A fiction/nonfiction question.

Wayne K said:

So do I. That's why I'm feeling conflicted. Is it enough to sell the book? For me it's not. I had a book deal on the table and turned it down. I'd love the money and all, but this is about a lot more than just being published.

Click to expand...

I think if you are writing about criminals and murders and the such, it won't be enough to say "trust me, this really happened." You'll need photographs, personal accounts, facts, facts, facts. Otherwise, why bother? If you won't tell me the true story, I rather read fiction.

Wayne K said:

So do I. That's why I'm feeling conflicted. Is it enough to sell the book? For me it's not. I had a book deal on the table and turned it down. I'd love the money and all, but this is about a lot more than just being published.

Click to expand...

Wayne,

From a fairly simple discussion, this is getting kind of complicated. A new door seems to open after it seems you have gotten good advice.

Apparently, by saying "...but this is about a lot more than just being published," you have a story which you feel must be told, whoever the story may be about. An advance, royalties from sales, acknowledgment of your writing ability, while nice, are apparently secondary to you. The story trumps all. Right? If so, aren't we back to where we started? Should this be a work of fiction or nonfiction?

If I understand you correctly, your story is true, actual, and factual in every aspect. There's not an ounce of fiction in it. Nothing's been made up. If that's true, how could your work be anything other nonfiction? And since nonfiction sells extremely well, why is it a problem. The only problem I can envision coming into play is it being a story that isn't well known and you must find a way to convince agent and editor it's true, important, and has a needy audience.

scope said:

The only problem I can envision coming into play is it being a story that isn't well known and you must find a way to convince agent and editor it's true, important, and has a needy audience.

Click to expand...

And also, that you are the best person to tell it, and have the necessary platform and credentials to do well in the market.

When it comes to what you are told, it really does matter who is doing the telling. My opinion, for instance, in this case is worth absolutely nothing. The opinion of interested agents and editors is worth a great deal. Seeing as you have some of them nibbling at your bait exactly as you put it on the hook, I doubt if you need to change anything.

And my worthless opinion is: market it as a memoir unless the pros have a better idea.

If you are getting requests pitching it as a memoir, it seems like a good way to go. Once you have an agent, you can figure out the legalese of it all together.

As said, if you have already garnered some interest from agents and/or publishers re doing the book as a memoir, why consider anything else? I imagine they are well versed in the legalese of the issue, although if it were me I would definitely run the entire issue by a literary attorney. On the surface a memoir is basically composed from personal experience. To the best of my knowledge (but don't take my word for it) a memoir could even be ghostwritten, I think. Also, I think the reason you have been asked for a proposal by several agents has to do to with their wanting to confirm the "personal experience" issue. That's the way it seems to me. So, if you do it as a memoir you have to convince agent and editor that you are the perfect person for the job, and I'm nt talking about the actual writing -- that's something else.

Wayne K said:

I was told that if I changed names it would be fiction, and I didn't understand why. Obviously that person was wrong.

Click to expand...

Yes. That's the takeaway here. That person was wrong. People change names and identifying characteristics in non-fiction all the time.

I'm a journalist and I write narrative nonfiction. Because I'm writing about gangs and murder and such, I have to change some names so people won't get killed.

To keep readers' trust in nonfiction, I believe you must always give them a clear explanation of where and why you are changing names.

My agent and I have no interest is saying the book is "based on true events," because that undermines my credibility and the fact that the entire story is true.

The way we dealt with it is a detailed explanation in the introduction of what was changed (a few names only, nothing else), as well as a mention within the story itself each time I change a name. As in "Dopey isn't his real street name, it's the name I use to protect him, because his gang does not approve of him talking to me." Or something like that.

I am so obsessive about sourcing I've also agreed to add detailed notes at the back of the book explaining the sources for each chapter. That way I don't interrupt the novel-like flow in the narrative.

Folks, what do you think: Is it going too far to say that, as a rule of thumb, if you have to ask whether the story you're writing is fiction or nonfiction, chances are it's nonfiction? The question wouldn't even arise unless the vast majority of it were true, i.e. nonfiction.

Changing names is generally allowed for legal and other reasons. But you'll have to be upfront about that and there should be a disclaimer. IMHO, changing the names shouldn't matter to the "nonfiction" criterion. What matters is the rest (information, events, dialogue, etc.) are as true as the author can describe/remember, especially in a memoir. It's okay to say, "I don't remember the exact words spoken but here's the gist." But it's not okay to say, "I don't remember what happened so I am embellishing it here..."