Blog #5

In my opinion I do believe that a book has to be one hundred percent true to be considered a non-fiction book. I've always thought of non-fiction books to be books about something that has happened in the past. If I'm reading a book and its about something that hasn't happened then I would consider it a fictional book. I think David Shields is right. I believe we should clearly separate the books. I don't mind reading a book that seems real but half way through the book everyone turns into monsters and the world ends. I don't mind books that are half-truths I defiantly wouldn't consider them non-fiction books but they still can be good books. In my opinion I think the non-fiction category is starting to decline. The current generation and next generation are into fictional books. I would rather read a boo k about a made up world with monsters and fairy's then a book about a story of a girl who lived through the Holocaust. It just seems more intriguing to me to read a book I can make up stuff in my mind and clearly picture it. I don't mind it when authors bend story's but when they put "based off a true story" on the front of the book you can be sure I'm going to expect a book that is a word for word that really happened. It would ruin my whole idea of the book if I read it and though the story actually happened only to find out the author twisted the truth, which to me is practically lying.