Hooks 1
Emory Hooks
Dr. Daniel Turner
ENGL 333
December 5, 2014
Narrative Truth versus Factual Truth
in Big Fish
Both Big Fish: A Novel of Mythic Proportions and Big Fish, the movie adapted from it,
pose the question of the importance of narrative truth versus that of factual truth. Which is the
more significant of the two in a son's quest to come to know the true identity of his dying father?
Everything Edward Bloom tells his son is a tall tale rich with fantastical details such as that of a
giant who's bigger than any man should be or a witch with a glass eye that predicts how someone
will die. So William's frustration is that he's never certain what his father has actually done in his
life. His father is a stranger to him and the stories, to him, feel like lies intended to hide the man
telling them. But is there more truth to the stories than he realizes? Does the absence of facts
actually matter, or is it instead the intent behind the stories, Edward's purpose in telling them,
that is of true significance? The stories relay Edward's life as he views it, and they all reveal the
true nature of his character despite their lack of factual truth. Ultimately, William comes to
understand that his father and the stories he tells cannot be separated, that the stories and the
storyteller together make up his father's identity.
At a first glance, the literal truth of events seems to be more valuable than that of the
narrative truth, but “[n]arrative truth. . .embraces 'what the event means to me,' its significance
for the narrator” (Wilson). For narrative truth, it is the narrator's relation to the story that is of the
utmost importance. When it comes to narrative versus factual truth in our everyday lives, “the
Hooks 2
conflict between narrative and factual truth arises when individuals seek to authenticate stories
told by aged relatives” (Wilson). My father tells a story about my great-grandfather that I'll never
be able to authenticate. Everyone actually present for the incident, my great-grandfather and my
great-grandmother, has been dead for many years, and my father knows the story only because
it's one that was told and retold to him. But the story goes like this: my great-grandmother
absolutely adored cats whereas my great-grandfather was never terribly fond of them. A cat of
hers had kittens and those kittens chose to sleep on the engine of my great-grandfather's car.
When he left for work that morning, my great-grandfather laughed as kitten after kitten fell out
as he drove, and my great-grandmother ran behind the car, shouting for him to stop, that he was
killing the kittens. He just ignored her and drove on. I don't know how true this story actually is.
My grandmother, their daughter, might have known the truth of it, but even if I had asked her
before she died, her memory would have been questionable in her old age. Regardless, the story
does illustrate the one fact my father has always told me about my great-grandfather – he was
one mean son of a gun. The stories told by Edward Bloom take on a similar quality. Whether or
not there is a kernel of truth at the center of them is debatable, but Edward's character as
portrayed by the stories is the undeniable truth presented by them.
The book's title, Big Fish: A Novel of Mythic Proportions, is an accurate description of
the novel's narrative as most of the stories within it (and those depicted by the movie) have
mythic qualities, qualities that serve to mask any factual events that may be lurking underneath
the myths. The correlation between myth and fact can be found in the mythologies of ancient
cultures: “Olympian religion, for instance, was founded on stories of heroes and gods and
goddesses found in the poems of Hesiod and Homer. . .Hesiod's and Homer's sagas, however,
were composed likely at least four centuries after the time of the siege of Troy and the return of
Hooks 3
the ancient Greek heroes” (Wilson). The poems of Hesiod and Homer could not then be
considered to be accurate histories with factual details about the events they portray. With at least
four centuries between the siege of Troy and the writing of the poems, only oral tradition would
have maintained the stories of the Greek heroes. The stories changed from telling to telling over
the generations.
Edward Bloom is a lot like the storytellers of old when every story was spoken aloud to
an audience. In the movie, he tells William, “We're storytellers, both of us. I speak mine out. You
write yours out. Same thing.” But it's actually not the same thing. Stories recorded in text have a
fixed quality to them; they remain unchanged so long as the text is preserved. In contrast, stories
spoken aloud rely on the memory of the storyteller, and small changes to the story are likely to
occur, both by accident and by design, since a storyteller would likely change the story to better
suit the current audience. About their choice to produce Big Fish, Cohen, one of the producers,
says, "It's a movie about a storyteller, and that's what we are spending our lives doing – trying to
bring interesting and unique stories to the screen" (qtd in Haun). In the movie, when a car
commercial reminds Edward of a story, everyone sitting around his bed already knows it to be
the story of the maple tree from his previous tellings of the story, but the story itself likely
changed just a little each time he told it. Minor details may have changed each time, but the
narrative truth would have remained the same as whatever truth Edward intended with his story
of flies carrying off a car covered in maple sap (the movie doesn't show this story – we get
nothing more than a few comments about it).
The book does relay a story that changes with each telling, that of Edward's death, and it
uses four versions of the story, four takes, to show the different ways the narrator (William) has
told the story to himself. The takes are spread throughout the novel, as if William has to tell
Hooks 4
himself the story again and again as he tells the mythical story of his father's life. The first three
takes are all very similar to each other. They begin with Dr. Bennett coming out of Edward's
room. The depiction of Dr. Bennett varies from take to take, from him being “a collection of sags
and wrinkles” (Wallace 13), to him “look[ing] like the core of an apple left out in the sun”
(Wallace 65), to a description that he “doesn't walk so much as shuffle, doesn't breathe so much
as gasp” (Wallace 106). His age is the thread connecting the beginnings of each of these takes,
and it's his age that is the narrative truth of those beginnings. The actual details as to how he
looks change with each telling, but the details given always show him as almost impossibly old,
and it is his great age that has an impact on the narrator as Dr. Bennett exits Edward's room. Dr.
Bennett's reaction to Edward's condition, to him dying, changes with each take as well. In the
first, he “wants to throw his hands in the air in exasperation but doesn't, he's too old to move that
way anymore” (Wallace 13). In the second, he “trails off into a murmuring silence” (Wallace 65).
But in the third, Dr. Bennett “breaks down in a storm of tears, and for some time can't speak, he's
crying so much, shoulders heaving, his crumpled old hands cupped over his eyes” (Wallace 106).
Dr. Bennett has a drastically different reaction in the third take compared to the first two, as if the
narrator, in telling the third take, decided that Dr. Bennett's reaction of silent frustration was too
muted emotionally to be appropriate as a response to the hopeless situation of the doctor being
unable to do anything to save Edward's life. In the third take, the factual truth of Dr. Bennett's
reaction shifts quite a bit, but the narrative truth remains the same: Dr. Bennett looks helpless and
grief-stricken in all three takes. The third take simply pulls those emotions to the forefront.
The fourth take of Edward's death changes the narrative of the story and seems to be the
true depiction of events, or at least as close to the factual truth as the narrator is willing to go.
The fourth take takes place in a hospital instead of at the home, and a team of doctors looks after
Hooks 5
Edward instead of one old, country doctor looking in on him. But even though the setting
changes to a more realistic one, Edward and William still have their exchange of jokes that's
present in each of the takes. Only, now their roles have reversed and it's William telling the jokes.
In the previous takes, William seeks to learn the facts about his father's life and gets frustrated
when he gets only jokes as his father's response. In the first take, William tells his father, “I'd say
I'd missed you. . .if I knew what I was missing” (Wallace 21). Growing up, William barely knew
his father; Edward was almost never home. So it's of the utmost importance to William that his
father fill in the gaps by telling the truth of what he was doing whenever he wasn't home. But
none of his father's stories take on the realistic quality the fourth take possesses as Edward
refuses to tell any story straight and without embellishment. In the movie, Edward tells William's
fiance, “Most men, they'll tell you a story straight through. It won't be complicated, but it won't
be interesting either.” In both the movie and the book, the character of Edward Bloom stays true
to his identity as a storyteller and never succumbs to the temptation to tell just the facts. The four
takes on his death in the novel, however, could be seen as William's attempt at storytelling, and
he abandons myth in that fourth telling, but the narrative truth of this take is the same as the
others: William and his father spend Edward's last moments communicating in the way that has
become their custom and an aspect of their father-son bond, through jokes and embellished
stories.
The movie forgoes depicting the four takes as replayed scenes and instead shows William
visiting his father's bedside again and again, but these scenes are a progression in time and not
the same events playing out repeatedly with only small alterations. Something of the novel's
ability to portray William's vexation at his father dying without ever telling him the truth of his
life is lost when the scenes instead show William physically re-visiting his father. In the novel,
Hooks 6
William seems to be mentally fixated on the scene of his father's death with his repetition of that
story. But the movie abandons the significance of the first three takes by reducing them to mere
visits and by making the fourth take the only scene of Edward's death. He doesn't seem all that ill
when William visits him at home, and Dr. Bennett is not present in person to relay the news of
Edward's impending death. To the audience, the immediacy of Edward's death is simply not
there. At one point in the movie, Edward sits down to dinner with the family at the kitchen table,
stripping away any possible conclusion that his bed upstairs is his deathbed. The narrative truth
of William's scenes with his father at his bedside is muddled when their time together seems
potentially endless. In the film, William's “attitude is impatient, for he expects a factual narrative
from his father. Edward, however, true to his life's journey and the way he talks, is more
interested in the fabric of the story and its colouring, the human dimension to what facts mean”
(Wilson). The reason for William's impatience is not conveyed well in the movie because we
know his father is terminal, but we never see him wasting away until the very end. The tension of
these bedside moments, excluding the final one in the hospital, evaporates without the conflict of
limited time remaining in Edward's life versus his desire to tell his stories in full. The facts of the
bedside visits (different visits compared to one replayed) change too much for the movie to
maintain the narrative truth found within the novel's four takes of Edward's death. Personally, I
know what it means to fixate on the scene of a parent's death. I've written poems and stories,
both fiction and nonfiction, about my mother's death. The details change from work to work but
the narrative truth – both my emotions and what it means to me for me to tell about her death –
remains constant.
There's another angle to consider in searching for the narrative truth present in the novel:
that of Wallace's own experiences and how they fueled the writing for a novel that is a mythical
Hooks 7
representation of the author's life. Wallace says, “My own father was a charmer and a kind of
rover, similar to Edward Bloom in many respects. . .My relationship with him was erratic. . .The
emotions William experiences in the book are ones I experienced in my own life, and so in this
way at least Big Fish is a reflection of reality and thus somewhat autobiographical” (qtd in
Wilson). The novel cannot be considered to be creative nonfiction by any stretch, but behind the
myths and unknown facts of Edward's life lies the emotions of the author in regard to his own
relationship with his father. But Wallace also makes it clear that “Edward Bloom is not [his]
father, and the relationship [Edward's] son has with him is not the same as the one [Wallace] has
with [his] father” (186). The shared characteristics between Edward Bloom and Wallace's father
are there only because real life finds its way into any writing, even fiction writing of mythic
proportions, but the narrative truth found in Wallace's relationship and history with his father and
that inherent in the relationship of the father and son Blooms is the same. In both, the sons have
to look inward to know how they truly feel about their absent fathers.
In the novel and in Wallace's life as it relates to the novel, the factual truth is never told,
and readers are left with only the narrative truth to sustain them, but the movie unveils some of
the mystery of Edward's myths and thus lessens the importance of their narrative truths. The
movie shows William discovering tidbits that collaborate his father's stories, to a small extent at
least, such as when he finds the letter from the Army that declares Edward to be dead, lending a
little credibility to Edward's story of coming home from the war cross-country with a two-headed
Vietnamese singer, but the movie “could have left Will--and us the viewer--to wrestle with the
problem of what really happened and what did not. It could have left open the relationship of
narrative to factual truth” (Wilson). The movie strips away some of the wonder present in the
myths by confirming that they are at the very least based on real events and real people. Instead
Hooks 8
of allowing William to accept his father as a storyteller he may never know many factual details
about, the movie trims the myths down to little more than embellishments. The characters from
the myths attend Edward's funeral in a scene that's not present in the novel, showing, in the
movie at least, that Edward's “incredible tales are based on real people” (Wallace 190). At this
point, the audience can no longer have any doubts as to whether or not some aspects of the myths
are factually true, but the novel leaves readers with “a choice to make, and either choice is right. .
.the story is less about the truth of what happened than how each of us understands what's true, if
anything is, and what's important for us to believe” (Wallace 190). In writing the novel, Wallace's
concern was never whether or not readers would believe Edward's myths on any level. It's not
necessary for there to be anything factual within them for them to display Edward's character and
what the myths mean to him. But in the movie, when “[s]eeing the sources of his father's
whoppers, William, at least, comes to admire the art and cherish the heart” (Kellman 154), but
William does not begin to cherish his father's storytelling until he uncovers the facts hidden
within the myths. In contrast to the William of the novel, this William requires assurances that
the story of his father's life is true on some factual level before he can value it.
The value of Edward's life, however, resides in the myths and their relation to him, not in
the mundane facts of his life that he himself chooses to not include in his stories of his
adventures. The myths show how he sees himself. In the movie, in Ashton, Edward describes
himself as the star of every sport he plays, and he has no qualms about confronting a giant. With
any experience of his, the “significance of experience is what counts for Edward and that is what
he tries to convey to Will. In particular, through story he shows to Will the meaning of entering
into other people's lives, just as he had done with the giant, the twins and the poet” (Wilson). All
of his myths relate to him helping people and bettering their lives. That should be the takeaway
Hooks 9
for William – the fact that his father wants to be a good man, at the very least. And those with the
desire to do good often follow through unless cowardice of some kind intervenes. As a man that
concocts stories about facing giants without flinching, Edward is either courageous or wants to
be. Edward's life “is a story of redemption. Everyone whom Edward meets, he saves. The giant,
Karl, is no longer a menace and he finds a new life, no longer shunned but accepted by society”
(Wilson). Throughout the novel and the movie, William is frustrated and impatient with his
father for telling him jokes and stories instead of facts about his life. Edward says to William in
the movie, “I've told you a thousand facts, Will, that's what I do. I tell stories.” But William
responds by saying, “You tell lies, Dad.” It's not until the end of the movie that William begins to
regard them as anything but lies, but the truth is that Edward was telling him the story of his life
all along. It doesn't matter that the myths are based on fact in the movie. They were always the
truth of how Edward views his life.
Narrative truth has more significance than factual truth does in the stories we tell each
other about our lives. These stories might not take on the mythic proportions of Edward's
storytelling, but they are how we see ourselves. Memory is a tricky thing. Short of actually
recording an event with video (and even that would be biased based on what the camera is
focused on), there is no such thing as absolute factual truth when it comes to our experiences; it's
a myth. Any two people that live the same experience are bound to remember it differently. Even
a single head of a two-headed Vietnamese singer would possess different memories from those
of her sister head. In our attempts to relate to each other, all we can do is tell our stories and
thereby show what matters the most to us in any given experience.
Hooks 10
Works Cited
Haun, Harry. "Hooked On A Fantasy: The Tale's The Thing For Big Fish Producers." Film
Journal International 107.1 (2004): 14-16. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 1 Dec.
2014.
Kellman, Steven G. "Holy Mackerel: Review Of Big Fish." Southern Quarterly 42.2 (2004):
153-154. Humanities Source. Web. 1 Dec. 2014.
Wallace, Daniel. Big Fish: A Novel of Mythic Proportions. Chapel Hill: Algonquin Books, 1998.
Print.
Wilson, Barrie. "Big Fish: Understanding Historical Narrative." Journal Of Religion And
Popular Culture 18.(2008): MLA International Bibliography. Web. 1 Dec. 2014.
Big Fish. Dir. Tim Burton. Columbia Pictures, 2004. Film.
Emory Hooks is a senior English major and Creative Writing minor at Coastal Carolina
University.