posted
Does anyone here write non-fiction? I've only ever seen fiction questions and the like on this board. Just a random musing from the JK
Posts: 503 | Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted
We have groups that include nonfiction (with the fiction), but only one person ever contacted me wanting to do just nonfiction (and wasn't interested in critiquing fiction along with the nonfiction, so I couldn't help that person).
Maybe people don't have that many questions about how to do nonfiction. (As I recall, with all the different kinds of essays we had to write when I was in high school, maybe nonfiction was better covered in school and it just seems easier than fiction. <shrug>
I understand that there is a much greater market for nonfiction, and many more people make a living at writing nonfiction than do writing fiction.
posted
I'm in the process of writing a nonfiction story. It doesn't have a great scope or anything (no WW2 or Vietnam type thing). It's just a story about an experience that I've had recently. I don't want to get too into it because I'd prolly lose interest, and I don't want that to happen, cuz I really want to tell this story.
Nonfiction can be fun, and it really doesn't take as much work as fiction. There's no creating of imaginary worlds or or characters. However, if you're trying to get a certain message/feeling across about a real life situation, you can get a little obsessed. So don't do that unless it's really important to you.
posted
I'm co-authoring (with my professors) articles for scientific journals about my research... but I doubt that's what you meant.
Posts: 187 | Registered: Jun 2001
|
posted
Actually, I meant nonfiction in any form. Something real, as opposed to something created in the head for entertainment, if you know what I mean. As for questions, I'm not sure. Perhaps more critique; am I making this sound interesting, is it too personal, is it not personal enough, what flaws in my argument do you see. I don't know, I'm just guessing. But it suddenly struck me that this is a writer's forum, yet I've only ever seen fiction discussed. And that's all really. Question answered I guess. Thanks all. JK
Posts: 503 | Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted
I don't really have any interest in non-fiction outside of discussing fiction, meaning I could write a paper on how Optimus Prime is a Christ-like figure and point out other Bibical paralells in Transformers: The Movie (this was not originally my idea but an idea belonging to a good friend of mine while we watched Transformers: The Movie and split a bottle of Jagermeister) I could discuss the works of Nathaniel Hawthorn adn the allegory found in Young Goodman Brown for weeks. But I hated taking English classes in high school because of the papers we had to write. I kinda lose interest in anything which has been crammed down my throat. Non-fiction in general doesn't interest me---I'm surrounded by non-fiction 24/7 why do I want to write about it. Shit, I won't even do extensive research for a fiction novel.
posted
JK, If you're referring to biography or autobiography, I'd still consider them fiction. To make the story interesting, you'll still need the same elements as you would in fiction. You'll need conflict, motivation, action, etc. The writing process itself may be partially from memory (never entirely), but the editing and crafting will be the same as fiction.
Posts: 54 | Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted
I've written quite a bit of nonfiction, and am currently in the middle of researching for a new nonfiction article. It will be my second nonfiction piece this year.
To my surprise, I find that I enjoy writing nonfiction just as much as I do fiction.
posted
JeremyMc: I disagree that biography and autobiography is fiction. While I wasn't refering to them explicitly, I was including them in the non-fiction 'genre' because that's what they are. You say that you need conflict and tension and the like, but you wouldn't be writing a biography about someone whose life did not include such things anyway. Biographies are non-fiction, because they actually happened. JK
Posts: 503 | Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted
I'm not saying you have to label them as fiction. Just suggesting that a lot of the techniques used to write fiction will still apply across all writing genres. Whether the main character is based on reality or not, the reader will still be seeking ways to relate to that character. And as a writer you'll still be using the character's action in the face of conflict to reveal their personality.
Posts: 54 | Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted
I think I also agree with JK, whom I think I called JP in another post.(sorry)
I could write 100 pages of nonfiction, whether it was biography, autobiography, or some sort of article. Fiction, which I am trying to write, is stifling me. The same writing which might make a biography interesting seems like fluffy drivel when I try to put it into a fictional piece. I don't know why, but there you have it. Liz
posted
Called me JP? I must have missed that. Eh. No blood no report, so I'll let you off, Liza. But just this once *grin*. Jeremy, your ideas about biographies, while they're fine and dandy, are the type that grate with me, and no doubt with the people who are being biographied (it's a word now, alright?). A biographer is meant to present the truth about a person's life, not edit it so that it's more appealing to the little people out there. I doubt they want it either. If I went to read a biography, it would be about someone who I was interested in. If I knew the biographer had cut stuff out because he didn't think people could relate to it, well, I'd be fairly pissed off. Don't worry, Liza, fiction is hard. It's a pain in the arse, too, because it never leaves you alone. While my experience in non-fiction is limited, I know that essay has never haunted my sleep (or prevented the same), or driven me to distraction. Non-fiction is simply presenting facts, and while that's not always a walk in the park, I sometimes find it can be a picnic next to a fiction piece. JK
Posts: 503 | Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted
Well in that context, JK, I can see why it would grate on you. I think we started off on the wrong foot. I perceived some disdain of fiction on your part, and I took it personally. In fact, I think I'm still taking it personally, but I will give you this: I'm definitely not an expert on biographies. I do think that SOME rules of fiction can apply to SOME non-fiction writings. I realize that non-fiction is presenting the facts. But there is room for interpretation by the author. The author is part of the writing, no matter what the genre.
Personally, I read fiction to learn about people and in turn to learn about myself. I've read biographies for the same reasons.
So I'm not suggesting that you intentionally add or remove anything to please the masses. I'm suggesting you do so to be true to the main character as you see him/her. The facts are what reveal the character. Each and every one reveals a little more of who that person is or was. But you cannot fit every fact of a person's life into a book. By nature, any book or story is an extremely condensed version of reality, whether it's fiction or not. Why would hundreds of biographies be written about the same person? Each author chooses the facts and paints a unique picture of the subject. Each of those pictures is real and valid, and is not a discredit to the subject or the writer or to the noble drive to preserve truth.
Feel free to disagree. We can agree to disagree.
Actually, we had this question come up in a creative writing course because many of the students wanted to write about incidents in their own lives. Our teacher didn't go through any reasons because he didn't want a debate, but everyone was allowed to write about anything they liked in that particular fiction course. And they all appreciated the feedback from a fiction perspective. Which is all I'm suggesting here.
posted
You have a point, Jeremy about biographies. It's the same sort of dilemma that creates the debates about 'revisionist' history texts, etc. Even IF you have all the facts, not only do you have to edit them down into a condensed and usable form, but you, as the author, have to interpret those facts. Who is to say which interpretation is the most accurate.
This is where the skills of a fiction writer come in. It's not easy to present the story, be it a biography or an account of historical events, in such a way as to provide a neutral perspective. In fact, I would say it's not possible. However, you still have to try. And this is where fiction writing differs drastically from non-fiction. In writing non-fiction, you have to endeavor to present the truth in as neutral a form as possible, or at the very least, write the material in such a way as to expose the bias that you have consciously or not put into the material.
With fiction, the truth is what you make it. You can remain to the general truths of humanity and life in general while altering the events and characters to make the story interesting. At least, that's how GOOD fiction works.
posted
I like that. "Disdain for fiction" Ho ho, Jeremy, I'm afraid nothing could be farther from the truth. Fiction runs through my head and hammers on my skull to be written. That's why I have to write. If I don't I get great big Tom-and-Jerry style bumps coming out of my head. I see your point on biographies, and I'm sorry I started a rant on you. My bad. JK
Posts: 503 | Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted
No worries, mate. Besides, my head's pretty numb now. Other people and Tom and Jerry have smacked every nerve out of it. JK
Posts: 503 | Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted
I disagree that nonfiction is "pretty straight up." I think it may be easier for a good writer, but I don't think it is ever straight up, unless you are writing recipes, and even those take skill and creativity.
Anyway, don't forget that The Declaration of Independence was nonfiction. MLK's "Dream" speech, inaugural addresses, peace treaties, legal policies, etc. Liz
Printer-friendly view of this topic
