I suppose it's the law of communication entropy, but if I continue positing these ideas, I might drown myself into skepticism, and I don't want to espouse the ideas of Hume and Berkeley. Maybe I'll ride the fence with Kant. Anyhow, the writer tells a fiction to everyone but himself. This idea of the writer lying could possibly turn into an interminable debate on whether action or intent is the most important. I guess Huck did this unintentionally, just like writers do.
Writers lie intentionally or passively to create suspense and ambuguity.
Writers may tell the truth, but they certainly tell it slant, which is not the truth. Only poet's can do this. Critics must be objective, disinterested. Actually, poets can't do it, either. I agree and believe the author's life should have little influence over the meaning.