In my opinion, for a book to be labeled as nonfiction it has
to be at least 95% true. If it isn't then the plot in the book isn't really
what happened in real life and therefore is nonfiction. As an author I would
feel guilty and as a reader I would feel betrayed if a nonfiction book wasn't
true. I understand if you try and make the book more interesting but then don’t
label it as nonfiction. I think it is okay to change minor details like what
you ate for breakfast, or what you wore to school, or maybe even some of the
conversation because you might now remember it so vividly. But if you
exaggerate or alter the event that is changes its effect on you, others, or
other events in the story line I don’t think it is okay. I understand where
David Shields is coming from when he discusses eliminating non-fiction and
fiction as a whole. It would eliminate this whole argument and conversation. But
I think when someone sees the statement “based on a true story” or something
like that about a movie or a book people are more likely to get into it and you
become more connected to the book because you want to be with them through the
story. I know when I read Marley and Me I got became connected to the
characters because it actually happen. For some reason, true stories are a bit
more encouraging and inspirational than made up ones. Bottom line, if a book is
only half true… it’s not nonfiction.
