10.1.09 Fiction/Non-Fiction

The genre distinction plays a much more important role in Augustine's Confessions, versus Ellison's Invisble Man. In Augustine's case I would be incredibly angry to learn that the pious piece I put my time into reading was indeed fiction. It would be blasphemy. Augustine makes countless religious claims which he supports through his own personal experiences. If those personal experiences were in fact made up in the pursuit of literary freedom, not only would I be mad, but I would also question Augustine's mental stability. The validity of his work comes from the claim that everything in Confessions is unquestionably true. Should it all be made up, I could never take the work seriously.

In Invisible Man, however, the same is not the case. Had Invisible Man been nonfiction, I think it could only become more valuable and valid. As it is written in first person, the book truly seems as if it is indeed nonfiction, told by the author who is describing his own life. This is not the case. Instead, through the narrator's look back on his fictional life, we are able to discover themes Ellison wants us to discover. Since it is fiction, the author can determine what's important and what's not, versus an autobiography which, though not exclusively but often times explains what has happened and it is mostly up to the reader to determine the defining aspects of the author's life. It would have be a ridiculous tale had it been true, but it is the same tale nonetheless made on Ellison's, not fate's, terms.