Post 8

•          How true does a book have to be in your mind to be considered non-fiction?   Why?

I believe that a book must be 90-100% true for it to be considered non-fiction. There's no way anyone can remember a line they heard from someone word for word, so authors have to improv those types of situations. A book needs a plot line and a story for it too sell and if it doesn't have something of that nature it won't sell.

-Are half-truths okay if it’s still a good story? Does it matter if Frey or other memoirists bent the truth to tell their stories? 

Yes, I believe that half truths are okay. An author needs to sell books and maybe telling the whole truth won't sell because it's dull and boring. It is not okay for Frey because, he made up big parts of the book. I think when you alter the facts of a crash and say that you were there when you really weren't is that person crying out for attention. I think it's sad when someone has to lie about big parts of their lives. Be happy with your dull, boring lives, others wish they had a boring life.

-Is David Shields right?  Do we need lines between genres—do we need to label something fiction or non-fiction?  Why does it matter

I personally don't think it matters. Many "true" stories have fiction involved in them. Example; The Strangers a movie that was made in 2007 was considered to be a true story. The Strangers involved a newly wedded couple being murdered in their cabin in the woods. Wrong, the actual story behind that movie is the director of the movie was staring out his window and saw a group of 5 kids going up to peoples doors and knocking trying to tell people about their church... I don't think those kids killed anyone if you ask me. A "ture story" sells, a fiction story only sells when you have a big name.