A true book in my opinion has to be a book that’s completely true other than dialogue. If a book has fictional events in it that takes away the thrill of knowing everything happened. If things in a non-fiction book aren’t true that defeats the person. Many people enjoy reading non-fiction because they know that they events taking place actually happened and can learn from the book. Since a lot of the times dialogue can be forgotten if you have to paraphrase or completely make something up, it’s fine with me as long as you are still conveying the same idea.
\Half-truths is not okay with me. It’s either the whole thing is true or nothing at all. If you’re reading a book about a story that is half true than how are you supposed to know what’s true and what’s not. I think to really get a feel for the main character of the book you have to know the things going on in the book are true or not true at all. When Frey lied about the contents of his book, I thought it was not only cynical but also unfair to the readers. If you can’t get your book published without lying; then maybe it was never meant to be published. I applaud Oprah and the things she says to him because I think she is speaking on behalf of the readers and the publishing companies. 5% of not being true is too much for me; it’s either 99% true or nothing at all.
I agree with what you said on half-truths. You put faith in the author that they would not take advantage of you.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis makes a lot of sense to me. You point our the point of a memoir and nonfiction book and show how that is defeated with half-truths. I couldn't agree more.
ReplyDelete"it’s either 99% true or nothing at all." Wow. Let us just dwell on this sentence for a moment or two... Let me get this straight, Frey battled drug addiction and conquered a mountain of adverrsity and all you can do is spit his literary hyperbole in his face. 99% true? What Frey defeated was inspirational and just because his book doesn't your 99% and misses by 4% you berate him for it. As you so adequetly put it, "if you have to paraphrase or completely make something up, it’s fine with me as long as you are still conveying the same idea."
ReplyDeleteI get what you mean about the dialogue being excusable because there's always times when you don't remember word for word what you said in one specific instantance unless it was something completely profound or a common saying.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you said that it was unfair to the reader if the book is half true because we don't know what is true and what's not.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about how the book has to be completely true other than dialogue.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the book should be at least 99% true, if it is only half true the reader wont know what is true and what is a lie.
ReplyDeletei agree with most of this except when you said "Many people enjoy reading non-fiction because they know that they events taking place actually happened and can learn from the book." because most of the time the readers dont even know that it is not 100 percent true.
ReplyDeleteI tend to disagree. Sure half truths are unfair to the reader when trying to determine just what is true and what is not. However, half truths are okay, most stories come about from actual events anyways. And afterall, for a man like Frey, he knew he fibbed a little and he tried to make it fiction and obey the laws set by human nature, but it was the publishing industry that didn't seem to be interested.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you talk about how it isn't really fair to the readers if there are half-truths in the book, because we don't know what is true.
ReplyDeleteI think that half-truths should be considered fiction instead of non-fiction even though half of them are ture.
ReplyDelete