I don’t think it matters what type of book it is; non-fiction or fiction, to a certain point, at least. There are both books, but some non-fiction books can put you too sleep because it actually is a true story. While fiction books can do the same you just expect it to be intriguing and interesting, since it was made up. While non-fiction books are a true story they should be a true story, not a 51% chance of true, but at least 90%. I mean you can change the character’s name, the setting, but the plot itself, should be mainly true.
Originally I said it didn’t really matter what you label a book as, but the two main categories are non-fiction and fiction and then it goes into science fiction and fantasy. So I agree that non-fiction should actually be partially true because if it isn’t then it can easily slide into fiction and then we lose non-fiction as a whole, who would want that. That’s where we supposedly get are facts and biography’s.
However, Frey or Mortenson bent the truth to the max. First of Frey didn’t even do the things like run over a cop, be sent to a facility for problems, have tooth decay without medicine. I mean he stretched the truth all the way around the world, twice. His paper trail was found and they discovered that it was a lie. Mortenson as well took it to a new level and they found out that the picture was actually a picture with his protectors, not captivators. Shields is right, kind of. We do need lines between the genres because still they are both books, they are just different. There needs to be a certain point when the truth is stretched far enough that it could be considered fiction though.
No comments:
Post a Comment