Blog Post 5:

When reading non-fiction books, I am not the biggest critic on whether or not I believe the material presented. If it's very obvious to tell that something is a lie, I still go along with the book and do not complain or express my opinion like other people do. In all honestly, I do not classify books or read them for the genre they are placed in. Rather, I simply read the book because I think that it's interesting and I will be satisfied with it. In essence, I feel that a non-fiction book does need to stay true to the main points and important parts of the book, but within more irrelevant things I believe it's okay to make something up in order for the book to be more enjoyable. For example, with the incident involving Frey, I still think his book is most likely a good story even if it's the half-truth. If an author decided to write a non-fiction book and wrote the entire story exactly correct, the book would not be enjoyable. While it might seem bad to add little things that did not happen here and there, it actually is what keeps you interested in the story. Going back to David Shields, I feel that we do need to label something fiction or non-fiction so the readers are not confused, yet I think people should be less harsh on whether the entire book is true or if there are little lies scattered throughout. With a lenient audience though, I would suggest that the author does stick to the truth for the most part as they write their book. So overall, I do not feel that a book needs to be entirely correct if it is labeled as non-fiction, though I do feel the author should remain honest and incorporate mostly true events so they do not steer their audience in the wrong direction.