Blog #5

In my opinion a book has to be 98% true to be non-fiction. Sometimes the writer wont remember certain parts of the story, or facts that had happen, especially the dialogue, so it is okay for you to have a few missing details to the story at hand. In my opinion half truths are okay, if you don't remember the entire story, then you can make up something if you need to, but I feel like you should avoid half truths whenever you can because it makes the story, in my opinion, false. In retrospect I have to hand it to the authors for trying their hardest to get everything right, or at least somewhat right. I believe that it is unrealistic to put make believe stories into a non fiction piece, it just isn't right for me. I believe that you should not bend the facts into a story rather then to try your hardest to get the facts straight. I believe that you should not make a story up and then call it nonfiction, I believe that  is a little bizarre. I understand that it is okay to add  embellishments to the story, but don't make the whole thing false. If you write half-truths, then people will start to believe those, and that isn't the right facts for the people who are into and believe strongly into the book. I feel like David is wrong, I feel as if we need genres to have interests, and beliefs towards something that has been written in a book. It matters because, if you are interested in fiction type books rather than non fiction books, then you would get extremely bored reading the book that you don't necessarily like. If an author has to go through strict measures to  get a story straight, then why is it fair for all of the other authors to  not have that same guidelines, it wouldn't be fair to the other authors that have worked so hard to create a well written piece to just put it into the same category as  all of the other books.