Reuters
As you know, we have been following the Don Imus story very closely, and we are so, so, so, sorry about that. But, much in the same way storm clouds are reputed to have "silver linings" by the fuzzy-headed mystic kabillionaires who pen greeting cards, the resulting kerfuffle of the Imus scandal and its attendant soul-searching is giving rise to the notion that a genre of writing--loosely termed "fiction" (or non-non-fiction)--long thought impossible--might be achieved by authors in our lifetime.
We are still in the speculative stage as far as this unique theory goes, but, more and more, the thinkers of the day are arriving at the same conclusion: it may be possible to invent characters that do not, in fact, exist in the same way actual people do. Last week, Wonkette alerted us to one such thinker, Andrew Sullivan, who wondered how the characters on South Park can get away with racially tinged humor:
...they're a cartoon. No actual person has to take responsibility for saying any of the naughty words and stereotypes involved. When Eric Cartman tells Kyle that he should go back to San Francisco with the rest of the Jews, it's the character voicing the collective bigoted id - not an actual human being. It may be that in a multicultural society, cartoons will become the primary medium for speaking honestly and humorously about our differences. The same goes in a way for Sacha Baron Cohen who has created a character, Borat, to voice these things. It's not him.
What brave new world is this? What seething possibilities have been wrought by these "not actual human beings?" Is what Sullivan's saying possible? Nobody knows! But it's provocative! And Frank Rich of the New York Times has similar thoughts on the matter.
My 22-year-old son, a humor writer who finds Imus an anachronistic and unfunny throwback to the racial-insult humor of the Frank Sinatra-Sammy Davis Jr. Rat Pack ilk, raises a complementary issue. He argues that when Sacha Baron Cohen makes fun of Jews and gays, he can do so because he's not doing it as himself but as a fictional character.
It's no wonder that Times readers are asked to pay extra for that sort of analysis!
From here, a path to recognizing "fiction" (or "non-non-fiction") as a genre seems clear. First, historians and archaelogists might help by busying themselves in an attempt to discover whether some ancient, Greek philosopher might have had anything formative to say about this. We imagine his name might have been Aristotle, he might have surmised that fiction is "an imitation of an action" and in his writings--possible titled The Poetics, MIGHT have provided a definition by which a fictional character could be created. This discovery could--quite possibly!--give rise to institutions that will study the literary theory and criticism of this new genre. And, from those institutions, there might--MIGHT!--emerge thinkers that will be able to skillfully parse the difference between an actual human being ridiculing other actual human beings, and "not actual human beings" that bring ridicule upon themselves through their racial antics.
Let the word ring out to all people! We shall not rest until every American graduate student understands that Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness is not the racial equivalent of The Turner Diaries.
RELATED:
South Park and Imus [The Atlantic Online]
Frank Rich Defends Free Speech, Family Biz [Gawker]
Everybody Hates Don Imus [The Times...$ELECT!]
