Too much realism?
Jay Stevens of Missoula writes regarding my post on nonfiction:
Interesting points. By the way, I will plead consistency: I DO think Hunter Thompson went too far, and I wrote so (see #2) here last year. I believe plenty of novelists tap into essential truths without claiming that everything they're writing is fact.
PS: Jay asked me to open comments on the blog. That would skip this intermediate step of me having to post such thoughtful responses. But I see too many comment-spaces degenerate into name-calling over irrelevant issues. I don't want to be even tangentially responsible for launching yet another set of Abramoff arguments that I don't even want to read! But please keep the thoughtful responses coming, via info at johnclaytonbooks. d c.
You came down too hard on the side of "realism." As a recent graduate of MT's creative writing program, I have to come down more on the creative nonfiction angle for memory-based genres like memoirs or first-person accounts of events. They are, after all, memory-based.
By your reckoning, Truman Capote, Tom Wolfe, and Hunter Thompson went too far. Yet somehow the stories they wrote tapped into essential truths of the American experience, far beyond what traditional academic-based accounts could do. Or take a more modern incarnation of the "what if" bio: Greenblatt's "Will in the World." Despite the fact that most of it was speculation, the book rings true. If not an accurate representation of Shakespeare's life, we do see an accurate representation of the 16th century.
James Frey, of course, went too far. When the author manipulates his story so that the essential meaning is changed, that's too much.
The real genre in danger of "creative nonfiction" is journalism. Certainly most television pundits feel no loyalty to facts. Traditional media also has a habit of bending facts to remain "neutral." (A quick glance at Abramoff scandal headlines shows this. For example, traditional media outlets love to emphasize that Democrats also received money from Abramoff clients when the scandal is clearly Republican, not bipartisan.)
Interesting points. By the way, I will plead consistency: I DO think Hunter Thompson went too far, and I wrote so (see #2) here last year. I believe plenty of novelists tap into essential truths without claiming that everything they're writing is fact.
PS: Jay asked me to open comments on the blog. That would skip this intermediate step of me having to post such thoughtful responses. But I see too many comment-spaces degenerate into name-calling over irrelevant issues. I don't want to be even tangentially responsible for launching yet another set of Abramoff arguments that I don't even want to read! But please keep the thoughtful responses coming, via info at johnclaytonbooks. d c.
