Truth in Memoirs, dicey topic right?
My personal opinion is that memoirs don’t have to be 100% true. I’ll admit, I’ve written a couple memoirs in my time that might’ve been slightly embellished…but whenever I read a memoir I always keep that possibility of exaggeration in the back of my head. I mean come on, who believes everything they read anyway?
However, I believe there is a distinction between memoirs and non-fiction, and any non-fiction book that lies has no right to keep its title. When an author is selling their novel as a non-fiction piece of work, they have to stand by that title and not misuse it just for the sake of selling more copies. If a non-fiction book is elaborated, what can I go back on to not doubt that the whole book itself is a lie? I understand that the whole job of an author is to “lie” to their readers, but not under the premise of a non-fiction book.
I also completely disagree with David Shields over his opinion that there should be no lines between fiction and non-fiction. He’s crazy! Of course there needs to be a line, otherwise how can a person know whether the story they’re reading is true or not!
The facet of whether the story is true or not really affects how much the reader will be moved by it. But just because an author is selling a great story as fiction does not mean he/she cannot still move the readers like a non-fiction novel would! It’s all about the writing quality, and if that is truly good then the label will not even matter.