Aimee Bender agrees with David Shields when she says that "I think what's always most interesting to me is the work itself and if the work is interesting, I really don't care that much," I disagree with them because I think that you should care. The line between fiction and non-fiction is there for a reason, people who love to read/learn about true, factual events read non-fiction. For those who love the thrill and escape of fantasy and adrenaline-packed novels read fiction. The reason these 2 genres are separate is to accommodate both types of readers.
I agree with James Frey, a book should be 95% true to the event(s) that occurred for the piece to be considered "non-fiction." Obviously, as we've discussed in class, people can't always remember the EXACT conversation they had when they were 16 years old and they're now re-telling it at 55. I understand the use of creative license in those times, but changing 35% of a story to make it a good story should be labeled "based on a true story" because it is. It's BASED on a true event, but it's not as close to exactly as I would like in order for it to be labeled non-fiction.
For me, half-truths are never okay. That would mean that 50% of the story is real and 50% is made up. If you want to make it a good story, make it fiction and you have all the room in the world to mix up events, times and people, but if your intentions are to make people aware of your story/situation, DON'T CHANGE THINGS. If it was truly meant to be a good story, you don't need to embellish details (throughout the entire book) in order for people to think it's a good book.
"Bending the truth" is a tough line to draw. Where is too much? Back to what I said earlier, 95% is the minimum a book should be factual in order for memoirists to be able to call their books memoirs. I think that any more and you should just say that your book is based on a true story because while it is the recounting of a part of your life, it not as true as would meet the standards of memoirs.
No comments:
Post a Comment