it? The more I write fiction, the more I see it as the best way to get at the truth and the only reason for writing it. Autobiography can be a high road to that end.
The question seems not to be IF but HOW
to use autobiography. Take Alice Munro,
that master of writing out of her own
life.
Posted by: Marthe | February 09, 2009 at 05:24 AM
The brain more complicated than the universe? I tend to think of myself as existing within the universe, an insignificant part of the whole. My brain, although very important to me, is even less grand. I love fiction and hold a few autobiographical gems very close to my heart; but I'd think twice before making such an extravagant claim and passing it off rather half-heartedly as everyday knowledge.
Posted by: brian | February 09, 2009 at 08:55 AM
A genius like Nabokov could transform autobiography in pure beauty. I read everything looking for something: poetry, which, like Mr. Banville said, can happen anywhere.
Posted by: Doug | February 09, 2009 at 08:01 PM
Lawrence Weschler used to teach a graduate writing course called "The Fiction of Nonfiction" and his philosophy was that all writing is a creation. In other words, there is no such thing as "nonfiction"...all writing is "made" by man or woman. It is not "reality" but rather a few words on paper that try to approach a truth that can never be reached.
Posted by: Rene | February 09, 2009 at 08:49 PM