Truth in Fiction (Alex Byrne)

8/10/2019 Truth in Fiction (Alex Byrne)

1/12

Australasian Journal o f Philosophy

Vol. 71, No. 1; Ma rch 1993

T R U T H I N F I C T I O N : T H E S T O R Y C O N T I N U E D ~

A l e x B y r n e

N ar r a t i v e f i c t io n , w i th w h ich I s h a ll ex c lu s iv e ly b e co n ce r n ed h e re , co n t a in s m an y

f a l seh o o d s . T h e r e i s n o s u ch p e r s o n a s Sh e r lo ck H o lm es , n o s u ch p l ace a s L i l l ip u t ,

n o co m m u n i ty o f t a l k in g r ab b i t s o n Wate r s h ip D o w n o r an y w h er e e l s e , an d t h e r e

n ev e r h as b een , n o r ev e r w i l l b e , s u ch a s u s t a in ed s eq u en ce o f h o r ro r s a s t h o s e Sad e

ca t a lo g u es i n

120 Days in Sodom.

But a l l these ac tua l f a l sehoods are t rue in the i r

r espec t iv e f ic t ions .

In the f i r s t par t o f th i s paper I c r i t i c i se the accoun ts o f t ru th in f ic t ion which have

bee n p ropo sed by Dav id L ewis ~ and G rego ry C ur r ie . 3 In the secon d par t I o f f er a

r iva l accoun t .

W h a t i s t h e p r o b l em ? W h y n o t i d en t i f y w h a t i s tr u e i n a fi c t i o n w i th w h a t i s ex p l i c -

i t l y s t a t ed i n t h e f i c t i o n ( o r f o l l o w s d ed u c t i v e ly f r o m w h a t i s ex p l i c i t l y s t a t ed ) ?

W e l l , i n s o m e f i c t i o n s t h e r e a r e d e l u d e d n a r r a t o r s , a n d s o t h e y s p e a k f a l s e l y .

Therefore the p roposa l doe s no t g ive a su f f ic ien t cond i t ion . Bu t i t does no t g ive a

n eces s a r y co n d i t i o n e i th e r . T h e r e a r e m an y t r u th s i n f ic t i o n w h ich a r e n o t ex p l ic i t l y

s ta ted , an d are no t en ta i led by wh at i s exp l ic i t ly s ta ted . I t i s t rue in the Holme s s to -

r ie s - - a s L ew i s p o in t ed o u t - - t h a t H o lm es d o es n o t h av e a t h i rd n o st r il , an d t ha t h e

n ev e r v i s i t ed t h e m o o n s o f Sa tu rn . H o w e v er , n e i t h e r o f t hes e p r o p o s i t i o n s is ex p l ic -

i t ly s ta ted in the s to r ies , o r en ta i le d by w hat i s exp l ic i t ly s tated .

I sha l l t ake fo r g ran ted tha t an accoun t o f t ru th in f ic t ion shou ld no t invoke f ic -

t iona l ob jec t s . I t i s t rue in the Sher lock Ho lme s s to r ies tha t Hol me s took coca ine .

B u t H o l m e s t o o k c o c a i n e i s n o t t r ue simpliciter f o r t h e r e i s n o s u ch p e r s o n a s

H o lm es . I n s t ead , i n t h e n o r m a l co n t ex t o f u t t e r an ce , t h e s en t en c e H o lm e s t o o k

co ca in e i s im p l i c i t l y u n d e r s to o d t o b e p r e f i x ed b y t h e s en t en t i a l o p e r a to r I t is tr u e

in the Holm es s tor ies tha t . . . Our task , then , i s to g ive an acco un t o f the t ru th -

co n d i t i o n s o f s t a t em en t s o f t h e f o r m I t i s t r u e i n fi c t i o n F t h a t p o r, eq u iv a l en t ly , 0

i s t rue in f ic t ion F .

Bo th L ew i s an d Cu r r i e s acco u n t s ar e a lo n g t h es e l i n es. L ew i s t h eo r y s t ar ted

the ba l l ro l l ing . Let us beg in wi th i t .

t For m any helpful comm ents and suggestions, I am very grateful to Susan Bernofsky, Fion a

Cowie, David Lewis, Dick Moran, and two anonym ous referees for the Australasian Journal of

Philosophy.

Versions of this paper were read at the 1991 AA P conference in Melbourne, and at

the California Institute of Technology. I am indebted to both audiences for discussion.

2 +Truth in Fictio n reprinted with postscripts in D. K. Lewis, Philosophical Papers Vol. 1 (Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 1983).

3 The Nature of Fiction

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).

24


2/12

Alex Byrne

L e w i s o f f e r s u s a c h o i c e b e t w e e n t w o a n a l y s e s . T h e f i rs t o n e i s a s f o l l o w s :

25

Analys i s 1

i s t ru e i n f ic t i o n F i f f ~ w o u l d h a v e b e e n t r ue h a d F b e e n t o l d a s k n o w n f a c t ?

A s L e w i s n o t e s , t h e r e a r e a n u m b e r o f s ig n i f i c a n t p r o b l e m s w i t h t h i s a t te m p t .

O n e c o n c e r n s c o n t i n g e n t f a ct s t h at a re n o t w i d e l y k n o w n . T o t a k e L e w i s ' e x a m p l e ,

in T h e A d v e n t u r e o f t h e S p e c k l e d B a n d H o l m e s c l a i m s t h a t t h e m u r d e r v i c t i m w a s

k i ll e d b y a R u s s e l l ' s v i p e r w h i c h h a d c l i m b e d d o w n a fa k e b e l l- r o p e ( an d b a c k u p

a g a i n ). B u t a R u s s e l l ' s v i p e r c a n n o t , i n f a c t , c l i m b a r o p e ( i t i s n o t a c o n s t r i c t o r ) ?

A s L e w i s p u t s it , ' t h e r e a r e w o r l d s w h e r e t h e H o l m e s s t o r i e s a r e t o l d a s k n o w n f a c t ,

w h e r e t h e s na k e r e a c h e d t h e v i c t i m s o m e o t h e r w a y , a n d w h e r e H o l m e s t h e r e fo r e

b u n g l e d . P r e s u m a b l y s o m e o f t h e s e w o r l d s d i f f e r l e s s f r o m o u r s t h a n t h e ir r i v a l s

w h e r e H o l m e s w a s r i g h t a n d w h e r e R u s s e l l ' s v i p e r is n o t c a p a b l e o f c o n c e r t i n a

m o v e m e n t u p a ro p e . '6 T h e r e f o r e , a c c o r d i n g t o A n a l y s i s 1 , H o l m e s f a i l e d to s o l v e

t h e c a s e a f t e r a ll . T h a t c a n n o t b e r i g h t .

A g a i n , i t h a s b e e n a r g u e d ( i n e f f e c t ) th a t i f A S t udy i n Sc ar l e t h a d b e e n t o l d a s

k n o w n f a c t , t h e ( i n c o m p l e t e l y d e s c r i b e d ) b l o o d t e s t H o l m e s d i s c o v e r s t h e r e i n w o u l d

h a v e u s e d c r y s t al l i n e s o d i u m h y d r o x i d e a n d a s a t u ra t ed s o l u ti o n o f a m m o n i u m s u l-

p h a te . 7 B u t t h i s is s u r e l y a n e x a m p l e o f i m p l a u s i b l e d e t a i l, l i k e th e e x a c t n u m b e r o f

s o c k s W a t s o n e v e r o w n e d . I t i s n o t t r u e i n t h e f i c t io n - - o r s o I s u g g e s t - - t h at th e

b l o o d t e s t u s e s t h e s e c h e m i c a l s , b u t n e i t h e r i s it f a l s e ?

I n o r d e r t o o v e r c o m e t hi s t y p e o f p ro b l e m , L e w i s s u g g e s ts t h e f o l l o w i n g a m e n d -

e d a c c o u n t .

A na l y s i s 2

i s t r u e i n f i c t io n F i f f t h e c o u n t e r f a c t u a l ' ~ w o u l d h a v e b e e n t r u e h a d F b e e n

t o ld a s k n o w n f a c t ' i s tr u e i n e v e r y b e l i e f w o r l d o f th e a u t h o r ' s c o m m u n i t y .

A b e l i e f w o r l d

o f s o m e c o m m u n i t y i s a p o s s ib l e w o r l d w h e r e a l l t h e o v e r t be l ie f s

o f t h e c o m m u n i t y a r e t ru e . A n d ' a b e l i e f [ is ] o v e r t i n a c o m m u n i t y a t a, t i m e i f f

m o r e o r le s s e v e r y o n e s h a r es i t, m o r e o r le s s e v e r y o n e t h i n k s t h a t m o r e o r le s s

e v e r y o n e s h a r e s i t, a n d s o o n . '9

T h i s a n a l y s i s c o p e s w i t h th e S p e c k l ed B a n d a n d b l o o d t e s t e x a m p l e s , f o r t h e r e l e -

4 Lewis states this using his analysis of counterfactuals in terms of possible worlds, but this is not

essential to his account (although it certainly adds to its explanatory value). M y objections d o not

turn on w hether Le w is' account o f counterfactuals is correct.

5The example is perhaps a little unfortunate. Although the balance o f scholarly opinion is appar-

ently for identifying the snake as a Ru sse ll 's viper, it is neve r explicitly said to be o ne in the story.

And if this identification is correct, then Conan D oy le mad e other factual errors about the snake.

See Alv in E . Rod in and Jack D . Key , ' Th e Speck l ed Band : Po i sonous Snakes and Ev i l

Do ctors ' in P j Doyle and E. W. Mc Diarm id (eds) , The Baker Street Dozen (Chicago, IL:

Contemporary Books, 1989).

6Lewis, op. cit. p. 271.

7 See Christine L . Huber, 'Th e Sherlock H olmes B lood T est ' reprinted in Philip A . Shreffler (ed.),

Sherlock Holmes by Gas-Lamp (New York: Fordham University Press, 1989).

' Cf. L ew is' exam ple o f the psychoanalysis o f fictional characters, op. cit. p. 271.

9Lewis, ibid. p. 272.


3/12

26

Truth in Fict ion: The S tory C ontinued

v a n t f a c ts a b o u t s n a k e s a n d c h e m i s t r y w e r e n o t m a t t e r s o f o v e r t b e l i e f i n V i c t o r i a n

E n g l a n d .

H o w e v e r , L e w i s ' w h o l e a p p r o a c h - - a n a l y s in g t ru t h in f ic t io n in te r m s

o f p o s s i -

b l e

t ru t h - - h a s a si g n i f i c a n t c o s t, a s L e w i s h i m s e l f h a s p o i n t e d o u t. S i m p l y , i m p o s -

s i b le p r o p o s i t i o n s c a n n o t b e t r u e i n f i ct i o n . L e w i s ' l a te s t s u g g e s t i o n f o r c o p i n g w i t h

c o n t r a d i c t o r y f i c t i o n s i s t h a t t h e y m a y b e d i v i d e d in t o c o n s i s t e n t f ra g m e n t s , w i t h

t r u t h i n s u c h f i c t i o n s b e i n g i d e n t i f i e d w i t h t r u t h i n a t le a s t o n e f r a g m e n t . ~

C u r r i e h a s c o m p l a i n e d t h a t i f w e d e n y t h a t i m p o s s i b l e p r o p o s i t i o n s c a n b e t r u e in

f i c ti o n , t h is d o e s t o o m u c h v i o l e n c e to o u r o r d i n a r y c o n c e p t . T h i s c r i t i c is m s e e m s t o

m e d e c i s i v e . A s C u r r i e o b s e r v e s , a s t o ry w h i c h h a s a s i ts ce n t r a l t h e m e t h e h e r o ' s

r e f u t a t io n o f G 6 d e l i s n o t w e l l t r e a te d o n L e w i s ' p r o p o s a l . H F o r i n t u i t i v e ly w e w a n t

t o s a y t h a t i t i s t r u e i n t h e f i c t i o n t h a t t h e h e r o r e f u t e s G 6 d e l , e v e n t h o u g h t h a t i s

i m p o s s i b l e . T h e w h o l e p o i n t o f t h e s t o ry w o u l d b e l o s t i f t h e r e f u t a t io n w e r e t a k e n

o u t. N o r w o u l d w e w a n t t o re p l a c e t h e r e fu t a t i o n b y a su r r o g a te , f o r in s t a n c e a v e r y

c o n v i n c i n g b u t s u b t ly i n v a l i d ' p r o o f ' w h i c h d e c e i v e s t h e h e r o a n d t h e o t h e r c h a r a c -

t e rs . T h e m o r a l o f

t h i s

s o r t o f s t o r y m i g h t b e q u i t e d i f f e re n t

A g a i n , f o r a l l w e k n o w , v a r i o u s f o r m s o f e s s e n t i a l i s m m i g h t b e t ru e . T h e r e a r e

n u m e r o u s s t o ri e s i n w h i c h a n i m a l s h a v e h u m a n c h a r a c t e r i st i c s: a d o n k e y t a lk s , a

m o l e a n d a r a t h a v e a m y s t i c a l e x p e r i e n c e , a p i g l e a d s a r e v o l u t i o n . I t i s s i m p l y n o t

t ru e ( i n s o m e o f th e s e f i c t io n s a t a n y r a t e ) th a t t h e a n i m a l s a r e h u m a n s i n a n i m a l

s h a p e . P e t e r R a b b i t i s u n q u e s t i o n a b l y a

r a b b i t .

T h e r e a r e a l s o c o u n t l e s s t a l e s o f

u n i c o r n s , d r a g o n s , p h o e n i x e s a n d t h e li k e . B u t a c a s e c a n b e m a d e f o r th e v i e w t h a t

d o n k e y s a r e

e s s e n t i a l l y

i n c a p a b l e o f ta l k i n g , o r th a t u n i c o r n s a r e

e s s e n t i a l l y

m y t h o -

l o g i c a l . 12 O t h e r e q u a l l y t r o u b l i n g e x a m p l e s a r e n o t h a r d t o fi n d .

M u s t w e s u s p e n d j u d g e m e n t o n w h a t is tr u e i n su c h f ic t io n s ? S u r e l y w e c a n n o t

w a i t f o r

p h i l o s o p h e r s

t o t e ll u s w h a t i s t r u e i n B e a t r i x P o t t e r ' s s t o r ie s - c h i l d r e n

s e e m t o m a n a g e t h i s w i t h o u t d if f ic u l t y . F i c t i o n i s s t r a n g e r t h a n t ru t h. I c o n c l u d e

t h a t t h e p r i c e f o r a L e w i s - s t y l e a n a l y s i s o f t r u th i n f i c ti o n i n t e r m s o f p o s s i b l e t r u th

i s t o o h i g h .

L e t u s n o w t u r n t o C u r r i e ' s a c c o u n t , w h i c h i s a s f o l l o w s ? 3

A n a l y s i s 3

I t i s t r u e i n f i c t i o n F t h a t p i f f i t i s r e a s o n a b l e f o r t h e i n f o r m e d r e a d e r t o i n f e r t h a t

t h e f i c t io n a l a u t h o r o f F b e l i e v e s t h a t p .

T h i s a c c o u n t c a n c o p e n e a t l y w i t h i m p o s s i b l e f i c ti o n : a l th o u g h s o m e i m p o s s i b le

p r o p o s i t i o n c a n n o t o f c o u r s e b e t rue , i t c a n n o n e t h e l e s s b e b e l i e v e d . 14

T h e ' i n f o r m e d r e a d e r ' i s ' a r e a d e r w h o k n o w s t h e r e le v a n t f a ct s ab o u t t h e c o m -

~0Lewis,

ibid.,

Postscript B.

HCurde , op. cit., p. 69. O f course, the hero must refute G Sde l 's actual proof.

~ Th e latter was suggested b y Kripke in Nam ing and Necessity (Oxford: Blackwell, 1980).

13 Op. cit.,p. 80.

J4 This is in fact problematic, especially on an analysis o f belie f in terms of possible w orlds. But,

although w e lack an adequate explanation of how it is possible, I think w e are entitled to assume

for present purposes that impossible propositions can be believed. T o pursue this further would be

to get into ve ry deep waters indeed.


4/12

A l e x B y r n e

27

m u n i t y i n wh i c h t h e w o r k w a s wr i tt en . 1 5 T h a t i s a l i t t l e v a g u e , b u t i n t u i t i v e l y c le a r .

W h a t o f t h e f i c t io n a l a u t h o r ? T h i s i s C u r r i e s e x p l a n a ti o n .

A s r e a d e r s , o u r m a k e - b e l i e v e is th a t w e a r e re a d i n g a n a r r a t i v e w r i t t e n b y a

r e l i a b l e , h i s t o r i c a l l y s i t u a t e d a g e n t ( t h e f i c t i o n a l au t h o r ) w h o w a n t s t o i m p a r t

c e r t a i n in f o r m a t i o n . H i s t o r i c a l l y s i t u a t e d a s h e i s , t h e f i c t i o n a l a u t h o r s p e a k s t o

a n a u d i e n c e o f h i s o w n t i m e a n d , m o s t li k e l y , o f h i s o w n c u l t u r e . H e c a n n o t , o f

c o u r s e , t e ll u s e v e r y t h i n g h e k n o w s t h a t is re l e v a n t t o h i s s t o ry - - i t w o u l d t a k e

t o o l o n g a n d th e a t t e m p t w o u l d d i s s i p a t e o u r i n t er e s t. B u t h e k n o w s t h a t h e

d o e s n o t n e e d t o te l l u s e v e r y th i n g . H e c a n r e l y o n a s h a re d b a c k g r o u n d o f

a s s u m p t i o n s , t e l li n g u s o n l y t h o s e t h i n g s t h a t d e v i a t e f r o m o r s u p p l e m e n t t h a t

b a c k g r o u n d , o r t h o s e th i n g s t h a t b e l o n g t o b a c k g r o u n d a n d t h a t h e f e e l s a n e e d

t o e m p h a s i z e . B e c a u s e t h e t e l l e r - - t h e fi c t i o n a l a u t h o r - - i s a f i c t i o n a l c o n -

s t r u c t i O n , h e h a s n o p r i v a t e b e l i e f s , n o b e l i e f s t h a t c o u l d n o t r e a s o n a b l y b e

i n f e r r e d f r o m t e x t p l u s b a c k g r o u n d . H i s b e l i e f s a r e n o t d i s c o v e r e d b y a r e a d i n g

( a ra t i o n a l a n d i n f o r m e d r e a d i n g ) b u t

c o n s t r u c t e d

by it.16

A s e r i o u s p r o b l e m w i t h t h i s a c c o u n t i s t h a t C u r r i e g i v e s u s f e w c l u e s h o w t o

i d e n t i fy th e f i c t i o n a l a u t h o r. T h e f i c t i o n a l a u t h o r i s n o t t h e

a u t h o r

n o r , a s w e w i l l

s o o n s e e , i s h e t h e e x p l i c i t n a r r a t o r ( i f t h e r e i s o n e ) . T h e f i c t i o n a l a u t h o r i s a c a l c u -

l a t i o n - b o u n d e n t i t y , h i s i d e n t i t y d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e t e x t a n d b a c k g r o u n d a s s u m p -

t io n s. T o s e e h o w t h i s ac c o u n t is s u p p o s e d to w o r k l w e n e e d t o e x a m i n e s o m e o f

C u r r i e s e x a m p l e s .

A s w e s a w , t h e r e a r e m a n y t r u th s i n a f i c t i o n w h i c h a r e n o t s t a te d e x p l i c i t l y i n

t h e t e x t. T o t a k e a n o t h e r e x a m p l e o f L e w i s , it i s t ru e i n t h e S h e r l o c k H o l m e s s t o -

r i e s t h a t H o l m e s l i v e s n e a r e r t o P a d d i n g t o n t h a n t o W a t e r l o o S t a t i o n , b u t W a t s o n

n e v e r s a y s t h i s, o r e v e n a n y t h i n g w h i c h d e d u c t i v e l y i m p l i e s i t. L e w i s a c c o u n t h a n -

d l e s t h i s p r o b l e m e l e g a n t l y , a n d C u r r i e c l a i m s h i s t h e o r y a l s 0 d e l i v e r s t h e r i g h t

r e su l ts . H e e x p l a i n s h o w i t a c h i e v e s t h i s a s fo l l o w s .

[ T h e f i c ti o n a l a u th o r ] w r i t e s a b o u t e v e n t s h e i s a c q u a i n t e d w i t h , m a n y o f w h i c h

t a k e p l a c e in L o n d o n a n d i n t o w h i c h L o n d o n s a c t u a l b u i l d i n g s a n d o t h e r l a n d -

m a r k s a r e i n c o r p o ra t e d . S o m e o n e w h o k n e w t h e s e t h i n g s w o u l d p r o b a b l y a ls o

k n o w t h e lo c a t i o n s o f th e m a i n r a i lw a y t e r m in i . S o i t s r e a s o n a b l e t o c o n c l u d e

t h at h e b e l i e v e d B a k e r S t r ee t to b e c l o s e r to P a d d i n g t o n t h a n t o W a t e r lo o . S o

i t s tr u e i n th e s t o r i e s t h a t i t s c l o s e r to P a d d i n g t o n t h a n t o W a t e r l o o ) 7

T h e b e l i e f s t h a t t h e fi c t i o n a l a u t h o r h a s n e e d n o t b e e x p l i c i t . I t i s t r u e in t h e

H o l m e s s t o r i e s t h a t H o l m e s d o e s n o t h a v e a t h i r d n o s t r il , a n d t h a t h e n e v e r v i s i t e d

t he m o o n s o f S a t u rn , b u t t h e f i c ti o n a l au t h o r p r e s u m a b l y d o e s n o t e x p l i c i tl y b e l i e v e

t h e s e t h in g s . B u t , I p r e s u m e C u r r i e w o u l d a r g u e , h e b e l i e v e s t h e m i m p l i c i t l y , j u s t a s

~5Currie,

op. cit .

p. 79.

~6Ib id .

p. 80.

~7Ib id .

p. 84.


5/12

28 Tru t h i n F i c t i on : The S t o ry C o n t i nued

(to borrow an example of Fodor s) you or I believe implicitly that no grass grows on

kangaroos.

However, Currie s proposed solution to the problem of inexplicit truth in fiction

is incorrect. I have lived in Lond on for a number of years, and am fairly well

acquainted with that city. It would be reasonable of you to infer that I have roughly

correct beliefs about the location of the main railway stations. But it would also be

reasonable of you to infer that I have important gaps in my knowledge, and some

seriously incorrect beliefs about the relative locations of the landmarks. If you tried

to reconstruct London from my beliefs it would look rather odd. I am not, I think,

particularly unusual in this respect. But then Currie s account immediately delivers

the result that the London in the Holmes stories has a signifi cantly different geogra-

phy from the real London, although we cannot specify just how it is different. For it

would be reasonable to think that the historically situated fictional author has some

incorrect and incomplete beliefs about Lon don s geography. This consequence is

quite unintuitive.

Watson is the explicit narrator of the Holmes stories/g But Watson is not the fic-

tional author. As Currie puts it, [i]t is true in the Holmes stories that Watson is less

intelligent than he th inks he is; but we could not work this out by inferring that

Watson believ es himsel f to be less intelli gent than he thinks he is. I9 In T h e

A d v e n t u r e s o f H u c k l e b e r r y F i n n t h e explicit narrator - - Huck himself - - evidently

believes that the first line of Hamlet s famous soliloquy is To be, or not to be; that

is the bare bodkin . Huck also believes that handling a snake skin brings misfor-

tune. But it is not true in the fiction that the text of H a m l e t differs from the actual

text, nor is it true in the fiction that snake skins have occult powers.

What is the relation between Watson, Huck, and their respective fictional

authors? Is it that the fictional author of the Holmes stories has found Watso n s

papers, and the fictional author of Huckleberry Finn has talked to Huck or, more

likely, is in possession of his manuscr iptT Currie has, I think, something like this

in mind. In the case of an unreliable narrator he says that the fictional author tells a

story he knows to be true by speaking with the voice of one of the (unreliable) char-

acters in the story .2~ So it seems that the fictional author of the Holmes stories

come across Watson s papers, is well acquainted with Victorian England, and would

now like to tell us the story in Wat son s own words. We then have to work out

what the fictional author believes to find out what is true in the fiction.

But, if this is right, we obviously cannot build into the account that the fictional

author believes that Wats on s story is completely true. Watson may be unreliable in

certain respects, perhaps about his own menta l powers. And Huck is certainly unre-

liable. So how does the fictional author come to believe that some of the narrator s

beliefs are false? Perhaps -- and some of Currie s remarks seem to suggest this - -

it is true in the Holmes stories that Watson is mistaken about his own mental powers

because the followin g counterfact ual is true: if someone with knowle dge of

~8More exactly, of all bar four.

19 bid. p. 124. In my view, this is very unfair to Watson.

2o The book ends YOURS TRULY, HUCKFINN .

2~ Op. cit. p. 125. The quotationdirectly concerns Currie s main example of an unreliablenarrator,

Kinbote n Nabokov sPale Fi re .


6/12

Alex Byrne 29

V i c t o r i a n E n g l a n d h a d f o u n d p a p e r s w i t h th e t e x t o f th e H o l m e s s t o r ie s , a n d r e a d

t h e m , h e w o u l d h a v e b e l i e v e d th a t th e s t o r i es w e r e g e n u i n e r e c o r d s o f a c t u a l e v e n ts ,

b u t t ha t W a t s o n w a s m i s ta k e n a b o u t h is o w n m e n t a l p o w e r s .

B u t t h is c o u n t e r f a c t u a l i s p a t e n t ly f a l s e . I f s n c h a p e r s o n h a d c o m e a c r o s s s u c h

t ex t s, h e w o u l d h a v e b e e n e x t r a o r d i n a r i ly g u l l i b l e h a d h e b e l i e v e d t h e y w e r e n o t f i c -

t io n a l. A n d c e r t a i n ly s o m e o n e l ik e H u c k c o u l d n o t h a v e w r i t t e n th e te x t w h i c h h e

f i c t i o n a l l y w r o t e .

I t w o u l d n o t h e l p t o in s i s t th a t t h e f i c t i o n a l a u t h o r b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e s to r y h e

r e c o u n t s i s l a r g e l y t r u e - t h e n a r r a t o r m a y b e s o u n r e l i a b l e t h a t ( i n t h e f i c t i o n ) t h e

s to ry i s l a rg e ly f a l s e . 22

F i n a l l y , l e t u s n o w t u rn t o w h a t I r e g a r d a s th e m o s t s e r i o u s p r o b l e m . B o t h

L e w i s a n d C u r r i e s a c c o u n t s s h a re a c o m m o n f e a t ur e . T h e y a r e b o t h i d e a l i s t

a c c o u n t s o f f i c ti o n . J u s t as B e r k e l e y t h o u g h t t h e r e c o u l d b e n o u n p e r c e i v e d t r e e s, s o

L e w i s a n d C u r r i e t h i n k t h e r e c a n b e n o u n t o l d ta l es . O n e i t h e r o f L e w i s a n a l y s e s it

i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w s t h at , f o r a n y f i c t i o n F , it i s t r u e i n F t h a t F i s t o l d a s k n o w n

f ac t. A n d i t w o u l d e v i d e n t ly b e r e a s o n a b l e f o r C u r r i e s i n f o r m e d r e a d e r t o i n f er

t h a t t h e f i c t i o n a l a u t h o r o f F b e l i e v e s t h a t h e , th e f i c t i o n a l a u t h o r , i s t e l l in g h i s t a le

a s k n o w n f a c t. S o C u r r i e s a c c o u n t a l s o h a s t h e c o n s e q u e n c e t h a t i t i s t r u e in F th a t

F i s t o l d a s k n o w n f a c t .

C u r r i e r e c o g n i s e s t h a t h e h a s a p r o b l e m w i t h w h a t h e c a ll s m i n d l e s s f i c t i o n -

f i c t i o n i n w h i c h t h e r e i s n o i n t e l l i g e n t l i f e 23 a n d s o n o o n e t o t e l l t h e ta l e. W e

m i g h t l i v e w i t h i d e a l is t a c c o u n t s o f f i c t io n i f t h is i s t h e o n l y p r i c e w e h a v e t o p a y .

B u t it i s n o t. T h e r e a r e n u m e r o u s n o v e l s w i t h i n f a ll i b l e n a r ra t o rs . F o r t h e s a k e o f a

c o n c r e t e e x a m p l e , c o n s i d e r a n y I r i s M u r d o c h n o v e l w r i t t e n i n t h e t h i r d p e r s o n , s a y

T h e B o o k a n d th e B r o t h e r h o o d . T h e i m p e r s o n a l n a r r a to r i n th i s f i c ti o n i s e v i d e n t l y

i n f a l l ib l e , a n d h a s a q u i t e a s t o n i s h i n g i n s i g h t i n t o t h e m e n t a l l i v e s o f t h e c h a r a c t e r s .

I s i t f i c t i o n a l l y t r u e t h a t t h e t e x t w a s w r i t t e n b y a r e l i a b l e , h i s t o r i c a l l y s i t u a t e d

a g e n t ? S u r e l y n o t. H o w d i d th i s a g e n t f i n d o u t a l l t h is in f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e ch a r -

a c t e rs m e n t a l s ta t e s? H o w i s i t t h a t t h is a g e n t c a n n o t b e m i s t a k e n ? I t w o u l d b e

a b s u rd t o s u g g e s t t h a t it i s tr u e i n t h e f i c t i o n th a t t h e c h a r a c t e r s w e r e i n t e r v i e w e d o r

p s y c h o a n a l y s e d b y t h e fi c t i o n a l a u th o r . T h e m o s t n a t u ra l t h i n g to s a y is t h a t t h e

e v e n t s t h e n o v e l d e s c r i b e s a r e t r u e i n t h e f i c t i o n , b u t t h a t i t i s n o t t r u e i n t h e f i c t i o n

t h at th e e v e n t s a r e d e s c r ib e d . T h e n o v e l c o n t a i n s a n e x c e s s o f in t e l l ig e n t li f e, b u t

t h e i n f a l l i b l e n a r r a t o r i s n o t p a r t o f t h e s t o r y .

L e w i s a n d C u r r i e s a n a l y s e s n o t o n l y h a v e t h e u n w e l c o m e r e s u lt th a t t h er e c a n

b e n o u n t o l d t a le s , b u t t h e y a l s o d e l i v e r e x t r e m e l y i m p l a u s i b l e d e t a il a b o u t t h e te l le r .

I f T h e B o o k a n d t h e B r o t h e r h o o d h a d b e e n t o l d a s k n o w n f a c t, 24 e i t h e r s o m e o n e

w o u l d h a v e h a d s u p e r n a tu r a l e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l p o w e r s , o r e l s e a n i n c r e d i b l y d e t a il e d

i n v e st ig a t io n w o u l d h a v e t a k e n p l a c e. A n d C u r r i e s f i c t io n a l a u th o r w o u l d p r e s u m -

In Iris Mu rdoch s The Black Prince there are five explicit narrators (m inu sth e edit or ), at most

one o f w hom is ent irely rel iable.

23 Op . ci r. p. 125. Currie is prepared to bite the bullet because he claims that the true semantics of

fictional names gives us independent reason to suppose that all fictions have fictional authors (p.

126 and section 4.7). That argument h as been w ell criticised b y Dav id Conter ( Fictio nal Nam es

and N arrating Characters , Australasian Journal o f Philosophy 69 ( 1991 ) pp. 319-328).

2, The d ifference between Analysis 1 and A nalysis 2 need not concern u s here.


7/12

30

Tru t h i n F i c t i on : The S t o ry C o n t i nued

a b l y b e l i e v e t h is . B u t , i n t h e f ic t i o n , t h e r e w a s p l a i n l y n o s u c h i n v e s t i g a t io n , a n d n o

o n e i n t h e f i c t io n h a s s u p e r n a t u r a l e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l p o w e r s , o r a t a n y r a t e n o t t h e

k i n d o f s u p e r n a t u r a l p o w e r s n e e d e d t o t e l l t h e s t o r y .

E n o u g h h a s b e e n s a i d , I th i n k , t o m o t i v a t e t h e s e a r c h f o r a n a l t e rn a t i v e a c c o u n t

o f t r u t h i n f i c t i o n .

I I

L e t u s s t a r t b y c o n s i d e r i n g n o n - f i c t i o n . ~

O s c a r , l e t u s s u p p o s e , i s a n e x p e r t o n p o i s o n o u s s n a k e s . O s c a r h a s a c o n v e r s a -

t i o n o n t h e s u b j e c t o f R u s s e l l s v i p e r; h e c o n d u c t s a s e m i n a r o n R u s s e l l s v ip e r ; h e

l e c t u r e s a b o u t R u s s e l l s v i p e r. T h e t r a n s c r i p t o f th e l e c tu r e s i s p u b l i s h e d . O s c a r

w r i t e s a n e x h a u s t i v e s t u d y o f R u s s e l l s v i p e r .

T h e s e a r e a ll c a s e s o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n . A p a r t fr o m t h e n o t o r io u s l o a t h s o m e s e r-

p e n t , w h a t d o t h e y h a v e i n c o m m o n ? I n a l l t h e s e c a s e s w h a t i s c o m m u n i c a t e d is

r a d i c a l l y u n d e r d e t e r m i n e d b y w h a t i s l i t e ra l l y s p o k e n o r w r i tt e n. T h e u n d e r d e t e r m i -

n a t io n i s m o r e a p p a r e n t (a n d s i n c e G r i c e s w o r k , a l m o s t t o o o b v i o u s t o m e n t io n ) i n

t h e c a s e o f c o n v e r s a t i o n , b u t i t i s a l s o p r e v a l e n t i n t h e m o s t c a r e f u l l y w r i t t e n t e x t -

b o o k s . S u p p o s e O s c a r s w r i t t e n a c c o u n t o f h i s z o o l o g i c a l t r i p t o I n d i a i n c l u d e s th i s

p a s s a g e .

W e t r a p p e d f o u r a d u l t m a l e s , w h i c h t h e v i l l a g e r s h e l p e d u s t o b r i n g b a c k t o t h e

t e n ts . T h e y h a d t h e u s u a l m a r k i n g s o f l o n g i t u d i n a l r e d d i s h b r o w n s p o t s, b u t t h e

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c b l a c k a n d w h i t e r i n g s w e r e s u r p r i s i n g l y d u l l . T h e s p e c i m e n s

w e r e l a t e r t a k e n b a c k b y P a n - A m .

E m b e d d e d i n a n o b v i o u s c o n t e x t , i t i s p e r f e c t l y c l e a r w h a t O s c a r i s s a y i n g . H e i s

s a y i n g t h a t h i s t e a m t r a p p e d f o u r ( a n d n o m o r e t h a n f o u r ) s n a k e s ( n o t p e o p l e o r

t i g e r s ) ; t h a t t h e

s n a k e s

( n o t t h e v i l l a g e r s o r t h e t e n t s) h a d s p o t s; t h a t t h e

s n a k e s

w e r e

m a r k e d w i t h b l a c k a n d w h i t e b a n d s o f l e s s th a n e x p e c t e d b r i g h t n e s s ( n o t t h a t th e

l o c a l j e w e l l e r y w a s u n i n t e r e s ti n g ) ; t h a t t h e

s n a k e s

w e r e

f l o w n

to

t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s

( n o t t h a t P a n - A m r e c o v e r e d i t s ri g h t f u l p r o p e r t y , o r r e tu r n e d t h e s n a k e s t o t h e i r o r ig -

i n a l h a b i t a t ). L e t u s s a y t h a t t h e s e p r o p o s i t i o n s a r e

a s s e r t e d i n

O s c a r s n o n - f ic t i o n .

A n d t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n , w h i c h w e g e n e r a l l y h a v e n o d i f f i c u l t y i n re c o v e r i n g , i s n o t

e n t i r e l y l i n g u i s t i c a l l y e n c o d e d i n t h e te x t . S o m e t i m e s i t c a n b e r e c o v e r e d s o l e l y b y

d i s a m b i g u a t i n g a s e n t e n c e : a s s i g n i n g r e f e r e n t s t o p r o n o u n s , t o a m b i g u o u s n a m e s

a n d d e s c r i p t io n s , a n d s o f o rt h . W e r e c o v e r th e i n f o r m a t i o n th a t

O s c a r s t e a m

t r a p p e d f o u r

s n a k e s

i n t h i s w a y . I n t h e t e r m i n o l o g y o f S p e r b e r a n d W i l s o n , t h i s i s

a n e x a m p l e o f a n

e x p l i c a t u r e ) 6

B u t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n th a t O s c a r s t e a m t r a p p e d

n o

m o r e t h a n f o u r s n a k e s g o e s b e y o n d w h a t a n y s e n t e n c e s a y s , e v e n a f t e r s u c h a

p r o c e s s o f d is a m b i g u a t i o n . I n th e t e r m i n o l o g y o f S p e r b e r a n d W i l s o n , th i s is a n

e x a m p l e o f a n

i m p l i c a t u r e .

I t is v e r y p l a u s i b l e to t h i n k t h a t O s c a r s b o o k a b o u t R u s s e l l s v i p e r is a l i m i t i n g

I sho uld say that in this section I am very much indeb ted to C urrie s account of fiction as comm u-

nication

(op . cit.,

ch. 1).

26 Dan Sperb er and D eirdre W ilson, Relevance (Oxford: Blackw ell, 1986) p. 182.


8/12

Alex Byrne 3 1

case of Oscar's conversation about Russell's viper - - a one-way conversation at a

distance. In general, there is much truth in non-fic tion which is not explicitly stated,

and this sort of information is recovered by a process of inference similar to that

employed in conversation. That is, we reason on the assumptions that the author

will not write falsely~ that he will be relevant, that he will avoid superf luous infor-

mation, and so on. Exactly how to systematise these tacit maxims governing com-

munic ation is of course a large and diffi cult problem, and one which I ca nnot

address here. 27

We can distingu ish'two authors of Oscar's book about Russell 's viper. The first

is Oscar himself, and the second is someone whom we will call 'the Author'. The

Author is an abstract enti ty, a logical construc tion using pragmatic principles. Oscar

may have intended to say that the tents had reddish brown spots, or that samples of

the local jewel lery owned by Pan-Am were returned to that airline. If so, then Oscar

failed dismally. But the Author did not intend to say this. The Author intends to

say precisely what the ideal reader - whom we will call 'the Reader' - thinks the

actual author intended to say. The Reader constructs the Author.

But who is the Reader? This is tricky. The Reader should not want for prag-

matic skills. But what about her beliefs? We obviously cannot make the Reader

omniscient. Nor can we restrict her beliefs to what is mutual ly believed in the actu-

al author's society. Oscar may have written his work for specialists, and presup-

posed mtrch arcane reptil ian lore. But we dare not make the Reader the actual

author's intended reader: Oscar may have intended to write for laymen, ending up

instead writing a book which could only be understood by herpetologists.

Instead, I think we have to reach the Reader in stages. Our knowledge of the cir-

cumstances of the text's production will vary from case to case, but let us suppose

that in the case of Oscar's book we have little such knowledge. We might then

reach the Reader in this way. We first make the obvious assumption that the text is

to be interpreted as English. We then infer that the text purports to communicate

information about a certain kind of snake; that the assumption that the text presup-

poses knowledge of Indian geography and molecular biology results in plausible

interpretations, and so on. We then provisionally take the Reader to be a competent

speaker of English, with a knowledge of Indian geography and molecular biology.

Such a Reader will deliver further interpretations of the text, which we test for intel-

ligibility and coherence. The Reader's beliefs are adjusted as appropriate, and the

process continued. The more obscure or dubious the beliefs we have to attribute to

the Reader in order to find that a certain proposition is asserted in the non-fiction,

the less inclined we will be to make such an attribution. With minimal ingenuity,

we could of course make the text, qua syntactic object, mean anything we please.

But the more incredible the interpretation, the more incredible the Reader's beliefs.

A complicated business But not a vicious circle: we do not need to discover

everything the Author is saying before we can identify the Reader. The process is a

virtuous spiral.

Al l th is i s evident ly connected wi th Davidson 's wri t ings On radica l

27 For the state of the art see Sperber and Wilson, ibid. See also Lewis, 'Scorekeeping in a

Language Game' reprinted n his Philosophical Papers Vol.1.


9/12

32 Truth in Fiction: The Story Continued

i n t e r p r e t a t io n . 28 I t is o f t e n p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h e d e v i c e o f t h e R a d i c a l I n t e r p r e t e r i s

q u i t e e m p t y , u n l e s s w e s p e c i f y h is .d ata a n d h is p o w e r s . I h a v e ju s t b e e n s k e t c h i n g

h o w w e m i g h t d e t e r m i n e t h e d a t a a n d t h e p o w e r s o f a s im i l a r c h a r a c te r : t h e R e a d e r .

A s t h e R a d i c a l I n t e r p r e t e r t e ll s u s w h a t K u r t m e a n s b y E s r e g n e t , s o th e R e a d e r

t e ll s u s w h a t th e A u t h o r m e a n s . T h e r e i s a n i m p o r t a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e t w o ,

h o w e v e r . T h e R a d i c a l In t e rp r e te r h a s n o i n it ia l k n o w l e d g e o f t h e l a n g u a g e s p o k e n

b y t h o s e h e i n te rp r et s. H e d o e s h a v e e x t e n s i v e k n o w l e d g e o f th e c ir c u m s t a n c e s i n

w h i c h u t t e ra n c e s a r e m a d e . B u t th e R e a d e r h a s c o m p a r a t i v e l y l it t le o f t h is s e c o n d

t y p e o f k n o w l e d g e , a n d s o w e m u s t g i v e h e r k n o w l e d g e o f t h e A u t h o r s l a n g u a g e .

A m e r e l is t o f w e l l - f o r m e d f o r m u l a e c o n t a i n s p r e c i o u s f e w c l u e s t o i ts m e a n i n g .

W h a t i s t h e p o i n t o f i n tr o d u c i n g t h e c o n c e p t s o f t h e A u t h o r a n d t h e R e a d e r ?

W e l l , th e i n t u i t iv e i d e a i s t h a t th e A u t h o r p r o v i d e s t h e s t a n d a r d b y w h i c h t h e a c t u a l

a u t h o r s s u c c e s s in c o m m u n i c a t i o n c a n b e j u d g e d . I f t h e a ct u al a u t h o r s u c c e e d s p e r-

f e c t ly , t h e n h e i s p e r f e c t l y r e p r e s e n t e d b y t h e A u t h o r . H e f a i l s in p r o p o r t i o n t o th e

d i f f er e n c e b e t w e e n h i m s e f f a n d t h e A u t h o r . T h a t i s n o t to s a y th a t t h e A u t h o r c a n

h a v e n o f a i li n g s . T h e A u t h o r c a n b e u n c l e a r , o r m a k e m i s t a k e s . 29 T h a t w i l l u s u a l l y

b e a s i g n t h at t h e a c t u a l a u t h o r i s n o t p e r f e c t l y r e p r e s e n t e d b y t h e A u t h o r , f o r a c t u a l

a u t h o r s d o n o t u s u a l l y w a n t t o b e u n c l e a r, o r t o m a k e m i s ta k e s . B u t s o m e d o . I f

t h e i r A u t h o r s m a k e t h e m i s t a k e s t h e y w a n t t o m a k e , o r a re u n c l e a r o n th e m a t t e r s

t h e y w a n t t o b e u n c l e a r , t h e n t h e a c t u a l a u t h o r s c a n n o t b e c r i t ic i s e d f o r f a i l in g t o g e t

a c r o s s w h a t th e y m e a n t . ( O f c o u r s e t h e y m a y b e c ri t ic i s e d o n

other

g r o u n d s . )

S i m i l a r l y - - t o a n e x t e n t - - f o r t h e a c tu a l r e a d e rs . A n a c t u a l r e a d e r f a il s i n h e r

r e a d i n g o f th e t e x t in p r o p o r t i o n t o th e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n h e r s e l f a n d t h e R e a d e r .

U n l i k e t h e A u t h o r , h o w e v e r , t h e R e a d e r c a n n o t m a k e m i st a k es .

T h e A u t h o r o f O s c a r s b o o k a b o u t R u s s e l l s v i p e r a s se rt s v a r i o u s p r o p os i ti o n s.

T h e A u t h o r o f a w o r k o f f i c t i o n m a y i n d e e d a l s o d o t h i s , ~ b u t m o s t o f t h e t i m e h e

d o e s s o m e t h i n g e l s e . W h a t h e d o e s , I s u g g e s t, i s t o i n v i t e t h e R e a d e r t o m a k e -

b e l i e v e t h at c e r t a i n p r o p o s i t io n s a r e t r u e ? ~

W h a t i s m a k e - b e l i e v e ? C l e a r l y s o m e t h i n g l i k e i m a g i n a t i o n , fa n ta s y , an d d a y -

d r e a m i n g , b u t t h a t is n o t s o h e l p f u l . I t w o u l d t a k e u s t o o f a r a f ie l d to i n v e s t i g a t e th i s

h e r e . B u t a n y a c c o u n t o f fi c t i o n w i l l n e e d s o m e t h i n g l i k e t h is n o t io n , a n d I l e a v e th e

t e r m a s a p l a c e h o l d e r t o b e f i l l e d o u t b y a n a p p r o p r i a t e t h e o r y . 32

N o w w h a t t h e A u t h o r i n v it e s t h e R e a d e r t o m a k e - b e l i e v e m a y n o t b e e x p l ic i t l y

s t a te d i n th e t ex t . B u t j u s t a s i m p l i c i t a s s e r ti o n s i n n o n - f i c t i o n c a n b e r e c o v e r e d b y

p r a g m a t i c i n f e r e n c e , s o c a n i m p l i c i t i n v i t a t io n s t o m a k e - b e l i e v e i n fi c ti o n .

W e h a v e a u s e f o r a c o n c e p t o f t ru t h i n n o n - f ic t i o n w h i c h g o e s b e y o n d o u r c o n -

~.8 See esp ec ia l ly Dav idson, Ra dica l In te rpre ta t ion repr in ted in h is Inquiries into Truth and

Interpretation

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985).

29 W atso n s shifting w ar wound is an exam ple.

30 T w o disparate exam ples: in The Lord of the Flies W illiam Golding asserts that Mankind is fallen;

in

The Day of the Jackal

Frederick Forsyth asserts that in 1963 it was one of the easiest things in

the world to acquire a false British passport. O r so I think. I hope to examine this phenomenon in

more detail elsewhere.

3t I take this m ore o r less intact fro m Cu rrie, op. cir. Cf. Th e author wh o produces a work of fiction

is engaged in a comm unicative act, an act that involv es having a certain kind o f intention: the

intention that the audience shall make be lieve the content o f the story that is told (p. 24).

32 For some sugges t ions , see K endal l L . W al ton ,

Mimesis as Make-Believe

(Cambr idge , MA:

Harvard U niversity P ress, 1990 ), and Currie, op. cit. section 1.5.


10/12

Alex Byrne 33

c e p t o f a s s e r ti o n i n n o n - f i c t i o n . F o r e x a m p l e , w e m i g h t w o r k o u t th a t O s c a r s s n a k e

c o l l e c t in g e x p e d i t i o n m u s t h a v e t a k e n p l a c e a t f u ll m o o n , o r s ta r te d o u t f r o m J a i p u r ,

b y i n f er e n c e f r o m t h e d e s c r ip t io n O s c a r p r o v i d e s a n d o u r k n o w l e d g e o f a s tr o n o m y

a n d g e o g r a p h y . B u t i t c o u l d b e t h a t t h e s e p r o p o s i t i o n s a r e n o t as s e r te d i n th e n o n -

f i c ti o n ( a n d O s c a r m a y n o t e v e n b e l i e v e th e m h i m s e l f ). N o n e t h e l e s s , t h e y a re o f

s o m e i n t e r es t t o u s, f o r w e w a n t t o k n o w w h a t a c t u a l l y h a p p e n e d , n o t j u s t w h a t

O s c a r t e l ls u s h a p p e n e d .

I d o n o t s e e h o w w e ( H o l m e s a f i c i o n a d o s e x c e p t e d ) h a v e a u se f o r a n a n a lo g o u s

c o n c e p t o f t r u t h in f ic t io n , w h i c h g o e s b e y o n d w h a t t h e A u t h o r i s i n v i t in g t h e

R e a d e r t o m a k e - b e l i e v e . I t h e r e f o r e p r o p o s e t h a t t h e p r o p o s i t i o n s w h i c h t h e A u t h o r

i n v i te s th e r e a d e r t o m a k e - b e l i e v e a r e e x a c t l y w h a t i s t ru e i n t h e f ic t io n . S t a t in g t h i s

m o r e p r e c i s e l y , w e h a v e :

A n a l y s i s 4

I t i s t r u e i n f ic t i o n F t h a t p i f f t h e R e a d e r c o u l d i n f e r t h a t t h e A u t h o r i s i n v i t i n g

t h e R e a d e r t o m a k e - b e l i e v e t h a t p.33

L e t u s s e e h o w t h i s w o r k s . S u p p o s e w e p r o v i s i o n a l l y s e t tl e t h a t t h e S h e r l o c k

H o l m e s R e a d e r 34 i s a li t e ra t e m e m b e r o f V i c t o r i a n E n g l a n d l i v i n g in L o n d o n . T h e

R e a d e r m i g h t b e g i n t o re a s o n a l o n g t h e f o l l o w i n g l i n es .

I n th e S h e r l o c k H o l m e s s t o ri e s th e A u t h o r i n v i t e s m e t o m a k e - b e l i e v e t ha t I

a m r e a d i n g a n a c c o u n t o f a c tu a l e v e n t s , a s r e c o r d e d b y a c e r t a i n J o h n H .

W a t s o n , M . D . , w h o i s a r e l i a b l e w i t n e s s . I k n o w t h is , in th e f ir s t p l a c e b e c a u s e

W a t s o n s a y s h e i s r e c o r d i n g a c t u a l e v e n t s, a n d h e c l a i m s t o b e a re s p e c t a b l e

m e m b e r o f t h e m e d i c a l p r o fe s s io n . T h a t c r ea t e s a p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t W a t s o n i s

i n d e e d ( in th e f ic t i o n ) r e l i a b l y r e c o r d i n g a c t u a l e v e n t s. A n d i n t h e s e c o n d p l a c e

I f i n d n o t h i n g i n w h a t W a t s o n s a y s t ha t i n d i c a te s t h a t t h e A u t h o r i s i n v i t i n g m e

t o m a k e - b e l i e v e th a t W a t s o n i s l y i n g o r d e l u d e d . N o w i n f a c t I b e l i e v e th a t i f

a n y o n e h a d p u r p o r te d t o r e c o u n t e v e n t s in W a t s o n s m a n n e r t h e n h e w o u l d

h a v e b e e n l y i n g t h r o u g h h i s te e t h : B u t i t i s a m a t t e r o f o v e r t b e l i e f th a t i t i s d i f-

f i c u l t t o t e ll a n e x c i t i n g s t o r y t h r o u g h t h e e y e s o f o n e o f t h e c h a r a c te r s s u c h t h a t

i f t h e s t o ry h a d b e e n t o l d a s a l l e g e d fa c t , i t w o u l d h a v e i n d e e d b e e n f a c t . M o r e

t h a n l ik e l y , t h e t e l l e r w o u l d h a v e b e e n a d e c e i v e r o r d e l u d e d . N o w a s a n

a t t e m p t a t a s e ri e s o f c o n v i n c i n g a n d e x c i t i n g t a l e s , t h e s t o r i e s a r e a c r e d i t a b l e

e f f o r t. M o r e o v e r , a s I c a n r e c o g n i s e t h a t t h e s t o r i e s a r e a c r e d i t a b l e e f f o r t , t h e

A u t h o r w i l l b e l i e v e th a t I c a n . S o i f t h e A u t h o r w e r e i n v i t in g m e t o m a k e -

b e l i e v e th a t W a t s o n w a s d e l u d ed , h e c o u l d n o t h a v e r e a s o n a b l y e x p e c t e d m e t o

r e c o g n i s e th a t th i s w a s h i s i n te n t io n . H e n c e , a s t h e A u t h o r n e v e r f a il s i n c o m -

33 1 therefore adopt, in effect, Cu rrie s solution to th e problem of impossible fiction. As it stands, the

theory (like Le w is and Cu rrie s) is incomplete w ithout an account o f fictional names. But that

must be left for another time. (How ever, see Conter, op. cit., for so m e pertinent remarks.)

3, I do not mean to claim that we can always precisely identify the Reader, or that there must be a

unique Reader. There ma y be a great deal of indeterminacy in extreme cases. Th e Reader of The

Cat in the Ha t presents no problem, but the Reader(s) of Finnegan s Wake are a little less accessi-

ble.


11/12

34

Truth in Fiction: The Story Continued

m u n i c a t i o n w i t h t h e R e a d e r , t h e A u t h o r i s n o t i n v i ti n g m e t o m a k e - b e l i e v e th a t

W a t s o n i s d e l u d e d . F o r s im i l a r r e a s o n s , it i s n o t i n d e t e r m i n a t e th a t W a t s o n i s

d e l u d e d . S o W a t s o n i s g e n e r a l ly r e l ia b l e .

T h e A u t h o r a l s o i n v i t e s m e t o m a k e b e l i e v e t h a t t h e a c t i o n t a k e s p l a c e i n

L o n d o n , E n g l a n d i n th e l a te n i n e t e e n t h a n d e a r l y t w e n t i e t h c e n tu r i e s. I k n o w

t h is b e c a u s e I k n o w t h a t th e A u t h o r i n v i t e s m e t o m a k e - b e l i e v e t h at W a t s o n i s

g e n e r a l l y r e l ia b l e , a n d W a t s o n m e n t i o n s p l a c e s an d d a t e s. W a t s o n s a y s at t h e

b e g i n n i n g o f

T h e A d v e n t u r e o f t h e S p e c k le d B a n d

t h a t t h e s t o r y i s s e t i n e a r l y

A p r i l i n t h e y e a r 8 3 . E v e n w i t h o u t i n t e r- f ic t io n a l c a r r y - o v e r35 f ro m the o th e r

s t o ri e s I k n o w t h a t th e A u t h o r i s i n v i ti n g m e t o m a k e b e l i e v e th a t W a t s o n i s

r e f e r r in g to t h e y e a r 1 8 8 3 , a n d n o t 1 7 8 3 o r 1 9 83 . T h e f o r m e r i s b y f a r t h e m o s t

s a l i e n t c a n d i d a t e . F o r s i m i l a r r e a s o n s I k n o w t h a t th e A u t h o r i s i n v i t i n g m e t o

m a k e b e l i e v e th a t W a t s o n i s at th i s t im e s h a r in g r o o m s w i t h H o l m e s i n

L o n d o n

e v e n t h o u g h W a t s o n d o e s n o t s a y s o . H e j u s t s a y s t h a t t h e e v e n t s in q u e st io n

o c c u r r e d in t h e e a r l y d a y s o f m y a s s o c i a ti o n w i th H o l m e s , w h e n w e w e r e s h a r -

i n g r o o m s a s b a c h e l o r s i n B a k e r S t r e e t.

W e s h o u l d n o t e a t t h i s p o i n t t h a t p r a g m a t i c s h a s d e l i v e r e d s o m e t r u t h s i n t h e

S h e r l o c k H o l m e s s t o r ie s o n w h i c h L e w i s a c c o u n t i s s il e n t. F o r w e n e e d t o d e c i d e

t h a t, f o r e x a m p l e , t h e y e a r 8 3 r e f e r s i n

T h e A d v e n t u r e o f t he S p e c k l e d B a n d

t o t h e

y e a r 1 8 83 , a n d t h a t W a t s o n i s g e n e r a l l y r e l ia b l e , b e f o r e w e c a n s a y w h a t w o u l d h a v e

b e e n t h e c a s e h a d t h e s to r y b e e n t o l d a s k n o w n f a c t ? 6 S o L e w i s a c c o u n t n e e d s s u p-

p l e m e n t a t i o n a n y w a y ( a s , o f c o u r s e , h e r e c o g n i s e s ) .

W h a t a b o u t t h e d i s ta n c e b e tw e e n B a k e r S t re e t a n d t h e ra i l w a y te r m i n i ? S u p p o s e

y o u a r e t a l k i n g w i t h a f r ie n d a b o u t th e f u t u r e o f L o n d o n s r a i l t e r m i n i . H e s a y s ,

T h e r e w i l l b e s o m e m a j o r c h a n g e s b e c a u s e V i c t o r ia is th e p r o p o s e d t er m i n u s f o r

t h e C h a n n e l T u n n e l r a il l i n k . H e s a y s n o t h i n g a b o u t a n y o th e r m a j o r c h a n g es . H e

h a s n o t l i t e r a l l y s a i d t h a t W a t e r l o o s t a t i o n w i l l n o t b e r e s i t e d c l o s e r t o B a k e r S t r e e t ,

o r th a t P a d d i n g t o n s t a t i o n w i l l n o t b e c l o s e d d o w n . B u t h e h a s s t ro n g l y c o n t e x t u a l l y

i m p l i e d t h a t t h i s i s so . A n d s o i t i s i n th e H o l m e s s t o ri e s . T h e y a r e s e t i n L o n d o n ,

a n d t h e r e f o r e t h i s lo c a t i o n is h i g h l y s a l ie n t . W e w o u l d c e r t a i n l y e x p e c t t o b e t o l d i f

t h e L o n d o n o f t h e H o l m e s s t o ri e s d if fe r s s i g n if i c a n tl y i n i ts g e o g r a p h y f r o m L o n d o n

i t se l f .

H e r e i s a n o t h e r e x a m p l e o f i n e x p l i c i t t r u th i n f i c ti o n . Y o u m i g h t t h i n k i t i s t r u e

i n th e H o l m e s s t o r i e s t h a t H o l m e s l i v e d b e f o r e th e a g e o f c o m p u t e r d a t a b a s e s .37 But

i s t h e A u t h o r o f th e H o l m e s s t o ri e s i n v i ti n g m e t o m a k e - b e l i e v e th i s ? T h a t c a n n o t

b e , i f t h e A u t h o r s h i s t o r i c a l k n o w l e d g e s t o p s a t t h e t u rn o f th e c e n t u ry . B u t s u r e l y

i t i s n o t

d e f i n i t e l y

t r u e i n t h e f i c t i o n t h a t H o l m e s l i v e d b e f o r e t h e a g e o f c o m p u t e r

d a t a b a s e s . ( U n l i k e H o l m e s a d d r e s s : t h a t i s

d e f i n i t e l y

2 2 1 B B a k e r S t r e e t. ) W e

r e a l l y h a v e a c h o i c e o f A u t h o r s , g i v e n j u s t t h e t e x t o f t h e st o r ie s . S o m e w r i t e th e

s t o r ie s i n t h e 1 9 9 0 s , s o m e i n th e 1 8 9 0 s. I t m a t t e r s l i tt l e w h i c h A u t h o r w e p i c k . O n

s o m e c h o i c e s w e g e t t h a t H o l m e s l i v e d b e f o r e th e a g e o f c o m p u t e r d a ta b a s e s . O n

351 borrow th is handy phrase from L ew is, Truth in Fiction ,

op. cit

36 Cf. Curr ie,

op. cir.

p. 70.

371 am g rateful to Dick M oran for the exam ple.


12/12

Alex Byrne 35

o t h er s , t h i s c o m e s o u t f a l s e o r i n d e t e r m i n a t e . W h a t i s d e f i n i t e l y t r u e i n th e f i c t i o n , I

p r o p o s e , i s w h a t i s tr u e a c c o r d i n g t o a n y r e a s o n a b l e c h o i c e o f A u t h o r ? 8

I n c i d e n t a l l y , t h i s i s a l s o a p r o b l e m f o r C u r r i e , b e c a u s e h i s h i s t o r i c a l l y s i t u a t e d f i c -

t io n a l a u t h o r w o u l d p r e s u m a b l y n o t b e l i e v e t h a t H o l m e s l i v e d b e f o r e c o m p u t e r d a t a -

b a s e s. I o f f e r C u r r i e m y s o l u t i o n ( s u i ta b l y a d a p t e d ) , f o r w h a t i t s w o r t h .

I c l a i m e d , p a c e L e w i s a n d C u r r ie , t h a t t h e r e w e r e m a n y u n t o l d ta l e s . A n d

A n a l y s i s 4 c a n e x p l a i n h o w t h is is p o s s ib l e . T h e A u t h o r c a n i n v i t e t h e R e a d e r t o

m a k e - b e l i e v e t h a t p w i th ou t a l so i n v i t i n g h e r t o m a k e - b e l i e v e t h a t s o m e o n e i s t e l l in g

h e r t h a t p . T h a t i s n o t p a r t i c u l a r l y m y s t e r i o u s . A n d t h e A u t h o r u s u a l l y s ig n a l s t h a t

h i s st o r y is a n u n t o l d t a l e b y t h e d e v i c e o f t h e i m p e r s o n a l n a r r a t o r w i t h u n e x p l a i n e d

a n d e x t r a o r d i n a r y e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l p o w e r s .

T h a t b r i n g s u s t o t h e e n d o f o u r s to r y . T h e p r i n c i p l e s t h a t g o v e r n c o n v e r s a t i o n

c o n t a i n t h e t r u t h i n f i c t i o n .

P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y

R e c e i v e d O c t o b e r 1 9 91

R e v i s e d M a r c h 1 99 2

~*This s related to Lew is m ethod of intersection . See Tru th in Fiction ,

op. cit.

Postscript B.

Documents

Truth in Fiction (Alex Byrne)