Is it ethical to 'never let truth interfere good story'?

Well, it implies that a good story is more important than the truth in some cases. Take folk tales or legends, for instance. They are full of elements that may not be strictly true but are there to convey a moral or just to be an exciting story. People like to be entertained, and if the truth gets in the way of that entertainment, this saying suggests that the truth can be sacrificed for the sake of a great story.

Well, it could imply that a good story has its own value regardless of the truth. In some cases, like in fairy tales or legends, the story is more about entertainment and passing on certain cultural values rather than being strictly factual. So, we don't let the harsh or boring truth get in the way of a great narrative. For instance, in the story of Cinderella, there are magical elements that are clearly not true but make the story so much more appealing.

Definitely not. While in creative writing such as fantasy or science - fiction, bending the truth to create an exciting story is common. However, in fields where accuracy matters, like technical writing or historical research, this principle is completely wrong. In historical research, for instance, if you let go of the truth, you're distorting history. So it depends on the type of writing.

It means that sometimes people prefer to stick to an interesting or fictional narrative rather than let the boring or inconvenient truth disrupt it. For example, in fictional stories, authors might take some liberties with historical facts to make the story more engaging.

In marketing and advertising, it means focusing on the story that sells the product rather than strict facts. For example, a beauty product might claim to give 'flawless skin' which is more of a story than a pure truth as no product can make everyone's skin truly flawless. But it makes for a good marketing story.

One way is to be liberal with facts. For example, if you're writing a historical fiction, you can change some minor historical details to fit your plot better. Just make sure not to distort the overall essence of the era.

It means that in creative writing, sometimes strict adherence to facts can limit the imaginative and engaging aspects of a story. For example, a historical fiction writer might tweak some minor historical details to make the plot more exciting or to better fit the character arcs. It's about prioritizing the narrative's entertainment value over absolute truth.

Definitely not. In a healthy family structure, each member has their own role. The son's role is not to come between his parents. Interfering in their relationship can lead to a breakdown of the family unit, causing emotional distress for all involved. It goes against the basic principles of family respect and harmony.

In general, it's not a good principle for all types of writing. While in fictional storytelling, it can add an element of fun and creativity, in other areas it's unacceptable. Consider historical fiction. You can take some liberties with minor details to make the story flow better, but you can't completely distort historical facts. In contrast, in a research report, the facts are the foundation, and any deviation from them would render the work invalid. So, it's a principle that should be used very selectively.

This statement suggests that stories can be a form of escapism or entertainment. We might be more interested in the narrative flow, the characters, and the overall mood of a story. If we always insisted on strict factualness, many great stories, such as fairy tales or science - fiction epics, would lose their magic. Facts can be constraining, while a good story allows for creativity and imagination to run wild.