In my mind, a book doesn’t have to be 100% true in order to be good. I actually think that sometimes twisting the truth and lying sometimes makes a book better. I think that if a book is half-true than it can still be good, it all depends on how the author sells the lie to the reader. For example, an author could have an interesting lie, but not be able to write it out so it looks good, than people will know it’s a lie, and not be interested, but if an author has a lie, and knows how to write it so it sounds believable, than people will be interested and want to keep reading. I agree with David Shields, I think that the line separating fiction from non-fiction is pointless. I think that putting a label on a book is just a waste of time, and it could cause arguments. For example, if an author writes a book intending for it to be a genre fiction book, but someone reads it and thinks that it is supposed to be a memoir, than it ruins the feel of the book, and the reader thinks of it in a completely different way than the author. I believe that what title the book is given can have a huge effect on who reads it and how it sells. If a book was sold in a bookstore where a lot of people like fiction books, but the book is a non-fiction book, than the book might not sell as well than if the book was given no title and the audience was supposed to figure out type of genre it is supposed to be. When a book is given no title than it allows the reader to kind of choose what they want the genre to be, also it could sell to a much larger variety of people.
Thursday, February 6, 2014
Post 8
In my mind, a book doesn’t have to be 100% true in order to be good. I actually think that sometimes twisting the truth and lying sometimes makes a book better. I think that if a book is half-true than it can still be good, it all depends on how the author sells the lie to the reader. For example, an author could have an interesting lie, but not be able to write it out so it looks good, than people will know it’s a lie, and not be interested, but if an author has a lie, and knows how to write it so it sounds believable, than people will be interested and want to keep reading. I agree with David Shields, I think that the line separating fiction from non-fiction is pointless. I think that putting a label on a book is just a waste of time, and it could cause arguments. For example, if an author writes a book intending for it to be a genre fiction book, but someone reads it and thinks that it is supposed to be a memoir, than it ruins the feel of the book, and the reader thinks of it in a completely different way than the author. I believe that what title the book is given can have a huge effect on who reads it and how it sells. If a book was sold in a bookstore where a lot of people like fiction books, but the book is a non-fiction book, than the book might not sell as well than if the book was given no title and the audience was supposed to figure out type of genre it is supposed to be. When a book is given no title than it allows the reader to kind of choose what they want the genre to be, also it could sell to a much larger variety of people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Confusing wordplay with the lies at the beginnning of the post.
ReplyDeleteI agree that a book doesn't have to be 100% true to be good but I do think that in order to be called a non-fiction book it should be 100% true. There are plenty of fiction books out there that are "based on a true story" but not 100% true which I think is fine but to call a book non-fiction when it simply is not I do not think is ok.
ReplyDeletei agree
ReplyDeleteI agree that it should all be true to be considered non-fiction.
ReplyDelete