cronesmoon: Nonfiction?

Hurricane Cronesmoon (

cronesmoon) wrote,
@ 2008-02-04 16:53:00

Nonfiction?
I just read a supposedly nonfiction book about a natural disaster that seemed fairly well-written and informative, but I realized about halfway through that I couldn't trust anything the author said. That made it a trifle iffy. It was interesting enough to finish reading, and in an afterward I found that probably one could tell which parts he had embellished and which parts were accurate, but I truly don't think the reader ought to have to guess.

The thing is, he was telling us word-for-word, in dialogue quotes, what people thought as they were dying. And precisely what untraceable actions they took prior to dying. At first I thought cool, that one survived or he couldn't know that; but then I found out no, that one didn't survive. Seems to me, then, that telling what he thought and precisely what he did is, you know, fiction.

In the afterward the author admitted to using "poetic license" in these cases. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that poetic license does not belong in a work ostensibly of nonfiction. Is that sort of thing commonly done these days? I don't like it. [She said querulously.]

(Post a new comment)

	2ndsoprano 2008-02-04 10:20 pm UTC (link)
	I think I rather agree with you. Isn't the "non" in non-fiction supposed to imply fact? Not made-up or "supposed" or "poetic license"? Just the facts, ma'sm. And unless this author is psychic or has a really good medium in his office, he isn't writing non-fiction. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	cronesmoon 2008-02-05 11:31 am UTC (link)
	That's just what I think. And somehow I doubt the medium, especially the "really good" part. (Reply to this)(Parent)

greyorm
2008-02-05 02:21 am UTC (link)

I have no idea how prevalent it is in novels, as I read no non-fiction except the newspaper, but I know that two of the texts we used in one creative writing class advocated that non-fiction was really "mostly non-fiction" and -- particularly regarding autobiographical writing -- to make-it-up if you couldn't remember exact details, as long as the big picture was correct. No idea how prevalent that actually is in the literature, but what you describe above seems to go quite beyond even that and well into fiction.

Then again, they have historical non-fiction, right? How do those work? If I'm writing about Alexander the Great using a narrative format, no matter how close I stick to established facts, then aren't I really creating fiction?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

cronesmoon
2008-02-05 11:55 am UTC (link)

...to make-it-up if you couldn't remember the exact details...

That's appalling. If you can't remember the exact details, do some research. Unless you're telling your own story and there's no evidence to research, in which case a few well-placed qualifiers ("I don't remember this next part clearly, but I'm pretty sure this is what happened," or "we'll never know what George was thinking, but from what I know of him and the evidence we did find, it was probably something like...") will prevent it from becoming lies.

Historical biographies are a category in which it is clearly understood that some details must be supplied by the author. It is a given, however, that the author has done her research and is supplying details and conversation that, if they are not recorded anywhere and consequently are not accurate fact, are still not created whole cloth from the author's imagination but are compounded of available data with some extrapolation based on existing records and/or probabilities. Usually there's a bit somewhere before or after where the author cites references and explains the basis for any flights of imagination: "Wellington's comment about the eggs is recorded in several journals of the time, but the conversation in the bar is something I only imagined might have happened, given the rest of that day and the character of Corporal Chalmondly as reported by C.W. Jones in..." or that sort of thing. Obviously they don't go through and explain every single quote, but they do give a general idea of how to tell which are supported and how true to the (wo)man and the times the made-up ones might be.

Because it's supposed to be nonfiction. People are supposed to be able to trust that what they learn from it is, you know, true.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

2ndsoprano
2008-02-05 03:18 pm UTC (link)

Yeah. If I am reading a work of non-fiction, whatever it may be about, I want to finish thinking that I learned something real. Or at least that it is based on real occurrences and research. Not just the author's feeling that- well, this part isn't very exciting, but if we say they had an argument here, that'll spice it up nicely! In that case, I'm not sure I would trust that anything in the work was entirely true, possibly even stuff I knew before reading it!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

cronesmoon
2008-02-05 10:08 pm UTC (link)

Not being able to trust once I knew it was partly fiction was my problem. Not knowing which parts might be fiction. But I've thought about it at some length, and realized that if the author's notes at the back of the book had been in the front of the book, so that he warned the reader in advance where he would be taking his "poetic license" with the facts, I'd have been perfectly content.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

greyorm
2008-02-05 06:47 pm UTC (link)

...a few well-placed qualifiers ("I don't remember this next part clearly, but I'm pretty sure this is what happened," or...

The advice given was that sort of thing was the worst to do, as it breaks the narrative. So, if you can't remember if your friend was wearing a black dress or a blue dress that day, you pick whichever seems more appropriate and treat it like it was. Or if you don't recall the exact phrase your mother used when you were in the kitchen arguing, you write one to the spirit of the statement.

I can see the "why" behind such advice, given that otherwise most autobiographical narratives would be nothing but "I remember it this way..." and "I think it happened like this..." near-on to every other paragraph.

But, like I said, I don't read non-fiction, so I'm out of my depth understanding how it should work. I certainly agree with the idea that non-fiction should be true, quotable facts. Then again, I would just read the encyclopedia if that's what I wanted (which I guess just reinforces that I don't understand narrative non-fiction).

I don't know. I can't say more than that, since I don't know if the advice I'm referring to is standard practice in narrative non-fiction writing.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

cronesmoon
2008-02-05 10:02 pm UTC (link)

...otherwise most autobiographical narratives would be nothing but...

Okay, who told you autobiographical narratives are nonfiction?

Seriously, no. If you're writing an autobiographical narrative, of course you should make up whatever you feel like making up, unless there's some way a reader could ever prove you wrong. No reader with any experience at all is going to imagine they're reading nonfiction, so you won't be misleading them.

I'm talking about a supposedly factual account, not a romantic fiction billed as non-.

(The idea that facts might be too boring, or that accuracy might draw us too far out of the narrative....ARGH! [if I may say so])

I get that you don't read nonfiction, so you think you don't know how it should be done. But you said you do read the newspaper. That's exactly the sort of nonfiction I'm talking about. Reports of events. Do you think it's better if reporters make up "facts" to keep the story flowing in an exciting way, or would you prefer to imagine that they're reporting as accurately as they are able?

If you see dialogue in the newspaper, do you imagine that's a fair approximation of what the quoted person said (probably taken out of context, if I know my reporters), or do you suppose the reporter just made up something he thought would be in the spirit of a conversation he didn't overhear? Would the latter be okay with you?

Incidentally, an encyclopedia entry is a very superficial piece of work (though you should still be able to assume it's accurate, with no "poetic license" to hold your jaded interest). The purpose of a book on the same subject would be to cover it in much more detail for those who want to know more. The author could, of course, read the encyclopedia entry and make up the rest, but in fact he is expected to research a bit more deeply than that. Private journals, newspapers, other books on the subject, other encyclopedias, any relevant information such as government records, eyewitness accounts, whatever. Think of it as a very, very long encyclopedia entry.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

2ndsoprano
2008-02-06 12:10 am UTC (link)

Seriously, no. If you're writing an autobiographical narrative, of course you should make up whatever you feel like making up, unless there's some way a reader could ever prove you wrong. No reader with any experience at all is going to imagine they're reading nonfiction, so you won't be misleading them.

Exactly. Example: the book I am now reading, When Christ and His Saints Slept by Sharon Kay Penman. It is the story of Maude (or Matilda), daughter of Henry I of England and her try to secure the throne from her cousin Stephen on the death of Henry. All of that happened. I expect the historical facts to be adhered to: Henry dies on Dec. 1, 1135, details of life in the period, that sort of thing. But the exact events, the conversations, the look into the backroom machinations? No, not really, as there is no way the author could know all that, and neither do I. But I did not pick this up, expecting a history book, as it is not presented as such. I expect a decent story, with all the embellishment and poetic license that includes.

I DO expect a book that proposes to be an accurate accounting of an event or period in history to be held to a higher standard. The newspaper reference is dead on- I want to have confidence that all of what I am reading in these cases is true to the facts, not made up glamour, because I am reading, in this case, to learn the facts, not be entertained.

And, if as you said, the author of the book in your original post had stated upfront that it was not a true-to-the-facts in all cases story, I'm sure I could handle the embellishments better, as well. I just want to know, before I get caught up in thinking it is all fact.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

cronesmoon
2008-02-06 03:55 am UTC (link)

Right, I think of that sort of book as historical fiction. Dunno what publishers call it, but that's what I call it. I expect the base to be accurate, and the unknowable to be embellished believably. That's the fun of it.

Incidentally I'm familiar with Maude and Stephen only because of the Brother Cadfael novels. (In which I expect the history to be accurate even though the story set in it is fiction.) The book you mention sounds interesting, and now I mean to look it up.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	2ndsoprano 2008-02-06 03:29 pm UTC (link)
	I've had that one on my shelf for a few years (along with many, many others) and am just starting it. So far, it seems decent. But I am still at the first few chapters, setting the stage part. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	greyorm 2008-02-06 12:17 am UTC (link)
	Makes sense, though I don't consider newspaper articles to be "narrative". Then again, I'm probably being too artsy with my definition of such. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	cronesmoon 2008-02-06 03:51 am UTC (link)
	I suppose I don't really think of journalism as narrative, either. But I wasn't the one who brought up narrative. And now I've said/read/thought it too many times, so that it has no meaning at all anymore. (Well, the hour is late and I should be in bed. That's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it.) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	greyorm 2008-02-06 05:00 am UTC (link)
	Heh! BTW, I wasn't suggesting you brought it up. I did, because that's how I think of the difference between pleasure reading and informational reading, even if I get pleasure out of informational reading. So, er, if that makes any sense. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	cronesmoon 2008-02-06 11:29 am UTC (link)
	Which is narrative, pleasure reading or informational reading? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	greyorm 2008-02-06 06:58 pm UTC (link)
	Pleasure reading. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	cronesmoon 2008-02-07 11:34 am UTC (link)
	That's what I thought, but I'd got confused. (Reply to this)(Parent)

Mini Sitemap:

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…