Post 5

In my opinion to be considered non-fiction, a book should have at least 90% of factual material. I believe the story, if claimed to be true, should not stray away from actual events, or completely make up stories. However, with that being said, I believe it is unrealistic for a great non-fiction piece to be 100% factual. It is understandable to add embellishments, or in some cases slight exaggerations, in order to make the story more engaging to the reader. Telling the "half-truth" can be okay, as long as the end result is the same. If you expand upon events that actually happened to you, but alter minor details of those events, it is justifiable. There is a fine line between telling an embellished version of your life story, and re-writing your life. Memoirists who in essence re-write their life, should not be able to consider their stories memoirs, due the readers inaccurate assumption you really lived the events described. I disagree with David Shield's opinion that we do not need lines between genres. It is important that books maintain their labels so that those who have told the story of their lives receive credit, historical events are able to be factually portrayed, and readers are able to distinguish between reality and fiction.