"Emotional Truth" and the Far Limits of Creative Nonfiction

Leanna · Feb 16, 2012

I just did a paid counseling session with an editor/publicist and she said, "In creative nonfiction, you can reconstruct and build detail as much as you want in order to get the emotional truth across." She indicated that just about any development of physical action is admissible as long as you're doing it to bring out the feeling that you remember or that was present at the time of the event.

If this is true, it means a writer enjoys a great deal of freedom to create and build whole scenes while still being able to call it "nonfiction."

Anyone like to comment on that?

dangerousbill · Feb 16, 2012

Leanna said:
She indicated that just about any development of physical action is admissible as long as you're doing it to bring out the feeling that you remember or that was present at the time of the event.

That sounds like the definition of a novel that's totally fiction. If a novel isn't 'emotionally true', it reads like bullshit and is less likely to be successful.

My understanding of creative nonfiction is that it describes true events using the techniques of fiction. Michael Shaara's novel 'The Killer Angels' (movie: Gettysburg) is billed as a novel, even though it describes true events.

Shaara went to great lengths to use the actual words of participants in the battle wherever possible, using injections of fictional events and dialogue only where necessary to sustain the flow. This job was made easier because so many survivors of the battle wrote accounts afterward that there was gobs of factual material to work with.

Leanna · Feb 16, 2012

Yeah that's what I thought. Guess I just spent $85 to get even more confused.

Which genre/audience should a person write for when half the book is traditional memoir and the other half details a night-time second-reality experience that reads like a fantasy novel?

Domino Derval · Feb 16, 2012

In Cold Blood, anyone? The events were technically true, but heavily filtered through the narrative Capote wanted to tell. To my knowledge, however, he didn't outright make anything up, though many of his sources were unreliable at best.

Leanna · Feb 18, 2012

I suppose a nonfiction that reads more like a novel can be a crime style (In Cold Blood) or a memoir style (Out of Africa). So perhaps mine can be a fantasy style?

Lseeber · Feb 19, 2012

Leanna said:
I just did a paid counseling session with an editor/publicist and she said, "In creative nonfiction, you can reconstruct and build detail as much as you want in order to get the emotional truth across." She indicated that just about any development of physical action is admissible as long as you're doing it to bring out the feeling that you remember or that was present at the time of the event.

If this is true, it means a writer enjoys a great deal of freedom to create and build whole scenes while still being able to call it "nonfiction."

Anyone like to comment on that?

Twitch... twitch.....

Personally I have a slight aversion to the term "creative non-fiction". I know that it's an accepted term and genre in non-fiction writing, but somehow it just seems wrong to me. Yes, I know- I should be more accepting, but I always have trouble with the idea.

But back to your question. I'm sorry, but I don't agree with the idea presented here. It sounds like an adaptation or a fictional account based on events - not non-fiction. In my opinion, if the event is worth being told, manufacturing events only serves to cheapen the impact of the truth.

That being said, there are examples out there where authors have applied a type of filtration to get their point across. In Cold Blood comes to mind, as does If You Really Love Me by Ann Rule. Both are great reads, but they really don't present a complete unbiased picture.

Laura

jaksen · Feb 19, 2012

Lseeber said:
Twitch... twitch.....

Personally I have a slight aversion to the term "creative non-fiction". I know that it's an accepted term and genre in non-fiction writing, but somehow it just seems wrong to me. Yes, I know- I should be more accepting, but I always have trouble with the idea.

But back to your question. I'm sorry, but I don't agree with the idea presented here. It sounds like an adaptation or a fictional account based on events - not non-fiction. In my opinion, if the event is worth being told, manufacturing events only serves to cheapen the impact of the truth.

That being said, there are examples out there where authors have applied a type of filtration to get their point across. In Cold Blood comes to mind, as does If You Really Love Me by Ann Rule. Both are great reads, but they really don't present a complete unbiased picture.

Laura

Isn't Ann Rule an author of true crime books? So she is a nonfiction author.

Leanna · Feb 20, 2012

Thanks for your comments. I wouldn't say I'm "manufacturing" any more than what is done in "In Cold Blood." The author wasn't physically there during the events but has collected a skeleton of facts. In my case, I was there (it was my personal experience) but all I remember in some cases is a skeleton of facts. So like Capote, I am simply fleshing out the skeleton by creating dialogue and imagery.

Genuine nonfiction?

"Emotional Truth" and the Far Limits of Creative Nonfiction

Leanna

dangerousbill

Retired Illuminatus

Leanna

Domino Derval

FREAKING OUT!

Leanna

Lseeber

jaksen

Caped Codder

Leanna