Post #5: Non-fiction

To be considered a work of non-fiction, a book has to be 100% true. Well, unless there are plot holes in a memoir, then the author can fill in some of the details. So, maybe 90%. Also, dialogue can’t be remembered word for word. So, 85% is close enough to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I mean there was no way for Susannah Cahalan, author of Brain of Fire to remember exact conversations when her insane month living a medical mystery involved psychosis and extreme paranoia.

So, really non-fiction needs to be as true as possible (within the author’s power). Main characters, key plot pieces, and relative timeline of a story should be reflected accurately in the work. All other liberties the author chooses to take must be at least addressed in an author’s note or preface to the book. It seems wrong to mislead your readers if that isn’t what actually happened. Non-fiction is essentially a trust exercise between the author and reader. The reader expects the real story. The author wants to give the reader a good story. Both sides have positives.

The intended genre for a book really needs to be clear. To David Shields: sorry, not sorry. For non-fiction, the author needs to give mostly facts with roughly 15% half-truths. It’s basically all true. Pretty much. I mean everyone is human. Anything claiming to be “based on a true story” can be a lot more lax on the facts. As long as some aspects of the story resembles the original plot. It’s not non-fiction but it isn’t completely made up. Presenting a story is very different from teaching a history lesson. An example would be The Help by Kathryn Stockett. Creative non-fiction is just a genre made up by authors who don’t want to admit how much they made up: Truman Capote we are looking at you.

Readers deserve to know what they are getting themselves into. Reading is an emotional investment. As long as the author make the genre clear or explains changes facts, I guess it’s ok. Besides isn't all truth relative?