Or should we lie to them? Sometimes it seems the truth isn't very valued, and it reminds me of the old saying: "People want a beautiful lie." Perhaps the latter is the difficult part. However, I've debated this quite a bit internally and not sure a solid conclusion can be reached.
Do readers really want the truth?
- Thread starter Schism
- Start date
They can't handle the truth.
But seriously, it very depends on what you mean by "the truth".
But seriously, it very depends on what you mean by "the truth".
Well they always say truth is subjective. "Authenticity" might just mean lying to them in the broadest way possible.
Last edited:
Louanne Learning
Active Member
Member
New Member
Role Play Moderator
Winner: 4th Contest August
Winner: June Flash Fiction
There are different levels of truth in a story.
Probably the overriding truth is the writer's subjective truth. A writer must believe in what they are writing for it to come across as believable and supported. A writer must write from their True Self in order to best express what they want to say.
Then there is "microscopic truthfulness" - truth in the details of characters and plot. Being true to who your characters are means there is no question - "Would Johnny really do that?" - in their thoughts, feelings and behaviors. And in the plot - does each event follow from the events that came before? This truthfulness is related to exactness. Describing things as they really are.
Probably the overriding truth is the writer's subjective truth. A writer must believe in what they are writing for it to come across as believable and supported. A writer must write from their True Self in order to best express what they want to say.
Then there is "microscopic truthfulness" - truth in the details of characters and plot. Being true to who your characters are means there is no question - "Would Johnny really do that?" - in their thoughts, feelings and behaviors. And in the plot - does each event follow from the events that came before? This truthfulness is related to exactness. Describing things as they really are.
Sometimes Johnny contradicts himself, even if only seemingly.
Louanne Learning
Active Member
Member
New Member
Role Play Moderator
Winner: 4th Contest August
Winner: June Flash Fiction
As long as that is part of his character
Indeed. Though the best characters are abstract. Who knows what they do, and why? Like that one guy who knocked three times on the door of unhappiness.
Louanne Learning
Active Member
Member
New Member
Role Play Moderator
Winner: 4th Contest August
Winner: June Flash Fiction
Hopefully, the writer does
Maybe in some dusty corner of his/her brain.
I disagree. A character still has to act within that character's own logic. If they just do random shit and it's never clear why from the text, readers will just go "meh" and put the story down.
The reader wants to believe the character. The character has to be true to themselves. If they look at a wall and see dragons coming out of it, that's fine, as long as that's what the character is actually seeing. No one else has to see it, and it doesn't have to be real to anyone except the character.
Every fiction writer is a liar. That's why it's fiction. We are asking the reader to believe that a character is real, has real thoughts, acts in real ways. The only test is whether the reader believes that the story is credible.
And the way that the writer passes that test is by creating a world or a character that has an internal truth, as others have pointed out here. Tolkien's characters work within Tolkien's world because there is an internal consistency. Crichton's characters work because, within the fictional world he's created, they act in ways that reflect the way humans would do in similar circumstances.
Non-fiction writers, on the other hand, must try as hard as possible to reflect the way things really were in our world, accurately telling of events and documenting the thoughts and actions of the people involved. They can't make stuff up, even if it's credible. Abraham Lincoln might have had a sinking feeling when he learned of the Battle of Bull Run, but it can't go into the book if the writer can't document that it actually happened via a first-hand report or a diary entry or whatever. It's true that some non-fiction writers make stuff up anyway, but historians usually look on that work with contempt.
Same thing for memoirs. One would assume that an autobiographer would relate things just as it happened to them...the ultimate "first-hand report"... but that just ain't so, and future biographers must tease out the truth behind the report and point out how other documentation disputes it.
Considering truth is subjective and highly malleable, you're probably right about that.
The answer, like so many of things to do with writing, is that it depends.
It depends on what you mean by truth. Whatever that might be, truth doesn't always translate well to fiction. The random shit that we encounter every day, that we just accept as another example of the randomness of this crazy world, won't always sit well in a work of fiction, where the notion of "natural order" can be most unnatural.
There was a few comments back in the old site about dialogue in fiction, making the point that writing dialogue as people might actually speak it can both be wearisome to read and come across as unnatural and unconvincing in written form.
What fiction can aim for is what could be called thematic truth, which may or may not correlate to reality. In any case, ten people could experience the exact same event and conclude with ten (and often more) versions of what the truth might be.
It depends on what you mean by truth. Whatever that might be, truth doesn't always translate well to fiction. The random shit that we encounter every day, that we just accept as another example of the randomness of this crazy world, won't always sit well in a work of fiction, where the notion of "natural order" can be most unnatural.
There was a few comments back in the old site about dialogue in fiction, making the point that writing dialogue as people might actually speak it can both be wearisome to read and come across as unnatural and unconvincing in written form.
What fiction can aim for is what could be called thematic truth, which may or may not correlate to reality. In any case, ten people could experience the exact same event and conclude with ten (and often more) versions of what the truth might be.
Similar threads
