“Hypocritical writing” is a term I dubbed, because I don't think any existing term expresses what I want to evoke. Also, the term “hypocritical” is not used in its contemporary sense. But what is hypocritical writing anyway?
The word “hypocritical” comes from the ancient Greek word “ὑπόκρισις” which is essentially the same word as the modern English “hypocrisy”. However, in modern English, the word has only a negative meaning. But that was not the case in ancient Greece, and it's not the case in modern Greece either. For example, in Greece we still say “σχολὴ ὑποκριτικῆς”,1 which means “acting school”. Similarly, when we talk about someone's “ὑποκριτικὴ δεινότητα”, we usually mean that they're a skilled actor, not a skilled hypocrite. At the same time, the words originating from “ὑπόκρισις” can also have a negative meaning. For example, whenever the verb “ὑποκρίνομαι”2 is used, it's basically always negative. For example, we would never say that an actor “ὑποκρίνεται” the role of Arturo Ui. In that context, we'd use the verb “ἑρμηνεύω” (which generally means “interpret” but in this case it's closer to “perform”). But we would say that someone “ὑποκρίνεται” an orgasm (with the obvious meaning).
The point is that we should understand the word to mean “to act”, or “to play (a part)”, which may or may not be negative. What is more, this doesn't necessarily mean a physical performance; it can be any kind of performance!
It should obvious, then, that we make use of hypocritical writing whenever we don't write as ourselves, but as someone else (fictional or otherwise). So, who uses hypocritical writing? Any work of fiction of course. For starters, the narrator is usually not the author; it's a role, a character. Everyone else is also a character. This means that even if the narrator is not a role, the other characters that he/she narrates are roles, so, indirectly, the narrator uses hypocritical writing.
However, we can make use of hypocritical writing even if we're not writing fiction. One may think that an alternative term could be “fictional writing”, but that has two problems. First, people would probably think that I'm talking about fiction, and that's precisely what I want to avoid. Second, the word “fiction” centers around the fictitious nature of the characters and/or the story/content, i.e., that they are not real, that they are imaginary, or otherwise fabricated. But, I want to place emphasis on the acting, the act of “ὑποκρίνεσθαι”, not whether the role or story are fictional or not. For example, you may write as if your father were writing—while the content is real/non-fiction—and that's hypocritical writing.3
The important question is: Why restrict hypocritical writing to fiction? Ὑποκρισις is an extremely powerful tool as we've known for more than 2000 years. Sometimes it's better to act out characters who, for whatever reason, will deliver our message more effectively. Nevertheless, I don't see anyone doing it; at least not in the way I mean it. The only essay I know that has touched on a similar topic is Hypocrisy about Hypocrisy: The Creation of Selves by Wayne C. Booth, but it's not the same. Other than that, sure, there are a bunch of hypocrites out there who write non-fiction: influencers, life coaches, self-help gurus, and generally iconistic subjects4 whose virtual selves are fake. But, I would like to see the genuine Ὑποκρισιν, a product of honest artistic expression.
Before ending this essay, it's important to note that the end of Ὑποκρίσις is not necessarily to entertain. Unfortunately, acting has been connected to movies and TV, which have been connected to entertainment. This is especially true in countries where theater is largely unpopular and extremely hard to find (like the U.S.). But, even in countries like Greece, where in any 6-month period there are so many plays in Athens alone that you couldn't attend them all even if that's all you did all whole day, acting has been—at least to a big part—connected to movies and TV, which is also connected to entertainment. Neil Postman has devoted a whole book (Amusing Ourselves to Death) to explain the problems with an entertainment-centered culture, and I definitely urge you to take at his work.
Nevertheless, Ὑποκρισις has many more functions (as is evident from both theater and Tarkovsky). For example, in Greek the word for “actor” has always been “ἠθοποιός”, which comes from “ἦθος” (literally “ethos”) and “ποιῶ” (“make”). Furthermore, many scholars have noted the intimate connection of democracy and freedom of speech, on the other hand, and theater on the other. For example, Richard Berthold notes in “Dare to Struggle”:
Incidentally, Aristophanes’ comedies highlight probably the most salient characteristic of Athenian society—its freedom [...] [I]n the midst of the agony of the Peloponnesian War and with no Constitution to protect him, Aristophanes is producing popular comedies blatantly and stingingly critical of the war, the empire, and the democratic leaders.
To entertain is one thing; to criticize and satirize is another. And Aristophanes highlighted the greatness of Ὑποκρισις by writing plays instead of writing (non-hypocritical) speeches or books.
In short, the primary purpose of using hypocritical writing is neither to hide, nor to entertain, but to: (a) deliver a message in the most effective way possible, and (b) serve Ὑποκρισιν as an end in itself. Up to now, I have ὑποκριθῆ in only one of my articles: Γλωσσάρι Μ. Καραγάτση. Unfortunately, it's in Greek. I hope to have another opportunity in the future.5
