Monday, April 21, 2014
Recently, we have talked a LOT about the authenticity, believability, and truth that goes into creating an adventure narrative (fiction or non-fiction, but I'd like to focus on non-fiction for this post). But what is truth? Is it based on one's perception - or perspective? Can any ONE person tell an absolutely true story? No matter what happens, how accurate the story will come across, there is bound to me bias thrown in solely because each person holds a different perspective and perceives and processes scenes and events differently. As cool as this is (and it's pretty cool, right?), this poses issues when discussing the validity of non-fiction adventure narratives. My issue, however, comes from a completely different place. WHY is this important? Why do we have to validate these adventures? Let's look at this scenario: you go on a super cool adventure - ALONE - come back, tell your friend about it and they don't believe that everything you went through on that adventure ACTUALLY happened. Does that mean that these events didn't happen? I don't think so. Is it possible that you exaggerated, added details you don't necessarily accurately recall, or embellish the story in ANY possible way? Of course it is. This is expected. And accepted. So back to my question before: why is this even important? Is it impossible to simply believe in the adventure and not "buy in" to every potentially inaccurate detail? I don't believe the potential embellishments take away from the narratives we've read. The adventures are (for the most part) real. So why does it matter if there is embellishment? Does it take away from the authenticity of the adventure?