Books this, books that. Books have so many different labels;
when the number one label, the most important label is the story the book is
telling. Since the books are divided the way they are the authors and readers
should respect that. It’s like a universal rule.
When it comes to the non-fiction title of a book you have to
think of what that means. So to define non-fiction I went to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nonfiction
and it said “the branch of literature comprising works of narrative prose
dealing with or offering opinions or conjectures upon facts and reality,
including biography, history, and the essay (opposed to fiction and
distinguished from poetry
and drama)”. By the
true definition of non-fiction, I believe the story needs to be 100% real and
then, as the author, you may insert opinions to the original content. Because
if you are going to alter the story then the book is leading more towards a
fiction book.
In my opinion half-truths are fine, but the title of the
book just needs to be changed. The book just cannot be considered a non-fiction
book because the author has not work the narrative with 100% original content. With
that being said, I think it does matter that Frey
or other memoirists bent the truth to tell their stories because those stories
are not true non-fiction stories.
Books are stories being told to us by an author that has
something to say. Is a label really needed? When it comes to non-fiction and
fiction, I think so because it tells the readers if we are going to be reading
something truthful or just something that was off of someone’s head. David
Shield’s was wrong, because it does matter, you can’t just lie about your life
to millions of people. And the labels are important for the what to expect aspect.
No comments:
Post a Comment