In my experience, it is much harder to get the truth published because, as Arthur Schopenhauer said, “Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the world.”
No one likes the truth. But in my experience, which is watching documentaries on 9/11 conspiracies and things like that - the general public like to know the truth. It is often a government with something to hide that will ban the publication of works which contain 'the truth'. Although truth is an individuals perception of a situation. So, in my opinion, depending on the subject, then the truth can be much harder to publish.
I've just realised that I contradicted myself in my previous statement. I meant to say that only those with something to hide don't like the truth.
I agree. And most people in positions of power have a great deal to hide because they are legends in their own minds.
Actually, I think if things like Wikileaks have shown anything, it's that people in power have things to hide because they're exactly like the rest of us. They may want to seem like 'legends', but they're guilty of the same petty things that the rest of us are; they lie, they say embarrassing or inflammatory things, they make mistakes in judgement, they fall to the same vices. In their minds, they know that they are like us, but despite what we seem to hear, we don't want leaders who are just like us. We want leaders who we can believe are better than us, more moral, more virtuous. We create the expectation that these people are legendary, and they go to great lengths to try to prove us right.
I totally disagree. They are in fact just like us, but just like us, some are leaders and some are better suited to let others lead. Problems arise when incompetents are elected or appointed to positions of authority.
I think that Wikileaks is amazing. The whole rebelling against the powers that be, Julian Assange should really not be being persecuted the way he is. He's only doing the rest of the world a favour, by exposing the secrets of the United States Government.
I probably just misunderstood. I think we are in fact in agreement. There is frequently an incongruity between the words we use and what we actually mean, and I just think that this is one more example. Pardon my misinterpretation
Journalist Eric Margolis said that Wikileaks merely exposed what he already knew -that many diplomats are total incompetents. The guy is quite brilliant and he twitters !
Depends on what the truth is. If you wish to publish "THE TRUTH" about which wild plants are edible to lost hikers in the wilderness, you shouldn't have a problem getting published. If you wish to publish "THE TRUTH" about a corrupt government that has the power to arrest your publisher, seize their presses and shut down their business for violations of the state secrets act...you might find some resistance. If you wish to publish "THE TRUTH" about my relationship with my sheep...you will spend years in court getting sued, restraining ordered, cease and desist orders, etc.
Tell me more about your sheep. By the way, i just went and did something crazy -i joined twitter. Anybody twitter?
Lothgar (and his sheep? )brings up a good point -- libel laws are something to watch out for. If you're publishing something about someone else that might not be true, you can face serious problems. All the guidelines I know are for news writing but I'm pretty sure fiction works the same way. Also, I think that in fiction, if you slam someone in your memoir and they're not a public figure and everyone can tell who they are, you might face problems, but I'm not sure on that one. Hawky94, I see we have some similar interests.
The real question should be what is the truth? there are many sides to every story and many truths out there.
Indeed. We could have an endless discussion just to try and determine the nature of truth. That aside, whenever you watch a movie about some historical event, you will notice that they usually change a lot of it. Why? Because historical events may involve hundreds of people, which the viewer can't be expected to track and remember, who had their own reasons and motivation, which the viewer can't understand, and who were working for days or weeks in a time-span which the movie reduces to 105 minutes. In books, the situation is a little similar. You can't very easily publish a "true story" and try to get into every little detail and its effect on the outcome of the whole thing, particularly not if you're trying to retain the reader's attention.
Here's a speculation. Since the truth is so difficult to uncover, sometimes, creative license grants the opportunity to explain what the historians missed.
I read the news today oh boy and it made me cry. Now that's what i call truth, but then again, even American Idol makes me cry. Is that weird? I just hate it when grown men cry, don't you?
The truth is subjective at best and boring at worst. The best way to get a published whistle-blower type of work is to weave a variety of propaganda techniques through out. This lends excitement and intrigue to otherwise dry factual statements. Not many people read published medical studies in respected journals but lots of people will watch Dr. Oz or buy the latest diet fad book that is only loosely based on any kind of medical science. The authors make dry scientific findings seem exciting by using a variety of propaganda techniques, and the South Beach Diet is born and is a huge best seller. Is it actually truth? Maybe parts are based in fact, but any kind of system like a diet book is going to depend on where the individual stands who is reading the material. Ditto with whistle-blower tomes. What is the motivation of the author to publish these shocking facts? Probably self serving ones. Just make sure that you are able to make the information exciting and provacative and your book will be more likely to sell.
Never forget the theory of Schrodinger's cat when in reference to any hidden historical event. History is constantly changing due to the revelatory nature of research and published "thruths" as we know it.
The truth is not boring ! Now that I am a member of twitter, I can find it easier. Anybody here a member, it's a really cool resource. I just joined, so i need followers, or somebody cool to follow. Anybody have any suggestions: who should I follow. I have three people on my list, so far. I think this is way better than facebook.
the thing about truth and facts are that they might be false. or they can even change over time. it is kind of like the "the world is flat" scenario. im sure once they found out the world was not flat it still took a long time to convince people. i think it would hurt your chances getting published depending on what it was. it might be hard to get a book about "the truth on how bears talk" and having it being non-fiction. i think it all depends on what you write and how much a "truth" there really is.
