I was going to leave this particular topic alone, since I felt I had nothing substantial to contribute. But then, our dear LD posted this:
Lying is essential. It's the glue that holds a story together and allows the writer to draw the reader in. Face it, we're surrounded by lies. Turn on the TV and listen to the news, read the newspaper, talk to the CEO of your company regarding the potential of layoffs - lies - you'll hear nothing but lies. You lie to a reader to create false expectations, then shatter those expectations during the climax.
While I suspect that I actually agree with what LD is really saying (and I am posting this to goad him into clarifying himself a bit
), I will on the surface say that I completely disagree. I would argue that what we do in literature (good literature, at any rate) is always telling the truth. Just because the reader does not get it right away, and just because some of our characters are either lying or biased in their judgements in no way means we are using lies to glue a story together.
I would argue that when we are writing at our best, we are telling the truth. In a story, if a character is given dialog or actions that are "out of character", we flag that as bad writing. The writing is not true to the character in question. If something occurs in the story that violates pre-established facts, then we call it bad writing. It is untrue to the setting, situation, and characters involved. On the other hand, if a plot twist occurs, but it does not violate character, setting, etc., then we can go with it. We might even think it is brilliant writing if it has been forshadowed enough in subtle language that the reader misunderstands at the time, but that bears out the reality of the situation.
It is also helpful to remember something that Coleridge reminds us of. He mentions that being a writer is a participation in the infinite I AM. Now, for those unfamiliar with that term, Coleridge is reminding us that we are essentially God to the setting, characters, and plots in our own writing. When we write something, it takes on a measure of truth simply because we are in the position of God and capable of assigning truth at a whim. If we couldn't, then none of us would be writing fiction of any sort.
To illustrate this, take Sytass's Spain AAR. Sytass's AAR is taken from the perspective of CNN and his alternate history of Spain. Now, since he is playing God in this particular AAR, it has become true that CNN did the news for the Spanish conquest of various parts of the world. Did it historically happen? Of course not. But for the purposes of the fiction, it is true. (With hilarious results, I might add.) When we read it, we take it as the truth. In his capacity as author, Sytass has created the truth.
To borrow another example, MrT's Rivers Run Red will do nicely. Now, his Kurfurst is a young man, younger by far than any of his advisors, but he is also the ruler of the Palatinate. He is also a young lad desperately trying to manage a war against the evil empire, France. Is it true that during this period in history, the Palatinate and its young ruler were in a bitter war of survival against the evil of France? I don't know right off the top of my head, but it doesn't matter. For the purposes of his AAR, it is true. MrT, in his capacity as God of Rivers Run Red (a scary notion, to be sure) has made it true. Now, if the Kurfurst starts acting out of character, once MrT has established that character, then he is no longer writing the truth. But, we would also say he is just writing poorly anyway.
As to the other ideas regarding lying to readers about details in the story, I would say that you have not really lied to them unless you pull a deus ex machina, or put something out of sync with the reality you have established in the story. If Hamlet forgives Claudius at the end of the play, we would call that lousy writing and see it as untrue. But if he kills Claudius in a fit of rage, now that is both good writing and true.
