Post 5

In my mind, I have always thought that in order for a book to be considered non-fiction, that it has to be 100% true. I think that if there are any elements in stories that are not true, or even that are just stretching the truth, that it should not be considered to be non-fiction. Non-fictions definition is, "writing that is based on facts, real events, and real people, such as biography or history." This means that it is written about real things that have happened, so if you're even stretching the truth like Frey did in saying that you were in jail for 3 months when you were really in for a few hours, that the book that says that in it should not be able to be considered non-fiction at all. But, if you are going out and publishing it, and you claim that it isn't a non-fiction piece of writing though, than that is okay. The only wrong thing that Frey did was that he considered the book a memoir. If he didn't do that and just went out and tried to get it published, then I think he would have been much better off, even though it did make his book more interesting. I don't think that people need to distinguish different genres in books because quite simply, a book is a book. A book can have genres in it like fantasy, fiction, non-fiction, etc, but, that is not what the book is.