At last night’s writers meeting we workshopped an excellent personal essay and the point was brought up about fiction versus creative non-fiction being the same–or different. The thought was that the only difference is in the lie versus the determination to stick with a slightly modified truth. However, I disagree for a couple of reasons. Most likely I am wrong.
Though fiction be a product of imagination and not fact, it must have some basis in factual ingredients, i.e., New York City is in the state of New York. In other words, our knowledge and experience of our world and people must have some ring of truth unless it is a totally alien world and people do have two heads there. Even so, two heads are based on the idea of the known existence of our own single headed species. Likewise, non-fiction can be embellished a bit with an infusion of known facts that may be out of place or out of time but certainly possible, or memory and perception can color any event. So here, I am saying the line is vague or can be blurred, and therefore, not a true test of fiction or non-fiction.
There is to me, more of a difference in style of writing, although again, it would be mighty hard to place a scale of sorts on which elements can be involved in which genre. Is an excess of imagery not allowed in non-fiction? How about metaphor? A touch of the surreal? Can you write a real experience in prose? Maybe I’m confusing journalism with non-fiction. Maybe I’m a tight-ass purist who insists on compartments and labels.
Maybe I’ve just destroyed my own argument.
The Lost Children: A Charity Anthology