Have you ever thought about the difference between Fiction and Nonfiction literature? Well obviously one is true and one is false. But in the case of nonfiction, how true does it have to be? Think about historical pieces and memoirs. Is it ok to have historical inaccuracy or is it ok to lie about your past for the purpose of having a more entertaining story?
I personally believe that it is ok to lie to an extent in both cases of writing. Especially in the case of memoirs, it is way more entertaining to have something that was actually true. Think about horror movies i don't know about you guys but whenever i see the "Based off a true story" Disclaimer at the beginning of a film, i instantly tense up. Just the thought of seeing things that happened in the past and could possibly happen to me. It just makes for a more entertaining story.
But what if your story isn't very entertaining, or just plain boring? Then lie about it. I believe that as long as the story is mostly true that it should not be subjected to criticism. Fabricating the truth makes the story more interesting and fun to read.
Now back to the Fiction Notification debate. David Shields proposed that there should be no difference between fiction and nonfiction. I disagree with this statement because then what would happen to history? What if everything we read and write was made up! The truth would be worth absolutely nothing. That's not a world i want to live in.
