Is there an implicit assumption that “Words Lie. Actions Don’t Lie.”?

I noticed something and perhaps you can explain:
I was refreshing my memory with Google, trying to remember if it was in Rumblestiltskin where the phrase, “Catch me if you can!” was uttered.

I came across this page:
which tells the story of Rumblestiltskin.

Yet, something was strangely missing from the narrative.

What was missing?

Quotes.  Things people said.  This person said to that person.  This person exclaimed.  That was almost entirely absent.

Yet, it’s a complete telling of the story.  How did they do it?

…This happened.  Then that happened.  Then that happened.  Then the other thing happened….  with hardly a single reference to a word or phrase uttered by a character.

This is standard in analysis of literature and standard practice in academic writing.

My question: Is the This happened, then that happened narrative a more reliable retelling of a story, or a story consisting of what people said plus what they did considered to be more reliable?

What is the significance of eliminating the things people said to each other?

Is there an implicit assumption that “Words Lie.  Actions Don’t Lie.”?

If so, where did that concept come from, Philosophically?  What are some examples of Philosophers who delve into this topic?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

nine − = 5

Leave a Reply