I think a non-fiction book must be the only genre
that stays true to all the facts if its meant to teach. . It is defintely
inmoral to lie about infomation written because there is a difference between
fact and fiction. When a non-fiction book is written it is intended for people
to learn something from it and when we start blurring the lines between the two
it becomes the area where people often stop understanding what is true and what
isn't. If the intention of the story is to teach then it must be completely
factual. I like how Aimee Bender mentioned creative nonfiction, which is based
on truth but adding the dramtic elements that many people enjoy. Much like the
story written by Truman Capote In Cold Blood. This story worked
wonderfully and many other stories could work when written this way as long as
the reader knows that not everything written.
Half-truths I believe can only be allowed if the authors purposefully
crafts it this way and the reader knows the book to be half truth which is
similar to the idea of creative nonfiction. This way a reader cannot rely
on this book completely for facts. I often enjoy the genre of creative
nonfiction because it makes for interesting take on real story. It does matter
if memoirists bend their stories without the knowledge of their publishers and
audience. If this is done then it is just a pure lie.
David Shields is right in a way because it is important to have basic
linings but it doesn’t have to be the exact formation for genres. It is
important for authors to venture outside the lines of a form genre.
