Believe the lie
I have lost count of how many times over the years I've heard students condemn fiction as a lie. Thesaurus.com even lists 'fiction' as a synonym for 'lie'.
A lie is a statement made with the deliberate purpose to deceive or to create a false impression. In no way does this describe the purpose of fiction.
Fiction is nothing but a story of events that never happened with the purpose of entertaining, explaining, arguing, suggesting and, sometimes, making an effort to understand. At no point is it a deception for it makes no effort to deceive. When a reader picks up a novel it is in full awareness of the story being fiction.
There are always exceptions, of course. Dan Brown with the 'Da Vinci Code' lied about the historical accuracy of his fiction. Oliver Stone, with ‘JFK’, lied in his presentation of historical events. Brown set out to deceive his readers by claiming his research was extensive when it clearly wasn't. (cf. ‘The Da Vinci Hoax’ by Carl Olson & Sandra Miesel) Stone lied by omission, failing to inform his audience that his film contained fictionalised elements.
We never actually find out if Michael Kritschgau is lying. His story is never explained. If persuading Mulder of the falseness of his search for truth is but a mission he has been given, he is lying. If he believes, for whatever reason, that what he says is the truth, he isn't - even if his story is not true. In the first case, there is intent to deceive, in the second there isn't.
It might be said that the Pilot of the X Files was a lie. It did, after all, present itself as based on a true story. That would all depend on whether one believes we were being deliberately deceived. I, for one, have never believed stories of alien abduction and so, never for a minute, believed that what I was watching was anything but a work of fiction. It began with an unnecessary marketing ploy but, as I never felt I was being deceived, I'd never taken it seriously - until recently. Having become more familiar with Fox over recent months, I have no doubt they would deliberately set out to deceive an audience.
Why does Michael Kritschgau spin the tale he does? In the world of the X Files, we know it isn't the truth - we, like Scully, have seen too much to take him at face value.
As hard as Mulder has sought his version of the truth, so Scully has always held out hope that all can be rationally explained. Kritschgau provides that rational explanation. We might ask why, as Mulder did way back in Season One's 'Beyond the Sea', "Dana. After all you've seen, after all the evidence, why can't you believe?" But why wouldn't she believe Kritschgau?
The question is why does Mulder believe it so readily?
In the previous episode, we saw Mulder undergo traumatic therapy, life-threatening therapy, at a time when Scully needed him to be as strong as we know he can be. I believe Mulder was acting out of guilt for all that Scully has suffered for being his partner. If there's one thing we know about Mulder it is that he has his own perceptions of the world and has, up to now, the self-belief to trust himself.
But now there's Scully.
Mulder loves Scully.
Before he only had to worry about himself and was more than willing to suffer whatever was thrown at him because he believed. I think he continues to believe which is why his response to Kritschgau appears to make no sense. He continues to believe but wants an excuse not to - for Scully's sake.
Typical of strong people, Mulder cannot just lay aside what he sees as his life's mission. Kritschgau gives Mulder what he gave Scully, a way to explain everything away. A way to live a normal life.
Mulder and Scully are not ordinary people, however, and life will not allow them so easy an escape. They must follow the path they have started down, not because fate decrees it, because they choose it. Some choices you just can't walk away from.
A lie is a statement made with the deliberate purpose to deceive or to create a false impression. In no way does this describe the purpose of fiction.
Fiction is nothing but a story of events that never happened with the purpose of entertaining, explaining, arguing, suggesting and, sometimes, making an effort to understand. At no point is it a deception for it makes no effort to deceive. When a reader picks up a novel it is in full awareness of the story being fiction.
There are always exceptions, of course. Dan Brown with the 'Da Vinci Code' lied about the historical accuracy of his fiction. Oliver Stone, with ‘JFK’, lied in his presentation of historical events. Brown set out to deceive his readers by claiming his research was extensive when it clearly wasn't. (cf. ‘The Da Vinci Hoax’ by Carl Olson & Sandra Miesel) Stone lied by omission, failing to inform his audience that his film contained fictionalised elements.
We never actually find out if Michael Kritschgau is lying. His story is never explained. If persuading Mulder of the falseness of his search for truth is but a mission he has been given, he is lying. If he believes, for whatever reason, that what he says is the truth, he isn't - even if his story is not true. In the first case, there is intent to deceive, in the second there isn't.
It might be said that the Pilot of the X Files was a lie. It did, after all, present itself as based on a true story. That would all depend on whether one believes we were being deliberately deceived. I, for one, have never believed stories of alien abduction and so, never for a minute, believed that what I was watching was anything but a work of fiction. It began with an unnecessary marketing ploy but, as I never felt I was being deceived, I'd never taken it seriously - until recently. Having become more familiar with Fox over recent months, I have no doubt they would deliberately set out to deceive an audience.
Why does Michael Kritschgau spin the tale he does? In the world of the X Files, we know it isn't the truth - we, like Scully, have seen too much to take him at face value.
As hard as Mulder has sought his version of the truth, so Scully has always held out hope that all can be rationally explained. Kritschgau provides that rational explanation. We might ask why, as Mulder did way back in Season One's 'Beyond the Sea', "Dana. After all you've seen, after all the evidence, why can't you believe?" But why wouldn't she believe Kritschgau?
The question is why does Mulder believe it so readily?
In the previous episode, we saw Mulder undergo traumatic therapy, life-threatening therapy, at a time when Scully needed him to be as strong as we know he can be. I believe Mulder was acting out of guilt for all that Scully has suffered for being his partner. If there's one thing we know about Mulder it is that he has his own perceptions of the world and has, up to now, the self-belief to trust himself.
But now there's Scully.
Mulder loves Scully.
Before he only had to worry about himself and was more than willing to suffer whatever was thrown at him because he believed. I think he continues to believe which is why his response to Kritschgau appears to make no sense. He continues to believe but wants an excuse not to - for Scully's sake.
Typical of strong people, Mulder cannot just lay aside what he sees as his life's mission. Kritschgau gives Mulder what he gave Scully, a way to explain everything away. A way to live a normal life.
Mulder and Scully are not ordinary people, however, and life will not allow them so easy an escape. They must follow the path they have started down, not because fate decrees it, because they choose it. Some choices you just can't walk away from.
Comments
Post a Comment