Fly fishermen are willful deceivers as they try to deceive a fish into responding to an artificial fly: the fly is food and should be eaten. All of a fly fisherman’s actions perpetuate this deception. They are manipulators as they try to manipulate the microhabitat of the fish by introducing an artificial construct.
Some fish are more easily deceived. It doesn’t matter the quality of the fly, or how accurate of a representation the fly is, the fish still perceives it as food. Is that a genetic fault? Or is it learned behavior (or perhaps that should be stated: is that as yet unlearned behavior—Eccles is playing around with these ideas on his blog)? The more skilled the fisherman, the more he can manipulate things so the artificial appears real, either through the fly’s appearance (the construction of the fly) or the fly’s location and actions (the presentation of the fly). The closer those things match the fish’s perceived “fly reality,” the more likely the fish is to take the fly.
I recently read a book by an author who is a drummer and lyricist for a successful band (about 40 years). His lyrics are thought-provoking and often deal with the human condition. His lyrics make him come across as sagacious and concerned about people. But for many who read his book, they think he came across as egotistical, intolerant, condescending, personally irresponsible, etc. They had a hard time reconciling the lyrics from the person, the public from the private. They felt the lyricist had deceived them because their perceived “lyricist reality” did not match actuality as related through the book.
Public Performers
This is not an isolated case, people are often disenchanted when they meet a public “performer” (what I am calling any person who has a public side to them: actors, authors, speakers, poets, teachers, musicians, comedians, politicians, dancers, artists, etc.). People may admire the public performer, but in a private setting they are disappointed because that public persona, based on a performance, is not who the person really is in private.
But are public performers really any different than anybody else—we all tend to live different lives: the one we live with our family, the one we live with our self, the one we live with friends, the one we live with colleagues, etc. This disjunct between our different selves, between public and private, between words and deeds, between performer and performance is often too disparate for some to reconcile. But, focusing now on only public performers, should that disjunct make the power of the performance any less diminished?
All public performances are attempts by the performer to influence their audience. One could even say manipulate. I’ll focus on just authors and their public performances—“published” writing (published referring to any writing that is available to anyone willing to find it or pay for it), yet the same things could be said of any of the aforementioned “performers” within their chosen field.
Authors
Is an author, when writing for the public, really trying to come across as her private self—is that the purpose of publishing her written words? The main reason authors publish their writing is to influence others, to get some sort of response from the reader, not to come across as themselves. And when an author gets the desired response from a reader, they have succeeded in manipulating the reader’s thoughts, feelings or actions in the way they want.
Let me restate and elaborate: good authors can manipulate because they are adept at making things come across a certain way—it is their “job” to influence readers. All writing is meant to evoke a response within the reader—to cause the reader to think, feel or act a certain way. Good writing is when the author succeeds in influencing the reader in the way the author intends to influence them. Poor writing is not influencing the reader in the intended way.
Authors manipulate in different ways. In nonfiction writing they often try to persuade through reasoning and logic. In personal narrative (nonfiction) and fiction writing they manipulate the reader’s perception of time and location so the reader feels as if they are there—getting the reader in the moment to experience the same things those in the piece do. Or they may write of characters or situations in such a way as to manipulate the reader’s emotions so the reader cares about what happens to the characters.
In fly fishing, fishermen are at different levels in their ability to deceive and manipulate fish. As a fisherman, you naturally critique others as you watch them fish. The more skills you personally have, the easier it is to determine someone else’s lack of skills. And yet, the more proficient the fisherman, the fewer faults are found in their methods and the more we perceive that fisherman’s skills. When a fisherman’s skills are so far beyond ours, we may be left with jaw dropped and just admiring the beauty of the casting (or reading the water, or fly construction, etc.), no longer thinking about critiquing the technical aspects.
In writing it is no different. We can all recognize truly terrible writing. However, the more expert an author is, the better that author can manipulate others because the technical aspects of the writing are so well employed that the reader either no longer has the necessary knowledge to critique (the reader does not realize he is being manipulated), the reader is overpowered by the skillful use of the medium so they are lost in the moment and fail to critique, or they have willingly suspended their desire to critique (they allow themselves to be manipulated because of the beauty of the writing).
The Truth of Reality
Many fly fishing blogs have personal narratives on them (the telling of actual events of one’s life). These narratives are not only manipulations by the author, they are also deceptions. Usually unintended deceptions, but they are not unvarnished truth. An author of a personal narrative may think he is simply recording events exactly as they happened, but the experiencing self (the person who had the experience) and the narrating self (the one telling about the experience) are not identical, even when it is the same person.
Much as we like to think that a camera captures “reality,” it does not capture a complete picture of reality. The photographer makes choices (consciously or subconsciously) about what is or is not framed, the time at which the scene is actually exposed and how the picture is or is not post-processed.
In the same fashion, the narrating self makes choices, either consciously or subconsciously. Memory, omissions, deletions, perspectives, thoughts, biases, feelings, time—all of these factors play a role in recording the telling of a story of one’s experience. In this way, the story told is a fabrication.
Fabrication. Now, that is an interesting word for me to choose to put in the spot I put it. What do I mean by fabrication? One meaning for fabrication is a deliberate falsehood. Another meaning for fabrication is the making of something from raw material. These are the denotative meanings (the dictionary definitions) of the word. Which of the two definitions did I mean?
Words
The very words one uses to narrate an event carry not only the denotative meanings, but connotations, nuances of meaning, that each reader will interpret differently because of the reader’s knowledge and experiences. The author consciously (and sometimes subconsciously) chooses words to narrate their story. Those words have connotations which influence the reader one way or another. Again, the more skilled an author is, the more skilled he is at manipulating the reader by choosing words that will move a reader in one way or another.
As an aside, subconscious word choices are often the most enjoyable for the author because they are serendipitous—when the author rereads the piece and realizes a word has an additional meaning that enhances the writing, but they weren’t thinking about the additional meanings when they initially used it.)
No matter how faithful and accurate the blog author hopes to be in narrating his fishing experience, it is a deception, whether conscious or subconscious, of how the author wants to manipulate (consciously or subconsciously) the reader because the narrating self is not the experiencing self and the author’s word choices.
Manipulating the reader’s thoughts and feelings are usually purposeful, but the deceptions usually aren’t—they are usually unintended. A clear distinction must be made between willful manipulation of facts, and inaccurate recall because there are authors who purposely deceive.
Willingly Deceptive
There has been much debate about how much “poetic license” should be allowed in the genres of creative non-fiction (sometimes known as literary non-fiction), personal narrative and memoir.
One of my favorite books, The Earth Is Enough is supposed to be an autobiographical account of Harry Middleton’s “growing up in a world of trout and old men” (the subtitle). There has been some speculation that many of the events are not accurate, in fact, out and out fabrications. (Middleton did write in the preface, “This is just a boy’s story…of growing up: my story, my memories. All mine and remembered as I want to remember them…I have played with memory and time, shuffling them about at will…If I have changed the names, I have not changed the emotions, the experiences, the details of it all…”) It is not my desire to discuss whether it is or is not an “accurate” book, but rather to ask, should it matter? Should it diminish the power of the book if he did lie about some, or even all, of the people, places and events? What if everything remained the same, except that it was sold as a fictional book?
There are many other cases (most noticeably in the memoir genre—James Frey’s Million Little Pieces and the most recent Oprah flap over Herman Rosenblat’s Angel at the Fence comes to mind) where authors have willfully lied about events. Keep in mind the purposes for writing: to evoke a response within the reader—to cause the reader to think, feel or act a certain way. If a piece is assumed by the reader to be autobiographical in nature, does the author have a moral obligation to the reader to make sure everything within the piece is 100% accurate? Why?
Points to Ponder
With regards to only personal narrative writing:
- Is it the 100% accurate retelling of events that is important, or the ideas and emotions the author wants the reader to experience that are important?
- Does it matter how long the piece is (one page versus book length)?
- Does it matter if it is for profit (book versus blog)?
- Are personal narratives (whether blogs or books) journalism (reporting of facts) or literature (storytelling)?
- If the purpose of a piece is to get you to think or feel a certain way, or do a certain thing, and you do, hasn’t the piece accomplished it’s intended goal?
- Should it make a personal narrative any less “real” when it is run through the sieve of self-selection?
- Any less powerful?
- How accurate is any dialog in a personal narrative (specially the longer away from the event the reporting of said dialog occurs)?
- Would it anger you to find out that a personal narrative account by your favorite author was, in fact, to some degree, made up?
- Do blog authors of personal narratives have a moral obligation to the reader?
- As a reader, how much deception and manipulation are you willing to bear?
- Slightly different question: If the piece were a persuasive piece, for example intending to get the reader to promote the protection of cutthroat trout, is it permissible to fudge the facts so that the reader believes that cutthroat should be protected?
- Does the way you answer the last question make you want to revise any of your previous answers?
Feel free to answer any/some of these questions, or raise your own.
1. If the piece is to be entertaining then embellishment is required, as even the funniest narration of real events can be made more so – with insight or shared misery from the author. If the goal is “ego stroke” – embellishment is also fitting, as the goal is to make the writer look more the Man … a long way of saying, “If you’re testifying in Court then recite the facts, if not – lie like a sumbitch.”
2. Size doesn’t matter.
3. No, a good yarn is just that – whether profit is involved or no.
4. Literature, mainly because you lied like an SOB.
5. Yes it has, those are the elusive “awesome” posts that you sat down to write, but never finished.
6. Your readership has figured out your propensity to add additional inches to the fish you’ve caught once you post your first image. Personal narratives are then run through the same skeptic filter – especially when the author claims, ” honest, that fish had to be ninety….”
7. ?
8. See my response to #6 above – the “skeptic” filter. Considering the Bible was writ a couple hundred years after the events took place – and we’re still arguing about its authenticity, we’re likely to call you an outright liar unless you’re still dripping streamwater … We cut a little slack – only for Jesus, and that was grudgingly …
9. No. I assumed it was made up when I first read the piece. Reading is one of many forms of escapism – and I prefer to be entertained than read some dry history of the economic benefit of dried yogurt.
On the converse, if the fellow was representing himself as an expert – and the narrative somehow was window dressed to back up that claim … then he’s a poseur, and he’s lost me as a reader.
10. Blog authors – by definition, are immoral. Most (including myself) write because their fishing pals have heard all the stories and witnessed that 14″ fish morph into 20″ – a feat only Jesu Christo was able to do with bread and sardines – and then only oncet. Blog authors have questionable morals, hygiene, and are only in it for the “groupies.”
11. Infinite, mainly because I’m tired of the pabulum served by “the Dead Tree media” – there hasn’t been an original idea in a magazine venue for the last decade. I prefer blogs as many are cutting edge fishermen – and I enjoy learning from them as they recite the hardships endured, the frustation, and occasional victory. Fishing is a blood sport and suffering is part and parcel of the learning process. I’ll lead with my chin – and while it’s healing I’ll read about some other fellow doing likewise.
12. All media has bias – and the guys that say otherwise are more biased than any other … fair and balanced, my rosy red arse .. You’re welcome to attempt to sway my opinion on any matter, but I’m a tough sell.
13. No. I admit to being a lying-cheating SOB, and only find fault with the guys that insist they’re not like me …
Immoral, okay, I’ll give you that. Groupies, I’m good there too. I’m just wondering how you know about my hygiene? I know about yours because the wind blows from west to east (ie from kbarton to cutthroat stalker – and, of course, brownliners, well…uh…you know). But us non-brownliners, down-winders…I’m truly
offendingoffended you’d think such.Thanks for the chuckles Keith. I’m glad your BS filter is set to high while reading, and that you’re okay with the BS once you’ve spotted it.
I think for the most part I’m okay with some deception in writing, even for the non-funny/serious type pieces. Especially if the author readily admits to it when asked (Annie Dillard’s Tinker at Pilgrim Creek, the opening vignette about the cat, for example). I have a problem with James Fey trying to pass off his experiences as 100% true even after being ratted out. Small bits messed with here and there for “artistic merit” are fine by me. To what degree and what percent do I find acceptable? I don’t know, but I have yet to read something where I’m pissed off because I feel like I’ve been ripped off by the writer for lying to me. I guess that’s where the BS filter comes in – if you are skeptical to a great degree, you’re less likely to be disappointed.
Very Interesting and thought provoking. I may have mentioned this before, but here it is again. I used to dislike fiction. I mentioned this to an english professor back in the day. He asked why I disliked it and I told him I didn’t like it because it wasn’t true and didn’t happen. He told me that fiction does happen because it happens in the mind of the writer and in the mind of the reader. It gave me a different perspective.
Verbal stories (story telling) has a long history of embelishment for some of the reasons you have stated. I suspect that the written word has been, is, and will continue to be, used for those reasons too.
When I have more time, I’d like to respond in more depth to this topic. I’d like to dig up some quotes from one of my favorite nature writers. As I recall, (recollection can get you in trouble), he had some interesting things to say about story telling and narrative.
Hi Robert. Thanks for chiming in.
I do remember you saying before that you were anti-fiction at one time. That “mind of the reader and mind of the writer” is where the nub is. I’m interested to hear your thoughts after a bit of rumination time. My main thoughts are centering around the genre of “personal narrative,” pieces I like to write. Not just the fishing report type thing, but ones like my Sleepless Autumn Nights or more recently my Sowing and Reaping. The latter played a bit with time (I didn’t follow the exact order of reality) and a bit of bending exactly what happened when I found the shirt because it was quite some time ago and I’m not positive on exactly how I found it – I remember the hole on the Greys River where I found it, that much is clear in my mind, but the other aspects are fuzzy. So I wrote it as close as possible, but representing it the way I want to remember it.
Some things, especially humor as Keith points out, I’m fine bending even more of the truth, such as in my post Of Balls and Bulls. That one was written fairly soon after the actual events, but I think I might have morphed a couple of trips into one (I may have made that clear, but I’m not sure now). I do know that some of the dialog isn’t 100% faithful, but the intent of the dialog is accurate.
Numbers and such, I don’t really care too much about so I usually give approximations. Anything over 16″ I measure against my fly rod to get an estimate. Anything 20″ or longer I try to get as accurate a measure as possible. I try to use the words “about,” “around,” “at least,” etc. if I’m talking numbers. Quantity of fish are usually approximates as well. If I’ve caught five or fewer fish, I’m pretty accurate. If I catch more than about seven or so, I really stop counting. If I give a number of fish caught and it’s more than that, I try to estimate down and once again use the qualifiers. But I’m less concerned about these types of posts anyhow.
I’m more concerned about ones that have more “emotional” content. So, when I write those kinds of posts, and they aren’t “exact,” that’s what I’m curious about.
Good answers to the questions from Kieth Barton.(Standing in murky water may lead to clarity.)
I have to admit to being a straight-up liar and a “zen-talking SOB”, Scott, but my sole motivation (I think) is to entertain people. As a fiction writer I often put myself into the persona of an entirely different person, a fun but also sometimes a painful process, but the purpose is to entertain.
If you’re not writing textbooks, don’t worry too much about the truth. Once you throw truth out the window the rest is a piece of cake.
It is all fishing.
Curly,
“Once you throw truth out the window the rest is a piece of cake.” That’s a pretty good summation. I do believe that admitting to being a “straight-up liar” is the first step to recovery (I’m not sure the recovery from what, but I’m sure that’s a first step to it).
Thanks for adding to the fray.
I think we all enjoy a little fiction at times in our conversation or writing. It frees us from the grip of reality which we all stare at for
hours at a time…usually 9 to 5. Fiction can be stress reliving and can create conversation and help us get a good read on the BS meter. I actually like meter readering at times. The LINE where it no longer is entertaining or relationship building is when the giver of the fiction (BS) is doing it to cover for personal inadequacies, trying to aggrandize their accomplishments, put themselves on a higher level the rest of us average chips or trying to further their position from 9 to 5. As I reflect on this (or should I say…look out on the pasture of life), I can think of hardly any acquaintances who have ever delved into self-serving chip flipping. I guess that is why they are just acquaintances and not friends. Chips-A-Hoy!!!!
TB,
Isn’t that chip “tossing,” not flipping? (Next time you see my mom, ask her about her chip tossing accomplishments – she’s a champion.) And it looks like I’ll have to be careful the next time you offer me any pre-packaged chocolate chip cookies.
A little fiction in the life is definitely stress relieving. That’s one reason I write.
Hi Scott,
Really nice post. Bruce Chatwin comes to mind. Here was a guy who wrote some excellent stuff. He wrote of it in the first person (“In Patagonia” and “Songlines” are anyway) and when I read his work I was reading the truth of him being there and doing those things. It seemed important that he was (I don’t know why). After his death in 1989 much more came out about the man himself which was only added to when his biography appeared. This was no hagiography nor was it a complete hatchet job but seemed to be a straight forward telling of a complicated man who, it turns out, probably didn’t do many of the things he says he “experienced” in his books. A friend who also liked (likes) Chatwin said “what’s it matter, the books are still great” but it is noticeable that I haven’t re-read him since. Perhaps because I invested much in the first person aspect of the telling they do seem diminished now. I suppose I won’t really know until I pick up one of his books again.
On the other hand any fishing story, if it is simple reportage of a trip with numbers and sizes, has the BS detector turned up full dial from the start. But I am happy to be sold a line if the story is good, if the trip report is a jumping off point for some tangential musing. The only criteria then is the quality, how much it amuses me and/or makes me think. I think there is also a comfort feeling for particular writers. One lets some of them get away with a bit more because they have toggled our trust with good work previously. For example, it matters not a jot to me whether the genesis for an idea comes really at the moment an author says – while bank sitting on a sultry summer evening say – or much later and then was attached to this moment because it improves the story. If the idea is good and subsequently well developed I think it can take a lot of artistic plasticity. Those who incessantly shoe-horn in large fish, brand names and the like aren’t really writing for the pleasure of it, for the entertainment. They are dishing out advertising copy and we all know what we do with that.
Good stuff once again Scott
Eccles
Eccles,
I have read of Chatwin, but haven’t read anything by him. Your reaction, and your friend’s reaction, to him is the very thing I’m talking about. Does it matter? And why? For some reason, knowing that events were “real” for the author may make us more amazed or swept up in the immediacy of the events. Maybe it helps us connect more to the author than to fictional characters, knowing that these types of things happen to real people. I don’t know.
“Artistic plasticity” is a nice way to talk about bending the truth. And that “tangential musing” is often what I’m more interested in anyhow, not the specifics of the event that led to the musing. Although I also like a good turn of phrase that strikes an emotional chord, some resonance within me – that kind of nostalgia/melancholy thing or I-wish-I-was-there feeling. And I think I can get that no matter how much the truth is tweaked. But out and out BS or promotionals, that’s usually not the kind of writing I’m thinking about.
Thanks for adding your two pence (or, with inflation, etc., is that two quid?).
I feel that anything that is represented as a fact should be handled as such by the author to the best of his ability. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately if you are the author) in most all cases there is no way to verify either way, and I pity the fool that spends any amount of time trying to fact check some schmuck’s most recent blog post. Why raise your blood pressure worrying about it? If you smell BS, check your shoes before walking on the carpet. But if you could prove it false, would you?
I have a feeling that some people who actively attempt to find falsehoods in others claims are generally liars themselves, and competitive to the point of being an asshole about it. Or they are just editors.
Let us say, for example you are fishing with someone, and they catch a fish that you measure as 20 inches. Later, upon retelling the catch they tell someone else the fish was “a 25 incher.” Did he do it on purpose? Do you call them out? If so, why? Because you just want the audience to have information as close to correct as possible? Or because you think they are trying to seem greater than they really are? Are you worried about others thinking your friend is a better fisherman than you because he caught a bigger fish? Or do you just slap him on the back and say, “good job.” Was what he did a willful manipulation of facts, or inaccurate recall? Should you call him out in either case? What would it say about you if you did?
You don’t have to lie to be cool, you may have to lie to be interesting.
Some times the truth is just not grand enough to be noteworthy. And that is fine, but if a person writes some 400 page autobiography and claims that its contents are factual when they are not, this is a problem for me. If you have to flat out lie to invoke an emotional response because your facts don’t cut the mustard, don’t call it truth. If it was not a published work, and just a blog post containing these lies is it just as bad? Is burning down a whole forest as bad as burning down a single tree? Is it less bad if the manipulation is unintentional and passed off as truth? What if you burned the forest down accidently?
I love fiction. I love to read a great story without the worry of untangling truth from lies. I love being caught up in the improbable possibility of great adventures. I love science fictions with characters utilizing technology that could never exist to do massively awesome things. Would stories like this be more powerful if I thought they were true? Probably.
Just because a story will have a more powerful effect on readers if they think it is true does not give the author the authority to call it truth, no matter what it will do to sales.
I am not the truth police, and I love a good story as much as the next guy. But it does burn me a little finding out my non-fiction had an affair with my fiction behind my back, and nobody bothered telling me.
But nobody, especially me, is innocent. And sometimes it is better not knowing the truth. Because it may set you free somewhere you don’t want to be. So just sit back and enjoy the telling of a great lie, because sometimes you are the reader, and sometimes you are the author.
-Alex
Alex:
I think that’s interesting about worrying about fact checking someone else’s fishing story. I hadn’t really thought about that. The Angel at the Fence piece I pointed to in my post gets into that a bit. The brother of the author and a close friend of the author were pretty much willing to let the lies go, it wasn’t worth worrying about. To a point. Then the friend decided he had enough and finally had to say something.
Classic line: “…finding out my non-fiction had an affair with my fiction behind my back, and nobody bothered telling me.” Excellent!
But there is a name for it when they do tell you of their affair, “autofiction” or “autobiografiction,” which is an attempt to fix the problem you stated about the “400 page autobiography” that claims it as such. This form of writing merges the two genres, but at least you know that up front. Unfortunately there are plenty of people out there who should label as that who are instead calling it a memoir. Maybe what gripes me are those making a fortune off their work because they are lying about what their work is. Regular liars, fiction writers, we understand. Hidden liars, “memoirists” who lie, we hate because they are Oprahfied with their dupefications.
I appreciate your input!
Okay…this stuff is getting really good. I am sitting at home enjoying all the chiming in on the blog. Whoever thought the stalker blog would ever get so fun. At the same time I end the zap session on the computer longing for the graphite shrouded by the saw dust. I am ready to jump into the writing untensil grinder to sharpen things up. After reading about all the philanthropic adventures of the many polar bear clubs throughout the world garnering in the moola for charitable causes by taking the ice cube Nestea plunge (amazing how we can continue to fork out money for stupid acts of humanity when we are broke)…I am ready to fire up the Ford and drive to a fabricated piece of H2O to do my own polar bearing and zing out size 22′s to the testubular Salmo trutta and Oncorhynchus mykiss who have no clue what the blazes they are doing Idaho…If I am lucky the clarki utah will give a guest appearance to make my day…in other words…time to shave off the saw dust and get to the point…time to get some more material for the commentary by walking the walk and doing some fly fishing…haven’t fished in a month…ANYBODY IN…my license runs out Wednesday! (the Ellipsisizer)
Wednesday. 10:00. The Narrows. Nymphs are a must, but we’ll hold out for a few BWO to make an appearance.
It is well known that Jack Kerouac’s “memoirs” were highly fictionalized. Does that diminish the quality of the writing or its poetry? Does that have an adverse effect on us when we read it? Does it really matter?
I think it’s really all about intent. A writer’s intent is a difficult thing to hide from discerning readers. A bad writer is never going to get rich from fooling people. A good writer with smelly intentions is never going to get rich from fooling people (and this person seldom becomes a good writer). If the writer is crafty and we sense friendly intent, we will let him/her BS the hell out of us to the last page.
The first function of art is exactly that as the first function of mythology: to transport the mind in experience past the guardians – desire and fear – of the paradisal gate. In the words of the poet Blake in the Marriage of Heaven and Hell, “If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is, infinite.” But the cleansing of the doors, the wiping away of the guardians, those cherubim with their flaming swords, is the first effect of art, where the second, simultaneously, is the rapture of recognising in a single hair “a thousand golden lions.”
Thanks for coming back Curly.
The questions in your first paragraph are the same as mine – does it matter? Some are adamant yes, some an adamant no. Me, I’m a bit wishy-washy with a usually not, but it can somtetimes piss me off when I perceive the “writer’s intent” falls into the category of, as Talking Bull said, aggrandizement. If I perceive the author is just trying to tell a story, to enhance the experience for the reader, I’m a little more tolerant.
Your 2nd paragraph is what I was getting at in my 12th paragraph: The author’s poor skills allow us to smell the BS or their good skills make us willingly give in to it.
That third paragraph (a quote from Joseph Campbell) is an interesting thought of his regarding the purpose art – that it removes a barrier, the cherubim, who he calls desire and fear, and who guard the Tree of Life. That dichotomy of desire/fear – we want it but we’re afraid of it. In the story of Adam and Eve, they have eaten the fruit of knowledge of good and evil (another dichotomy), it is then that the cherubim are placed to guard their access to the garden they were expelled from, and especially from the tree, which, as Blake notes, is a view of the infinite – immortality.
To say that art, in this case stories, wipe away desire and fear allowing us to peek at the infinite, would, I believe, only hold true in the most skilled of hands. So often an author’s work only allows us a glimpse at our own mortality because the author is so firmly gazing at his own navel (which of course ties us right back to the Garden of Eden, since the Tree of Life was in the midst, or center, of the Garden – as the omphalos, or navel of their universe). For most authors, they maybe help temporarily escape or delay desire and fear.
Another thought: Is it that a peek at the infinite might actually bring about the desire and/or fear that Campbell is alluding to? In that case wouldn’t the cherubim actually be shielding mortals from desire and fear, not representing desire and fear? Hard to say.
Anyhow, thanks for the quote – it gave me a chance to get the brain thinking this morning.
What a shame that the Rosenblats lied about their story. I wish Oprah would publicize only checked-out true stories from now on forward.I read about a genuine Holocaust love story in the NY Times recently and it’s better than the Rosenblats anyway. Stan Lee and Neal Adams the famous comic book artists were publicizing the story of Dina Gottliebova Babbitt. I checked and I’m surprised there’s no book on this yet. It’s a great story! It also appears to be all true, thankfully.Dina Gottliebova Babbitt who was a 19 year old art student at Auschwitz. There she painted Snow White and the Seven Dwarves on the wall of the children’s barracks to cheer them up. Dina’s art became her salvation and helped her find true love!Dr. Mengele, the Angel of Death, found out about the mural Dina painted and called for her. She thought she was going to be gassed, but she bravely stood up to Mengele and he decided to make her his portrait painter, saving herself and her mother from the gas chamber.After the war, Dina interviewed for a job as an animator based on the art she did in Auschwitz and the person interviewing her turned out to be the man who created Snow White & the 7 Dwarfs for the movie. They fell in love and got married. Show White saved Dina’s life twice! I love this story!