Reply to comment

I have been thinking about the difference between fiction and non-fiction ever since we discussed it in our group. Traditional thinking would be that fiction is made up and non-fiction is true. However, it seems to me that no "non-fiction" book can be completely true. If one observes something and then writes about it, how can it not change. Doesn't the author's memory of it/ thinking about it/ converting it to words always change something, no matter how slight? Doesn't the author usually (always?) put some of their own ideas and interpretations into the writing?

I do think non-fiction as a category exists, what I'm not sure of is what it means. Maybe non-fiction refers not to the truthfulness of the information set forth, but the author's intent.  Does the author intend to write what they saw and experienced or does the author intend to write something out of their imagination? Maybe the difference between fiction and non-fiction is not in the product, but in the writer.

Now I'm starting to confuse myself.  Memory is unreliable. I know that my sister and I remember events drastically differently all the time.  So what if I write a story about something that never happened? Can it be considered non-fiction because I am writing from a memory I have? I'm going to stop this rambling now, before I confuse myself more, and relate it to Darwin.  According to my new thoughts about fiction and non-fiction I would conclude (tentatively) that Origin of Species is non-fiction. Although these are certainly not completely formed thoughts on the subject.