Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Non (with a little) Fiction.

Considering, within the realm of non-fiction, the subcategory of travel journalism and historical documentaries, I have this ongoing thought:  When do you draw the line between non-fiction and fiction?  With the scripts that are rolling out of Hollywood ("Zero Dark Thirty," and "Argo," for example), when do we say, "Hey...that's...not really what happened. That's not exactly what was said."

But it must have been close.  I don't have a problem with it, really.  I enjoy the creative non-fiction genre.  Clearly.  That's typically what I enjoy reading, and have always written.  

So, then, would it be wrong if--when I finally have a few moments to sit and write...for a few years--the account of my travels and experiences abroad are a bit inventive?  Will it still be considered non-fiction, or will they stamp my front page with "Based on a true story"? I'd sure hate that.  

Perhaps this is a non-issue, and I've overlooked something everyone else understands, but that line is still blurry to me. 

3 comments:

  1. The line is blurry for me too. Sometimes I feel disappointed when a movie says "based on true events" and then I look up what actually happened and it doesn't really match up. But then I think that if they had filmed it the way it "really" was it wouldn't be as fun. I guess it just really depends on perspectives such as who is writing the story or the audience. History changes based on who wrote it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have this thought a lot too, especially when watching period dramas based on true stories, like The Other Boleyn Girl or The Young Victoria. I always wonder what the true dialogue was, or how much of the events are speculative.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ohhhh you KNOW I thought of The Other Boleyn Girl. Or the ridiculously boring Marie Antoinette with Kirsten Dunst. The dialogue can be so clearly inventive sometimes. But I guess that's what produces six-figure box office numbers.

      Delete