The Lifespan of a Fact is an interesting play, with the basic theme being the friction between facts and ‘truth’ – can statistics and accuracy be compromised in the interests of “creative writing”?
We saw this play at MTC. It’s thought-provoking, with a few one-liners. There’s lots of “wordiness” and some repetition (deliberate, of course). There are some inter-generational issues, and even an element of obsessive compulsiveness. As I say, it’s OK but hardly worthy of the rave review it got here.
More particularly, Jim Fingal has a perspective that is generationally different from venerated essayist John D’Agata’s and finds John’s ‘essential truth’ to be full of ‘white lies’ and problematic. It’s apparently based on interchanges that occurred in about 2005 between these actual people.
I suppose my fundamental issue is that, to me, creative writing is in one camp, and descriptive writing is in another. There’s a place for each. Is it just me, but if a writer is going to take “liberties” with the actual facts, then just explain to the readers that this has occurred. This play leaves open various possibilities, but one of these is that somehow it’s OK to massage the truth a little in the interests of “creative writing”, without informing the reader.
Well, if so, is “creative writing” any different to politics? The production has obviously resisted the enormous temptation to update the script to include any references to the fact that, since the era of the play (2003-2005, with the book on which it’s based written in 2012), in some circles it’s become accepted that politicians can take considerable liberties with the “truth”. Think Trump. Would a contemporary version of the play attempt to draw a distinction between “creative writing” and “fake news”?
There’s a detailed program on line.













