Fictionology Faction Friction

I suppose it was inevitable that the odious comparisons of the Bush administration to a Sith-controlled Star Wars galactic empire would prod at dormant questions in the Fictionology community. Old arguments are being revived. Again we're forced to address the question: "What Fictions can one legitimately believe?"

The two factions involved in this fracas are the conservative canonist Fictionologists and the extreme spontanist (or improv) Fictionologists. I'll try to summarize their positions.

- George Lucas had the whole Star Wars story, including script, worked out thirty years ago.
- George W Bush played out the whole of the WMD Fiction based on a dominionist script written thirty years ago.
- The apparent similarities between the two are coincidental but very instructive.

- George Lucas had a rough story plus script ideas worked out thirty years ago. He's been winging it ever since.
- George W Bush just makes shit up as he goes and refuses to admit that he could have been wrong.
- Lucas decided to nail Bush in Revenge of the Sith because he couldn't find any other way to inject fun into the movie.

The conflicting world views shine through in their different interpretations of the same set of observations. Why is there such a heated discussion? Can't they just believe what they want to believe? That solution only addresses the superficial nature of the debate.

Looking under the surface from a Fictionological philosophy point of view, the bone of contention is still the legitimacy of believing in a Fiction that you (or your close colleagues/family) write for yourself. Most conservative Fictionology thinkers see this as a sure way to isolate yourself from reality and alienate anyone who is smart enough to understand what you're doing. It destroys any hope that you'll even be able to recognize other people's Fictions, and inevitably leads to conflict rather than communication.