Blog Post #5

       How true does a book have to be to be considered non-fiction to me? I believe that it depends entirely on how the exaggerations affected the overall story. If the exaggerations or embellishments make the story better, I say, so be it. No one wants to read a bland book. Take A Million Little Pieces by James Frey for example. His story about his addiction and his stay in rehab was an astonishing story and really made the life and desperation of an addict come alive for the reader in a truly terrifying form: a memoir. Memoirs are especially haunting or hilarious because they are true, they actually happened, and this critical point of truth alone makes the story an epic one at that. After James Frey’s book was published it was revealed that he did in fact embellish bits from his book. I found this out after I read the ENTIRE book; all the while truly believe his tale. As a reader, the news at first came as a letdown to me, I trusted his words. I trusted that everything he said really occurred, which added to the shocking nature of it all. But then after the initial disappointment subsided I realized that the embellishments just added a little spice to his saga. They made his story even more scandalous then it already was. This said, A Million Little Pieces is James Frey’s memoir. Although not everything was 100% accurate, they are his little white lies to tell. The story was his life, his memories, and therefore he has the right to exaggerate for the greater good of the appeal to the reader. Also, all of his overstatements were based in truth. Exaggerating is not a crime; it is merely a tool to induce a wow factor. I do not agree with David Shields. The labels matter between non-fiction and fiction because the fact that non-fiction is true, whether it has a few exaggerations or not, makes the book stand out in a sea of stories that exist purely out of imagination.