Blog Post #5: The Truth in Non-Fiction

If a book is considered non-fiction, it would need to be 100% factual or true. When I read all the amazing adventures and endurance of an author, or maybe it's there amazing story, I want to know that the story is all true, and if I find out that some of it is false, it's more of a let-down than an angering topic. I think half-truths are great as long as the story line is good, but in this case, we wouldn't use the term non-fiction, we would say realistic fiction or something of the sort. However, I think that there needs to be a clear, distinct line between genres mostly because people need to know: 1) what they're reading
2) if they're going to enjoy it and
3) if it pertains to personal preferences.

 

Using different genre labels makes it so much easier to see if the book itself will be an interesting book to you personally and if you will even like it. If you hate thriller, sand a book incorporates thriller into their book but it also has mystery and that's what you like, then there needs to be a clear distinction of whether or not it's thriller or not, making you more or less likely to read it. If there isn't that fine line, Then the two genres will be mixed masking a book's true identity. 

That is my take on book genres and the truth in non-fiction, by saying that non-fiction needs to truly be non-fiction, not an exaggerated version of the author's or someone else's life, and genre needs a fine line of distinction.