How much fiction is acceptable in a "nonfiction" book?
On one hand, we have The Glass Castle, with minor(?) fictional filling-in. On the other hand, we have James Frey, with the vast majority of A Million Little Pieces made up. And on a third hand, we have metafictional like The Things They Carried, which claims to be both truth and fiction. Where does the actual truth come in? What exactly is truth?
Nonfiction books and documentaries probably wouldn't be very interesting to read without a storyline. In fact, I think those are called textbooks. So whether it's Sherman Alexie publishing fiction with rooted in truth or Tim O'Brien publishing truth rooted in fiction, it all comes down to pretty much the same purpose: a better understanding of the world.
(Garfield would not be quite as funny if it were true)
Your post was very well written; however, I cannot see where the title and picture fits within your post. I am also unfamiliar with Moore's Paradox. I liked your humorous of input that anything that is straight facts is known as a "textbook". However, I daresay that even textbooks, history textbooks to be exact, are not completely factual. As Winston Churchill stated, "History is written by the victors." I do agree with your point that fiction does give us a better understanding of the world.
ReplyDeleteI noticed that the topic of truth vs. fiction has come up multiple times so far in our 11 AP class. It is a fascinating topic of discussion. Where is the line between truth and fiction? I really like how you sum up your post by saying that the sole point of both truth and fiction is to give us a better understanding of the world. However, as Jason said, what is Moore's paradox? Your post didn't really explain that.
ReplyDeleteDoes that mean if I lie but give a better understanding of the world, it's okay? Also, how do you know so many of these paradoxes, laws, etc.? They seem pretty out there, if you know what I mean.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like nonfiction writers these days are faced with the exact same combination of incentive and threat. Either they fabricate or embellish or realign the story to make it interesting, or they tell a really boring story. In the case of the former, it is nice for the reader to have some kind of interesting plotline, until it's proven false, anyway. I think that while it's nice to have completely accurate stories, I'd like to keep my sanity reading them. So as far as I'm concerned, if the fabrications don't affect the end result of the story (what the reader leaves with), I'm willing to call it truth.
ReplyDeleteI too never questioned how nonfiction writers detailed scenes so vividly. Sometimes I question true things that actually happened and sometimes I don't question fictional things that may not have happened. Most of us think that the most bizarre things that occur are fiction but it turns out to be truth.
ReplyDelete