tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5488042654610511802.post6954549161427090931..comments2024-03-24T07:39:07.530-04:00Comments on Celebrate Nonfiction: Behind the Books: Does Story Reign Supreme?Melissa Stewarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04322048827106827307noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5488042654610511802.post-8036233864050865872010-03-11T06:46:58.414-05:002010-03-11T06:46:58.414-05:00I think what I'm expressing is how things ARE,...I think what I'm expressing is how things ARE, with a few rare exceptions. And those exceptions need to be nipped in the bud. Otherwise, we truly will reach a point where it will be impossible to trust the accuracy of any nonfiction text or the credibility of any nonfiction writer.Melissa Stewarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04322048827106827307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5488042654610511802.post-64224289466106375812010-03-10T22:49:49.943-05:002010-03-10T22:49:49.943-05:00I think what you’re expressing is a credo, and a g...I think what you’re expressing is a credo, and a good one, of how things <i>should</i> be. I agree with Mezrich’s comment only as an observation of how things most often <i>are</i>. <br /><br />Credos depend on what we believe even more than our reading experiences; indeed, “credo” means “I believe.” Mezrich obviously doesn’t share the same belief, or ethos. <br /><br />Ironically, your expectation that “If a book is labeled as nonfiction, we have a right to believe that its content is true and verifiable,” was precisely the belief that Mezrich exploited in calling his massaged narratives nonfiction. <br /><br />I think it might be safer to say, “If a book is labeled as nonfiction, we have a right to see the evidence that its content is true.”J. L. Bellhttp://ozandends.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5488042654610511802.post-71543048466350594832010-03-10T19:40:14.577-05:002010-03-10T19:40:14.577-05:00John, I apologize if you feel I misrepresented you...John, I apologize if you feel I misrepresented your earlier comments. I know you do not approve of Ben Mezrich’s tactics.<br /><br />My concern is that you consider the quotation to be a “statement of fact.” That’s where we differ. I see Mezrich’s statement as completely false and nothing more than a weasely attempt to get out of the hole he had dug for himself. <br /><br />If a work is labeled as nonfiction, NOTHING is more important than being able to prove its truth, its accuracy, it’s adherence to the facts. A book in which facts are manufactured or massaged is not a work of nonfiction. Period.<br /><br />Of course, writers can make mistakes, and our collective interpretation of facts can change over time as new information comes to light (as is the case with our current ideas about Allosaurus—formerly Brontosaurus—and the reclassification of Pluto). That’s the reason why it’s often a good thing when nonfiction books go OP. The facts may be out of date.<br /><br />But that’s not what I’m talking about here. I’m talking about a writer’s techniques and intentions. John, you say, “Verifiability doesn't matter unless we're willing to demand evidence.” But we, as readers, shouldn’t have to. If a book is labeled as nonfiction, we have a right to believe that its content is true and verifiable. Perhaps publishers should scrutinize manuscripts more carefully. I know some houses are more rigorous about vetting than others.<br /><br />But ultimately, the responsibility lies with nonfiction writers. They owe it to readers to be thorough in their research and forthright in their presentation. Sure, a story can bring events and individuals to life for readers. But in nonfiction story MUST be a secondary consideration. If a satisfactory narrative arc emerges from research, that’s great. If not, the writer has an obligation to his readers to use a different technique to craft the book.Melissa Stewarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04322048827106827307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5488042654610511802.post-77390505848747050152010-03-10T13:51:15.907-05:002010-03-10T13:51:15.907-05:00The best link to my post is here. And I have a cou...The best link to my post is <a href="http://ozandends.blogspot.com/2010/02/idea-that-story-is-true.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. And I have a couple of quibbles with the interpretation here. First, my response to Mezrich’s statement was “Unfortunately, he's right.” Agreeing with it as a statement of fact doesn't mean I like the fact, or endorse Mezrich’s way of playing fast and loose with history. Rather, I think he accurately identified a way we read what we understand to be nonfiction—and proceeded to exploit it. <br /><br />I also don't mean to emphasize <i>story</i>, although that's a way facts become meaningful, by accruing connections and emotional content. In this case I focus on <i>belief</i>. If we believe a story, or an isolated fact, is true, our brains process it differently from a story or statement we believe is fictional. All the more reason to approach books, movies, press releases, amusement park rides, and other things with skepticism—but we don't always do that. <br /><br />Kudos to your nephew for perceiving how Disney World tries to amp up the experience of its jungle ride with the drama of poachers. But doesn't that ride get to the very question of what we believe and what we don't? How do we separate the experience of fake poachers from the experience of fake elephants? We believe the robots are representations of real elephants, but aren't there also real poachers? And why do we believe in those real elephants anyway?<br /><br />I agree boys love facts—I did myself. I also loved "facts" that were actually fictional (e.g., details about book series). I think it's the mastery of data that matters, whether it’s US Presidents or Pokemon. Facts have the added power of seeming more important—as long as we believe in them.<br /><br />But what about facts that many people <i>believe</i> to be true, but turn out not to stand up to scrutiny, such as the importance of Abner Doubleday to baseball, the Brontosaurus fossil, how Pluto qualifies as a planet, or something we all believe today that will turn out to be wrong? Our beliefs determine how we approach such statements and what importance we attach to them. Verifiability doesn't matter unless we're willing to demand evidence.<br /><br />I think we're actually in close agreement, based on this statement: "we trust the story tellers and assume they are being honest. If we disprove or even question their sincerity, the story’s power is destroyed. We feel angry and deceived." We wouldn't have that emotional reaction unless we previously held "the idea that the story is true."J. L. Bellhttp://ozandends.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com