Fact or fiction?

You hear it all the time. That journo didn't stick to the facts; that blogger is untrustworthy, he's making up stories. The problem with cyberspace is it's full of interpretation not facts facts and more facts.

As if facts existed on a golden prairie of sweetness protected by the omnipotent Jolly Green Gradgrind. Our Man would just like to point out It's a facts world but it wouldn't be nothin without an opinion or a sirl*.

Any academic fuckwit can make some bollocks argument backed by citations, stats and snotty asides from dead authorities. Facts are not sacred, they are 10 a penny. It's the insight that counts.

And that's one reason why a well-written story is more truthful than a mountain of fact-checked pages of a factual book based on a bollocks premise. And here's Our Man's evidence. A fictional review of a factual book. It's up to you, but which is more truthful?

Secret handshake to Shinpuren for the link and Nassim whatsit whose book Black Swan has got Our Man thinking and all muddled up.

(* That doesn't work. Ed.)