Fiction VS Non-Fiction

[Meadow337]

I posted this in the 'interesting articles of late' thread but decided it was worth a whole discussion on its own.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/b...tion.html?ref=books&_r=2&pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Fiction or Non-Fiction is more relevant?

Each week in Bookends, two writers take on pressing and provocative questions about the world of books. This week, Rivka Galchen and Pankaj Mishra discuss the boundaries of fiction and nonfiction, and the way each form reflects the world in which we live.
​

So what do you think?

Is fiction or non-fiction more relevant?

Can fiction convey facts better than non-fiction?

Does the less demanding requirements for absolute accuracy in fictionalized accounts allow the writer to get closer to the truth than a non-fictional account could?

 

[Marie M]

I think both are neutral. The author makes them relevant or irrelevant by the way they write it. In both, people include biases, falsehoods, etc. In both, they may include creative things that are inferred by reading between the lines, so to speak. Sometimes, however, it's easier to include a powerful point in fiction than non-fiction. In fiction, everything is assumed to be -- well -- fiction. So the author could express any number of subtleties about her government or family or whatever the subject may be without being considered controversial. It would be more palatable to readers. While a non-fiction book could include an obvious bias that turns people away.

On the flip side, an author can take too much liberty in fictionalizing an account of a true story. Then sometimes it distorts the truth. It's nice to have a new perspective on something, but I don't like it when the assumptions or extrapolations of fiction become what people believe is what actually happened.

 

[Conscious Bob]

I agree but also add that subject is important, for example books on science are more relevant than science fiction books.

 

[Meadow337]

I agree but also add that subject is important, for example books on science are more relevant than science fiction books.

That is a rather spurious comparison don't you think, because I don't think anyone would equate the two, but historical fiction or fictionalised accounts of true life events are comparable to historically accurate accounts.

I think, however, my approach to the argument is that recently I have attempted to read a number of non-fiction books that were, to say the least, unreadable. And if it has just been one book I would have dismissed it as just chance, but it was 5 books in a row, from which I concluded that non-fiction writers would do well to actually learn how to write ie learn how to convey ideas in clear, readable, understandable, logical fashion, and while yes reference etc are so terribly important in non-fiction, their inclusion should not be at the expense of rationality.

 

[Sparhawk]

I have to say that I am all for fiction and creating stories around/from actually events, just not non-fiction. It's boring, more often than not all the authors are doing is listing dates and times or references as Meadow said. I am truly interested in history but I never read any non-fiction history books because there just isn't any info in them because the author had spent all of his time tell you about things like tides or sundials.