Post #8

                I think a book has to be semi true to be considered non-fiction. There is definitely a difference between fiction and non-fiction but I also think that non-fiction isn’t as real as a biography. To be considered non-fiction, the context of the book needs to be real and not seem like some sort of thing that could only be real in some imaginary world. I think that half-true stories are okay if the main topic stays real and people can relate to it. If some of the little details here and there aren’t true or are perplexed a bit, I don’t see that being a big deal. Sometimes details have to be exaggerated a little bit in order for the story to be more entertaining and interesting. I think there definitely should be lines between certain genres but I don’t think there should be so many. Usually in a non-fiction novel, parts of it won’t be completely true; which would make it fiction. But when someone writes a biography, all of that information should be completely true and none of it should be made up. Fiction and biographies really can’t relate in any way. Fiction is a made up book and biographies have to deal with a real life situation in some sort of way. Non-fiction seems to be right in the middle of mostly true but also have parts that aren’t true which technically would make it fiction. I don’t think there should be a fine line between fiction and non-fiction but there definitely should be a line between fiction and biographies.