Involution Labs

Category: Thinking Out Loud

  • Where Do Fact and Fiction Begin and End?

    Is there really a clear line between fact and fiction?

    When we think about fantasy, it is easy to assume it is entirely invented. Yet imaginative writing often requires deep research. In some ways, fiction can be a way of searching for truth.

    Does it matter whether something really happened? Are works of non-fiction always completely truthful? And would non-fiction even be as interesting without a flicker of imagination?

    Sometimes fiction can contain more truth than factual writing. Non-fiction may also include narrative shaping, interpretation, or omissions. This is especially true in journalism, where reporters must interpret events based on incomplete information and sources that may disagree.

    Historians face the same challenge. History is not simply a collection of facts; it is an interpretation of events layered with perspective. Even if we had witnessed an event ourselves, we would never see all its layers. A historical novel therefore becomes a mixture of fact and fiction by necessity.

    Perhaps the most useful approach is to keep an open mind. When we read fiction, we can assume there may be truth hidden inside it. When we read non-fiction, we can assume that interpretation and bias may also be present.

    After all, stories marketed as “based on a true story” often attract us more strongly. They seem to carry greater value, even if the boundary between truth and invention is unclear.

    Today it may not be literature that shapes our sense of reality, but the stories we share online. Viral stories often gain trust simply because they are popular.

    So, do we prefer fiction, or at least a mixture of fact and fiction? And is that why people are often more interested in the stories behind the news than the news itself?

    Perhaps fiction is not the opposite of truth, but simply another way of approaching it.

  • Don’t take a photo if you want to remember

    Presence is the memory

    I’ve had a smartphone for years. I do take photos. Just not of everything — and I don’t share them with everyone.

    The problem isn’t photography. It’s what happens when documenting replaces paying attention. The moment a camera comes out, something shifts. We start framing instead of feeling, managing instead of being present. The camera doesn’t just record the moment; it changes it.

    Some experiences imprint themselves precisely because they are fully lived. When we rely on photos to remember, we often remember less. Attention gets outsourced. Memory weakens. If the phone is doing the remembering for us, we don’t have to.

    When my son and I talk about Paris, we don’t scroll through images. We describe it to each other. What we noticed. How it felt. What stayed. The memory lives in language, not pixels. It remains active, shared, alive.

    What unsettles me isn’t the photo itself, but the need to show everything. Why does every moment require an audience? Why do we feel compelled to prove that we were somewhere, that something mattered? And why does the approval — the likes, the hearts — feel so good?

    That rush is not harmless. It trains us to measure experience by reaction rather than meaning. Moments become performances. Memory becomes external, dependent on validation.

    I take photos when something calls for it. I keep many of them private. Some I never looked at again. They exist as quiet markers, not content. And many moments are left unrecorded entirely — because they deserve full attention.

    Not everything needs to be captured.
    Not everything needs to be shared.
    Some things are meant to be remembered by being lived.