Liz has a nice followup to my post about kinds of honesty in which she neatly collects links to the discussion – I’ve been shockingly lax about that, I just read things and was appalled and didn’t actually link to them. Jonathon Delacour’s post is particulary interesting, and look at his description of his weblog, I like that. I’m finding some excellent weblogs through this debate.
Jt’s comment to Liz’s post sums up the problem with the truth in blogs debate, in my opinion:
See, that’s just it. I don’t think weblogs are about facts. Obviously a lot of people do, as the Kaycee Nicole scandal and others have shown. Heck, even my recent obsession with the authenticity of the Bagdad Blogger was rather embarrassingly literal, wasn’t it? As Shelley wrote,
In a more recent post, she quoted someone else talking about Annie Dillard: “Sometimes to tell the truth you have to lie a little.”
There are long traditions for this, of course. In my family, we know perfectly well that Mum tends to embroider the truth a little, though she’ll always deny it when pushed. The rest of us do too, now and then. Such embroidery usually only makes the story better and the point clearer. Even memory embroiders the truth – are you sure you remember your own stories quite the way they really happened?
I should probably set up a disclaimer on my blog. “I endeavour to be academically trustworthy and cite my sources and so on but do not promise to be factual about my personal life.”
This is a typical debate where we should probably all just agree to disagree before it gets utterly boring.