This seems to be based in the idea of manipulating the reader.
‘Manipulating’ is perhaps too harsh a word. In some contexts (fiction most obviously), the reader is essentially signing up to be manipulated. But in general, if you find yourself saying ‘my readers will be insufficiently moved by the truth, so I must create a falsehood that will cause them to feel what I want them to feel, and think what I want them to think’, it seems pretty accurate to describe that as manipulative.
If you were offended by something I said, and punched me in the face, the correct answer to ‘Did you punch him in the face?’ is ‘Yes.’ If you say ‘Well, saying yes might lead people to conclude that I am a violent and dangerous person, and I do not think that I am a violent and dangerous person, so it would be more narratively accurate to answer No,’ then you’re just lying.
This is obviously an extreme example, but it doesn’t seem qualitatively different.
(I’m also reminded of a quote by Bertrand Russell: “The mark of a civilized man is the ability to read a column of numbers and weep”.)
“If you were offended by something I said, and punched me in the face, the correct answer to ‘Did you punch him in the face?’ is ‘Yes.’ If you say ‘Well, saying yes might lead people to conclude that I am a violent and dangerous person, and I do not think that I am a violent and dangerous person, so it would be more narratively accurate to answer No,’ then you’re just lying”
I hope this doesn’t offend you, but it seems like you might have missed the point? This wasn’t the kind of example I was defending.
And in any case, persuasion is only one aspect of its effectiveness. Another is memorability—we can imagine that crafting a story in a particular way might make it more memorable without significantly changing its persuasiveness (although to be fair, increasing memorability will likely increase persuasiveness as well).
Another aspect is conveying the subjective experience of encountering a particular situation. This is useful because these subjective experiences allow us to better relate to other people and form an intuition about how they are likely to act in the world.
This seems to be based in the idea of manipulating the reader.
‘Manipulating’ is perhaps too harsh a word. In some contexts (fiction most obviously), the reader is essentially signing up to be manipulated. But in general, if you find yourself saying ‘my readers will be insufficiently moved by the truth, so I must create a falsehood that will cause them to feel what I want them to feel, and think what I want them to think’, it seems pretty accurate to describe that as manipulative.
If you were offended by something I said, and punched me in the face, the correct answer to ‘Did you punch him in the face?’ is ‘Yes.’ If you say ‘Well, saying yes might lead people to conclude that I am a violent and dangerous person, and I do not think that I am a violent and dangerous person, so it would be more narratively accurate to answer No,’ then you’re just lying.
This is obviously an extreme example, but it doesn’t seem qualitatively different.
(I’m also reminded of a quote by Bertrand Russell: “The mark of a civilized man is the ability to read a column of numbers and weep”.)
I hope this doesn’t offend you, but it seems like you might have missed the point? This wasn’t the kind of example I was defending.
And in any case, persuasion is only one aspect of its effectiveness. Another is memorability—we can imagine that crafting a story in a particular way might make it more memorable without significantly changing its persuasiveness (although to be fair, increasing memorability will likely increase persuasiveness as well).
Another aspect is conveying the subjective experience of encountering a particular situation. This is useful because these subjective experiences allow us to better relate to other people and form an intuition about how they are likely to act in the world.