The true meaning of 'fictual'

May 17, 2006 3:48 PM

What is the true meaning of the word 'fictual'? Is it actually even a word?

I recently used the word in a blog post and someone called on me in the comments to explain myself. Unfortunately I'm stuck. My understanding was that 'fictual' could be used as an alternative to 'factual' in situations when the general intent of a thing is to be factual but in a fictional setting -- a drama documentary for example.

The context was a Roger Ebert review of the film 'Goal' which highlighted that it features a German soccer/football manager in a prominant role, surprised that it wasn't just a stock in trade Bob Hoskins/Colm Meaney type. I described it as one of the many 'fictual' items in the film (which also includes speaking roles for premiership footballers).

A google search finds an entry at the Urban Dictionary however which suggests I'm a moron:

1. Fictual

A word used when a moron does not know the word "ficticious."

Yogi: Hell no, it is not true!
Moron: OMG U R SO STUPID IT IS TRUE IT IS FICTUAL!!!!

But that explanation gets a couple of thumbs down, and I clearly don't mean ficticious. Any ideas linguists?

posted by feelinglistless to writing & language (26 answers total)

when the general intent of a thing is to be factual but in a fictional setting

If you mean a based-on-a-true-story kind of thing, but with some of the details changed, I would use the word "fictionalized" to describe it.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 3:57 PM on May 17, 2006

While nice in a poetic sort of way, it isn't a word.
posted by modofo at 3:58 PM on May 17, 2006

Is it a word?

It is now.

Use it however you want, just be prepared to explain yourself to people who don't know what you're talking about.

I don't think your description means what it made me think of (which is "factual within the context of a fictional word". e.g., can the Millennium Falcon really make the Kessel run in less than three parsecs, or did Han just make that up to impress his customers, not even knowing what a parsec is?)

I think your usage (which is a little fuzzy from your description) is more "fictional elements which ring true, though they are not actually true". Is that correct?
posted by aubilenon at 3:58 PM on May 17, 2006

to be factual but in a fictional setting

That sounds about right to me... I've never seen the word myself, but in the context of a movie review like that, it makes total sense.

Also, I wouldn't trust much of what I see on urbandictionary.com
posted by Robot Johnny at 3:59 PM on May 17, 2006

i've heard it used, but only ironically to call something untrue - fictitious - a lie; an antonym to factual. factual is to fact as fictual is to fiction. To merge elements of fiction and fact together into this word seems messy and inconsistent.
posted by luriete at 4:04 PM on May 17, 2006

OK, now that I read your question more closely (sorry, I didn't pay much attention to the paragraph about the film review the first time around), I see fictionalized isn't really what you're looking for.

The context was a Roger Ebert review of the film 'Goal' which highlighted that it features a German soccer/football manager in a prominant role, surprised that it wasn't just a stock in trade Bob Hoskins/Colm Meaney type. I described it as one of the many 'fictual' items in the film

Seems to me that "realistic" would work fine in that sentence.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 4:04 PM on May 17, 2006

i don't think you're a moron. i think it's a great new word and I knew exactly what you meant by it. there is no comparable word (fictitious is synonomous with fictional in my mind, although apparently the latter is more closely scoped to the realm of literature).
posted by macinchik at 4:06 PM on May 17, 2006

I would suggest "fake but accurate" as a meaning, except that phrase has a bad reputation at this point.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 4:16 PM on May 17, 2006

I think it sounds like a cross between fiction and victual, so I think it should be used to refer to fictional food.
posted by pombe at 4:35 PM on May 17, 2006

It certainly has an element of truthiness to it.
posted by briank at 4:50 PM on May 17, 2006

It's not a word and I doubt it ever will be, because every time someone uses it they'll have to explain what they mean by it. By itself, it's completely opaque.
posted by languagehat at 5:06 PM on May 17, 2006

It's not a word and I doubt it ever will be, because every time someone uses it they'll have to explain what they mean by it.

Doesn't seem to have stopped many other words.
posted by kindall at 6:47 PM on May 17, 2006

"By itself, it's completely opaque."

You mean you figured out what opaque means without having someone explain it to you? Because "opaque" seems pretty opaque to me.
posted by oddman at 7:15 PM on May 17, 2006

It's a perfectamentally cromulent word and embiggens all who utilizerate it.
posted by blue_beetle at 8:09 PM on May 17, 2006

When I was reading Paul Auster novels I was always wondering if things in the book were "fictual." Did so-and-so fictional character really do what the narrative claims that he did?

I'm glad there's a name for it now. Preciate it.
posted by Aghast. at 10:20 PM on May 17, 2006

I can't believe no one's mentioned the Da Vinci Code yet...
posted by scheptech at 11:07 PM on May 17, 2006

whats wrong with fictional?
posted by delmoi at 6:30 AM on May 18, 2006

Anyway, I'm really confused about what you mean, and you're example doesn't help.

You're saying that there can be two diffrent classes of fictional statements, some of which are 'fictual' and some of which are 'not fictual'?

What is a precise method of determining which fictional statements are fictual and which are not? What are the necessary or sufficient conditions?
posted by delmoi at 6:34 AM on May 18, 2006

I think it sounds like a cross between fiction and victual, so I think it should be used to refer to fictional food.

Except, victual is pronounced "vittle".
posted by croutonsupafreak at 7:06 AM on May 18, 2006

Can you clarify what you intend your new word to mean?
posted by raedyn at 8:35 AM on May 18, 2006

I suppose I'm trying to say that it means fiction with a ring of truh about it. So not fictional, not factual, fictual.
posted by feelinglistless at 2:59 PM on May 18, 2006

I stand by "realistic."
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 9:08 AM on May 19, 2006

Given your clarification of the intended meaning how is your word different form realistic, believable, and plausible?
posted by oddman at 6:51 AM on May 22, 2006

"realistic, believable, and plausible" would all by much clearer.
posted by raedyn at 8:05 AM on May 24, 2006

This somewhat related statement has come into existence:

Let us suppose that the formulation 'The golden mountain is in California' is not found in a geography book, nor a travel book, but in a novel, or some fictional context or other, one could still accord it a value of truth or error (according to whether the imaginary world to which it refers does or does not authorize such a geographical and geological fantasy).
posted by Aghast. at 2:19 PM on May 24, 2006

Verisimilitude

I can't believe it took me that long to think of that word!
posted by raedyn at 9:21 AM on May 25, 2006