There are three sides to every story: my side, your side and the truth. And no one is lying. Memories shared serve each one differently.
— Robert Evans, The Kid Stays In the Picture
It's my job to tell it like it is...or was... or whatever!
— Alan-a-Dale, Robin Hood
"And that's how Equestria was made!"
"The story is told - though who can say if it be true..."
"So you lie to yourself to be happy. There's nothing wrong with that — we all do it! Who cares if there are a few details you'd rather not remember?"
— Teddy, Memento
Thurl Ravenscroft: Yes, it's Superior Duck! The Duck of Yesterday!
Daffy: Tomorrow. The Duck of Tomorrow.
Ravenscroft: Oh, uh, y-y-yes. Ahem. Superior Duck, the Duck of Tomorrow! Yes, it's Superior Duck! Able to leap the tallest locomotive!
Daffy: There is no such thing as the tallest locomotive. The accepted verb is not leap; the noun is not locomotive. Understandez-vous?
Ravenscroft: Yes, uh, oh yes, yes. Superior Duck! Faster than a speeding building!
Daffy: [to audience] Do you too have trouble with your narrators?
— Looney Tunes, "Superior Duck"
Battler:At the end of the 1st game, it was revealed that this story was passed on to people in the future by that message bottle.
......Someone had written about this crime...this tale.
In other words, ......this tale is all part of a world that includes the personal opinions of an observer, namely, the person who wrote the message in a bottle.
In other words the observer isn't God. It's a human.
Therefore, there's no guarantee that this description is truly impartial.
By the end of the first game, it had already been made clear that we had broken the constant premise of the mystery genre: that the story itself must be seen though the eyes of God.
End of the Golden Witch, "????"
Arnold had no idea what the hell was going on in this movie. His memories were fake, he was his own bad guy, and not a single line of this screenplay involved a character telling the truth. But after his evil wife punched him in the balls and then kicked him in the balls, Arnold was sure about one thing: he's going to shoot this god damn lady in the head.
Within the first five minutes, we see our lead Grant has a bump on the head and is hallucinating things. So immediately we know we canít trust our storyteller and that the movie is building to a bullshit twist. That is not a good start because at that point I also lost interest.... In the second act you may be partially tricked that the twist has already come. Grant finally (FINALLY) runs into Joey. Joey explains though that he was not trying to kill Grant but Marissa because (get this) Marissa is a demon who lures its prey with sex then drains your life force. Temporarily my interest is piqued as I rather like the concept of Tom Sizemore as a demon slayer who is fighting sex demon Katherine Heigl. Throw in Mel Gibson as Sizemoreís partner and you have the makings of one of the funniest buddy movies ever. So the second half is spend with Joey and Grant hunting Marissa.
But then the final twist comes. Instead of an interesting movie like the one presented in the second act, it turns out Grant is just crazy and everything we know about the movie is completely wrong. So, in actuality, our movie starts properly in the third act of the movie. I say that because nothing in the story before hand can be trusted. Nothing.
But then my friend the philologist remarked that, although my ideas were not without interest, they had not been proved by anything.
At first, I was extremely surprised, but when I managed to understand the sense of what he was saying I saw that here, too, he was strictly consistent.
He called proof only a text containing precisely formulated information, but not considerations about the subject raised. Of course, I did not agree with him.
Because then I would have been obliged to assert that Prester John ruled in the "Three Indias"!
[...] In the accounting system offered, a "proved statement" will not be one which has a footnote to an authentic source, but one which does not contradict
strictly established facts and logic, however paradoxical the conclusion based on such principles. Incidentally, this is how all natural scientists work.
— L.N.Gumilev, "Searches for an Imaginary Kingdom".