I'm kind of on the fence about this whole issue of where to draw the line between truth and lies in Creative Nonfiction...
As a writer, I can definitely sympathize with the need for embellishment and exaggeration within a piece. It is difficult enough to portray the exact meaning you want your readers to comprehend (regardless of the genre you are writing in). But when you are constricted to only pure, simple facts, this task becomes nearly impossible. Often the events of our lives don't always have some deeper, greater meaning. Even when traumatic and exciting things are happening to us, rarely do we stop and think of the meaning of those events in the heat of the moment. It is only afterwards when we use our flawed memories, and our sense of good storytelling that that meaning is applied. I think that to write without these techniques would make for an incredibly dull and confusing piece of work.
As a reader, however, I crave the truth. It bothers me to read a piece that is labeled nonfiction, only to discover that certain bits of dialogue, or certain emotions/events never really occurred. When I read fiction, I am fine with extended fabrications, mostly because I anticipate them. I know its not real. But when I read nonfiction, I expect it to be the most accurate and honest rendering of events that the author can possibly produce. I want to be able to tell my friends "Hey, listen to this! This actually happened to someone!" If I cannot do this, if I cannot trust the author, I feel cheated.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I definitely agree with your point about their being different exceptions as well as expectations as both a writer and a reader. And because truth tends to be a gray area in general, it can be difficult to be entirely truthful when you're writing for an audience. But I agree that if you're writing a nonfiction piece, there is little to no room for exaggeration because everything should be "true."
ReplyDeleteGood arguments given!
ReplyDeleteI have question for you, partially based upon what Allison said above: what if it is a writer's natural voice to exaggerate? Think about the sorts of over-the-top characters that there are in the world (heck, Pacific's rife with them); would these people have to stow it in order to conform to a more "truthful" sense of their stories? Just a thought.
To some extent, I think we all have to be fence-sitters, because defining should be a process of refining. I wholly agree with you in principle: nonfiction should be the most accurate account the writer can possibly give. I quibble about the situations where the writer doubts their own accuracy, or doesn't doubt it but should.
ReplyDelete(And in response to your comment: no, you're all just better at writing dialogue than I am.)