NON-TRUE NON-FICTION

In my mind to really be considered non-fiction the book has to be completely true. However, books that are based on a true story, but stretch the truth, or lie, are not bad either. But, should an author decide to exaggerate they are responsible for recognizing that their work has strayed into some middle realm between fiction and non-fiction. Not to say that it’s not okay, because half-truths can still make goods stories as long as it is made clear that the book is in fact a half-truth. When you make things up and claim it to be true you are essentially lying to your reader. When a person reads a touching story they believe to be completely honest, I think, it becomes easier for a person to get attached to the characters and the situation. It, for example in the case of Frey’s memoir, to know that there are good things like that actually happening somewhere in the world and that differs from a fictional piece, where the enlightening story is just an idea, not an action. It’s the “real” factor that makes a non-fiction powerful and when you lie about it you’re running a potentially good middle zone half-truth. I don’t think the label of true not-true is really necessary but if you claim you’re book to true it’s need to be true.