"It's just a work of fiction"

A phrase that I find entirely frustrating is "it's just a work of fiction" or anything along those lines. This is usually said when a person criticizes a work of fiction, and then someone else (usually someone who enjoyed said word of fiction) will rebut with "It's just a work of fiction."

The problem with this mindset is that fiction is never just a work of fiction, especially fiction that is written with a purpose of touching people in a certain way. This comes to mind because I was just reading a blog post about the problems with The Shack (some popular novel amongst Christians that I probably won't be reading any time soon). Quite a few times in the comments, people were saying "It's just fiction." As if saying The Shack is only fiction negates the fact that there are apparently quite a few Biblical issues in the book.

Humans are such ignorant and amusing creatures. We think we can watch shows, read books, basically inundate our entire being with fiction, and yet still not be influenced by it. For example, we women watch silly Hollywood romance movies and we think, "Oh, I know this isn't realistic, so obviously I'm not going to expect this in my real life romance," but there is a part of us that really does want a Hollywood romance. There is a part of us that is influenced by all those romcoms and tear-jerkers. It is not "just fiction." What goes into the mind does not simply fall back out if you stuff it in there over and over and over again. 

Such is also the case with a fiction novel you may read only once. So many people have read The Shack and said it completely changed their lives (ironically it is those very same people who will attack someone who criticizes the book by saying "It's just fiction"). Now tell me, if a book is just fiction, and by implication shouldn't be taken seriously at all, how can it change your life? 

Then there are people that use the phrase when a work of fiction is offensive. A particular favorite of mine is Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors. Personally, I've never read the book, but I'm sure many people were saying "It's just fiction" when the book was published. Yeah, it's just a fiction book that gave step-by-step instructions in how to carry out a successful murder. James Perry says he used the book as a manual on how to carry out a triple homicide. Obviously not just fiction to him (obviously not just fiction to the 4th circuit US Court of Appeals either). Fiction is powerful stuff.

Words have power. Fiction has power. It's a cop-out response to say "It's just a work of fiction." It is never just a work of fiction. People take the words of fiction to heart. I might not agree with everyone Plato taught, but his cave analogy is quite relevant here. We are so heavily influenced by the artists of society, and we don't even realize it.  We like to imagine we aren't influenced by fiction, but that's just silly. 

Empty Words

In arguments there are certain words that should be avoided, because they add no weight to your argument at all. Just like a grammar teacher would read your paper and utter the horrible phrase “This is fluff; get rid of it” there are certain words you can throw about in an argument that are the Debate equivalent of “fluff.”

Some of the words in question would be Prude, Legalist, Religious, Open-minded and Close-minded. While we all have a general definition of what these words mean, the personal opinion of each person of what amount of a characteristic makes a person such a word is different. For example, I may think a person is a prude if the mention of making babies seems an offensive line of conversation, whereas someone would think me a prude for not wanting to see a naked ballerina dancing around in some weird role as Caliban from The Tempest (yes, this actually happened to me). Which definition is right and which is wrong? The answer is that neither is right nor wrong, and since there can be no right or wrong it seems a pointless word to use in an argument.

The reason to avoid such terms in arguments is because they are generally used to try and give credence to or take credence away from one’s argument, while actually adding no weight to the argument at all. For example, someone might say “Well, Hollie is legalist and close-minded, so just ignore everything she says.” The issue with that statement is that you have not disproved any sort of argument I might have been trying to make. I may be legalist according to John Doe, but what does that have to do with the argument at hand? If the argument is about whether abortion is right or wrong, for example, and I say it is wrong because a baby has a right to life as well, what purpose does calling me legalistic serve? My argument is not about legalism. I presented my point of view, and the logical answer would be to refute that argument with another point of view (perhaps a claim that babies unborn are not human, and thus have no right to choice, but are instead fetuses with no rights of their own?). Upon reading that I am a “legalist and close-minded” people might feel inclined to disregard anything I have to say, though. That serves a major disservice to my arguments, which should not be affected by whether John Doe thinks I’m a close-minded legalist or not. The strength of an argument is not determined by my personal character. It is determined by the logic of my statements, and the persuasiveness of my words.

Basically, if a word used in an argument does not refute a point, but instead tries to qualify or disqualify an arguer by pointing out an aspect of their character, it should be avoided. It is bordering on ad hominem to use such words, and no one wants to partake in that form of arguing, now do they? Of course, this does not mean any word should steadfastly be avoided forever and for always. Simply avoid it when trying to make a sound argument.

Endnotes:
If any words come to mind that you would like to add to my list of “Empty Words,” by all means feel free to share them with me.

This was a rambling written at 12:45 in the morning, so do forgive any part of the text that is confusing. I was so excited by the thoughts pouring into my brain that I simply had to type them out before they disappeared from my sleepy brain. Sure I could have reexamined my text at a later time, but I rather abhor editing. It’s boring, and I do enough of that in school.