Post 5

I believe for a book to be considered non-fiction, the book has to be at least 75 percent true. I agree with what Janet Fitch says "sit down next to me and tell me a story". It doesn't have to be 100 percent true. I personally think that there is no story that is 100 percent true. To me it doesn't have to be true because I personally just like the story. I don't care if it's a memoir and the plot involves aliens. As long as the story is centered around that and keeps me interested, I do not really care. Honestly who is going to write an auto-biography about themselves and not make up a thing or two about themselves to make them look better. It adds gusto to the story and doesn't make it bland. Unless the author actually has a truth to it. Like when I was young my house burnt down. That's true. Most people wouldn't believe it  and that's fine. But the people that do believe it, those are the people that like a story, and do not care about the political side of writing an auto-biography. I think that half-truths are okay. I mean the govt. is only telling half truths to us and nobody cares, but when an author does, all heck breaks loose. As long as the central idea that the memoir is based on is true then yea, I do not care if the rest of it is not. I think that David Shields is not correct because even though many books can be split into one broad genre, there needs to be some order to it. You would never know if a book is real or not. Unless the book says that it is "based on a true story". But if you actually think about it, all books are fiction, because no book is exactly true. Even if the author says it is; it isn't.