Storytelling Elements in Nonfiction

What do you think of nonfiction that includes elements such as dialogue, or even peeking inside the mind of a person the writer never met? I've seen this in true crime, and sometimes in history. I'm not talking about something that deliberately combines fiction and nonfiction (such as "In Cold Blood") but about seeing this in something that is published as regular true crime.

After seeing the movie "Breach," I was tempted to buy a nonfiction true crime book about Robert Hanssen. First I looked into Into The Mirror: The Life Of Master Spy Robert P. Hanssen by Lawrence Schiller. But then I read the reviews, and most complained that the author used dialogue of private conversations Robert Hanssen had -- even though he never met Hanssen or his wife. It's one thing to see made-up dialogue in a movie, because it's hard to do a movie without it. But in a true crime book, I dunno, it kinda gives me the jitters. OTOH so many true crime books end up being really dull, so they could benefit from this technique.

And what do I know? Maybe I've read plenty of true crime and other nonfiction books that did this, and I just never realized it.
And there are probably times when it's appropriate. In those cases, is it OK if the author simply includes a disclaimer explaining that dialogue was created when necessary? I have a copy of An Hour to Kill by Dale Hudson and Billy Hills (a much better reviewed true crime book). In the NOte at the beginning, the authors explain that this was not just a recitation of the facts and added that details of setting were based on fact, and that "Dialogue was only created when we knew a conversation took place and the content of the conversation." So they used some "storytelling elements" in the book, but they seem to do so careful.

JamieFord said:

Narrative non-fiction is a special kind of animal. I really have to re-frame it as "fiction based on actual events" when I read it. The Perfect Storm is a good example.

Click to expand...

Oooh, narrative nonfiction, good point. And good example.

What about the James Herriott books? My aunt loves those, the same aunt who says that she doesn't read fiction. But IIRC Herriott made up names (for both people and places), and changed incidents for dramatic reasons (or heh, to disguise the identity of the actual people ), etc. And they are marketed and shelved as nonfiction. They certainly are based on his real experiences, so I'm not denying that, either. Phew. Makes my brain go in circles.


And then what do we do about Go Ask Alice? That one has been shelved as nonfiction since its publication, and many people read it only because it's supposed to be true. Yet for many years now, it's been known that parts of it were fictionalized or dramatized and that some parts came from the experiences of different girls. The publisher now categorizes it as fiction, although I don't think I've ever seen it shelved as fiction, and it is still taught as a true account. And people wonder why today's teens are confused.

Anthony Ravenscroft said:

Unless I'm doing work for other people on commission, my nonfiction has very definite storytelling. Most often, it's illustrative anecdotes & made-up playlets, to get across in clear capsule form the point I'm trying to make.

Click to expand...

Heck, even the New Testament does that. (OK, now we have to bring this to TIO. )

Most seriously, I've read "how to write" books that used made-up dialogues betewen the writer and fictional writing students. I don't think anybody really believed that the writer really taught classes where the students said exactly what the students said in those examples as they were clearly intended to be humorous and illustrative. At the same time, I doubt that anyone would say those books weren't nonfiction.

Anthony Ravenscroft said:

Critics of nonfiction narratives based on verifiable historic events really have to read more; if they did, they wouldn't nitpick, because filling in gaps in order to keep the story from derailing... well, that's kinda the point of making it a book rather than a bunch of notecards.

Click to expand...

There are a lot of narratives where these techniques are used. I do like to have an introduction explaining that some changes were made. (For example, some names were changed, some detectives were combined to keep the book from running 1,000 pages, dialogue was compressed so that you don't have to read five pages of "Uhm," etc.)

I wonder what the line is, though. Or does it vary per person? Some people are more particular than others. I loved composer Hector Berlioz's memoir. On the other hand I remember reading that one of his critics attacked him (after his death of course) and questioned the veracity of the memoir because sometimes he got the weather wrong for an event that took place 50 years in the past. To which my reaction was:

I know some people dislike nonfiction that recreates dialogue the writer could never have experienced, such as in the Robert Hanssen book. (The Hanssen book may be a special case because it was based on a screenplay based on the true story.) Or nonfiction such as histories that try to get into the head of characters born hundreds of years before the writer. I can see their point. There have already been plenty of histories that went through the facts. I've read some of them, and put many of them down in frustration. Some reminded me of the science book I read for a report that reported on the contents of owl pellets.


Sigh, what's a writer to do? Maybe this...