What does FICTION *really* mean?

[Aubrey]

I'm so baffled by that classification these days. Really, all I know is what I learned in 3rd g: "fiction" books are "not true."

 

Yet the cover of half a dozen of my books classified as fiction say: "True Story."

 

I've encountered this enough times that I've begun to think it's either a conspiracy (lol) or there's some deeper/more complicated meaning to "fiction" than they taught us in 3rd g.

 

:confused:

[Lolly]

I believe that "True Story" would be more accurately described as based on a true story. Certain liberties have been taken which alter it and make it not truly true.

[silliness7]

Which books are you referring to?

 

 

I used to work at the library and I had the opposite problem. I saw so many things in the non-fiction section that I previously had assumed were fictional stories...not because I had read them but just because I was vaguely familiar with them. Probably the cover art just *looked* like a popular fiction book, kwim? It was quite eye-opening.

 

I had always thought James Herriott's books were fiction but then I saw that Lightning Lit had one classified as non-fiction. Really? I had no idea. Apparently I had not come across Herriott in the stacks. :001_smile:

[pooh bear]

I had always thought James Herriott's books were fiction but then I saw that Lightning Lit had one classified as non-fiction. Really? I had no idea. Apparently I had not come across Herriott in the stacks. :001_smile:

 

 

James Herriott's books are based on his life. He changed his name, names of people he worked with and the towns where they worked. I believe that he changed the timeline on a couple of events, but what he wrote is based on fact.

[Aubrey]

Lolly--I'd be willing to accept that, except for two things:

 

1. Woman Warrior is classified as autobiographical. That one really opens the flood gates, imo.

 

2. The cover should be required to say something like *based* on a true story. Even then...that's SO different from, say, A Wrinkle in Time. Maybe we don't want to say nonfiction, but could we at least say pseudo-nonfiction? Almost-true?

 

Silliness--I'm sitting here w/ Baseball Saved Us, The Education of Little Tree, The Wave, & Little House on the Prairie. There have been others, but these are the ones I encountered today.

[lionfamily1999]

Herriot wrote about his life as a vet. Some of his stories are probably classified as autobiographical.

 

As the pp said, "true story" means based on a true story. It's like historical fiction, it's based on history, but some of it is made up. Be wary of those sorts of stories. It's hard to tell what is the truth and what is fiction, so take it all (imo) as fiction.

 

If you've ever read "The Exorcist," for example, look up the "true story" that it was based on.................................... it's about a teenage boy and from there the differences only get greater ;)

[JudoMom]

Lolly--I'd be willing to accept that, except for two things:

 

1. Woman Warrior is classified as autobiographical. That one really opens the flood gates, imo.

 

2. The cover should be required to say something like *based* on a true story. Even then...that's SO different from, say, A Wrinkle in Time. Maybe we don't want to say nonfiction, but could we at least say pseudo-nonfiction? Almost-true?

 

Silliness--I'm sitting here w/ Baseball Saved Us, The Education of Little Tree, The Wave, & Little House on the Prairie. There have been others, but these are the ones I encountered today.

 

How about calling them True Storical Fiction :D?

[Aubrey]

James Herriott's books are based on his life. He changed his name, names of people he worked with and the towns where they worked. I believe that he changed the timeline on a couple of events, but what he wrote is based on fact.

 

Ok, based on that, I could see an argument for these books being F or NF, but I think the decision should be consistent.

 

For ex, how is any of this different from the changes made in the Little House books?

[Aubrey]

Herriot wrote about his life as a vet. Some of his stories are probably classified as autobiographical.

 

As the pp said, "true story" means based on a true story. It's like historical fiction, it's based on history, but some of it is made up. Be wary of those sorts of stories. It's hard to tell what is the truth and what is fiction, so take it all (imo) as fiction.

 

If you've ever read "The Exorcist," for example, look up the "true story" that it was based on.................................... it's about a teenage boy and from there the differences only get greater ;)

 

Ok, so there should be standards about what kinds of details or how much can be changed & still be true, but if it's *fiction,* I don't think it should say "TRUE STORY" all over the cover.

[Aubrey]

How about calling them True Storical Fiction :D?

 

I wonder if the classification isn't for the sake of sales. I mean, I bet more people peruse the fiction section than biographies or history, so LH sells better in the fiction section. Maybe?

 

Because I've found that the little paperback books sit so well together on a bookcase, I really hate moving them to the history shelf, where they're swallowed by bigger hist books. Likewise, a great big book, I'd just as soon slap an 800 on it & put it w/ "literature" so it doesn't mess w/ the aesthetics of my fiction section. :lol:

[lionfamily1999]

Ok, based on that, I could see an argument for these books being F or NF, but I think the decision should be consistent.

 

For ex, how is any of this different from the changes made in the Little House books?

But you don't know the extent of the changes in the Little House Books. If the story is the same, but names and places have been changed to protect the yadayadayada, then you've got a pretty "true" story. If you made up a scene, or characters, or other elements, then you've altered the story enough (imo) to warrant it being "based on a true story."

[lionfamily1999]

Ok, so there should be standards about what kinds of details or how much can be changed & still be true, but if it's *fiction,* I don't think it should say "TRUE STORY" all over the cover.

Neither do I and that goes for historical fiction as well :glare: I find it very misleading.

[Aubrey]

But you don't know the extent of the changes in the Little House Books. If the story is the same, but names and places have been changed to protect the yadayadayada, then you've got a pretty "true" story. If you made up a scene, or characters, or other elements, then you've altered the story enough (imo) to warrant it being "based on a true story."

 

Woman Warrior is like a psychadelic, sci-fi fantasy, but it's catalogued as NF.

 

I get what you're saying. I still don't know that I trust the seemingly arbitrary cataloging. I'm in favor of Judo's True Storical Fiction. :D

[Melinda in VT]

Lolly--I'd be willing to accept that, except for two things:

 

1. Woman Warrior is classified as autobiographical. That one really opens the flood gates, imo.

 

It's been awhile since I've read Woman Warrior, but I don't remember thinking it was out of place as a memoir. (Although, now that I think about it, it was one of the assigned books in our American Novel class. The professor wasn't that into following rules, however.)

 

What's the argument for placing it in the fiction section?

[Aubrey]

But you don't know the extent of the changes in the Little House Books. If the story is the same, but names and places have been changed to protect the yadayadayada, then you've got a pretty "true" story. If you made up a scene, or characters, or other elements, then you've altered the story enough (imo) to warrant it being "based on a true story."

 

The Wave, for ex, is about an experiment a hs hist teacher did on fascism. I'm sure the exact conversations were made up, to make the story more tellable, because it was written long after the fact. BUT the story, imo, is close enough to what probably happened, that finding its "fiction" catalog is sort-of shocking.

 

The gist of the story is true. Maybe not exactly a historical document, but where else are you going to get info about this event? Maybe you could search newspaper articles from the time, etc, but assuming you're interested on a more casual level, labeling this book simply "fiction" makes it a) much harder to find in the library catalog & b) more difficult to process.

 

When I read it thinking it was nonfiction (based on the TRUE STORY label on the front), I did not *at all* think every conversation in the book had been recorded & actually happened as it appeared there. But I did think the event itself happened in generally the way described for basically the reasons described.

[lionfamily1999]

Woman Warrior is like a psychadelic, sci-fi fantasy, but it's catalogued as NF.

 

I get what you're saying. I still don't know that I trust the seemingly arbitrary cataloging. I'm in favor of Judo's True Storical Fiction. :D

:lol: That does sound like a more honest catergory.

 

I've never read Woman Warrior.................. :shrug: maybe she thought it was all fact?

[vonfirmath]

I wonder if the classification isn't for the sake of sales. I mean, I bet more people peruse the fiction section than biographies or history, so LH sells better in the fiction section. Maybe?

 

Because I've found that the little paperback books sit so well together on a bookcase, I really hate moving them to the history shelf, where they're swallowed by bigger hist books. Likewise, a great big book, I'd just as soon slap an 800 on it & put it w/ "literature" so it doesn't mess w/ the aesthetics of my fiction section. :lol:

 

Not exactly. I wanted to use Cheaper by The dozen for a vote in a "children's fiction" best of list and was told I can't -- it's true. So I asked about the Little House books, "They're okay" -- so there is something different between these two books that makes one fiction and the other non-fiction.

[Aubrey]

It's been awhile since I've read Woman Warrior, but I don't remember thinking it was out of place as a memoir. (Although, now that I think about it, it was one of the assigned books in our American Novel class. The professor wasn't that into following rules, however.)

 

What's the argument for placing it in the fiction section?

 

Well...it's a great picture of culture & self-discovery--it's one of my favorite books, in fact...but...I never dreamed any of it was true. *Could* be true, even. And having finally found it in the biography sect of the library after looking for it for an hr in the fict sect...I don't know, the whole book reads a lot more like a dream than a biography.

[lionfamily1999]

The Wave, for ex, is about an experiment a hs hist teacher did on fascism. I'm sure the exact conversations were made up, to make the story more tellable, because it was written long after the fact. BUT the story, imo, is close enough to what probably happened, that finding its "fiction" catalog is sort-of shocking.

 

The gist of the story is true. Maybe not exactly a historical document, but where else are you going to get info about this event? Maybe you could search newspaper articles from the time, etc, but assuming you're interested on a more casual level, labeling this book simply "fiction" makes it a) much harder to find in the library catalog & b) more difficult to process.

 

When I read it thinking it was nonfiction (based on the TRUE STORY label on the front), I did not *at all* think every conversation in the book had been recorded & actually happened as it appeared there. But I did think the event itself happened in generally the way described for basically the reasons described.

It is interesting when you get into the memior type writings how they choose F or NF. I've read autobiographical fiction and autobiographies and I have to think it must be based on the author's decision (iow, I think most people pad their own stories and the ones that choose F must be honest enough to feel like the padding warranted a warning).

[Aubrey]

:lol: That does sound like a more honest catergory.

 

I've never read Woman Warrior.................. :shrug: maybe she thought it was all fact?

 

So...do authors get to decide how books are classified, then? Who *does* decide?

[Melinda in VT]

Well...it's a great picture of culture & self-discovery--it's one of my favorite books, in fact...but...I never dreamed any of it was true. *Could* be true, even. And having finally found it in the biography sect of the library after looking for it for an hr in the fict sect...I don't know, the whole book reads a lot more like a dream than a biography.

 

Now I want to go re-read it. If only the list of books waiting for me wasn't so long.:tongue_smilie:

[Aubrey]

Not exactly. I wanted to use Cheaper by The dozen for a vote in a "children's fiction" best of list and was told I can't -- it's true. So I asked about the Little House books, "They're okay" -- so there is something different between these two books that makes one fiction and the other non-fiction.

 

So you're telling me I couldn't put both of those in my new True Storical Fiction section, either? :svengo:

 

No wonder library science requires an adv degree. I can't even manage the ones in my hallway. :lol:

[lionfamily1999]

So...do authors get to decide how books are classified, then? Who *does* decide?

According to this it's apparently up to the author. All the same, I think publishing houses and editors must have the last say.

[Melinda in VT]

According to this it's apparently up to the author. All the same, I think publishing houses and editors must have the last say.

 

I wonder too if there is some CYA involved. Presenting something as fiction may avoid lawsuits?

[dangermom]

So...do authors get to decide how books are classified, then? Who *does* decide?

The publisher mostly, actually.

 

Herriot books should probably really be in the fiction section (he dressed up a lot of old vet 'urban legend' type stories, and really fictionalized his own life quite a bit), but they've traditionally been non-fiction, so there they stay. A million little pieces is still in the NF section 'cause that's what the publisher says it is. Little House was sold as fiction and that's where it stays.

 

Anyway, "non-fiction" isn't a synonym for "fact." NF is pretty much everything that isn't a short story or novel. Myths, poetry, books on UFOs and psychics, folklore, all sorts of stuff is non-fiction.

[Aubrey]

According to this it's apparently up to the author. All the same, I think publishing houses and editors must have the last say.

 

Great link! My favorite quote from the site:

 

"The difference between fiction and nonfiction is that fiction must be absolutely believable." --Mark Twain

:lol: That guy sure has a way of putting things.

 

And there, they phrase the problem like this:

Semi-fiction is fiction implementing a great deal of non-fiction,[1] e.g. a fictional descriptions based on a true story.

[lionfamily1999]

I wonder too if there is some CYA involved. Presenting something as fiction may avoid lawsuits?

I'd imagine that's a part of it. If you publish something that includes another person and that person feels like you falsified it, then that's libel... Er any false portrayed as fact info is libel, but I think you're more likely to get in trouble with a specific person.

 

ETA, you just have to love Twain. I read his autobiography, but I can't remember if it was listed as NF or F.

[Matryoshka]

James Herriott's books are based on his life. He changed his name, names of people he worked with and the towns where they worked. I believe that he changed the timeline on a couple of events, but what he wrote is based on fact.

 

James Herriot's books are fiction. They are based on true stories, yes. But they are no more non-fiction than the Little House on the Prairie books. James Herriot's real name was Alf Wight. He did not live in the Yorkshire dales, but in the lowlands (he moved the town partly to protect his identity). His wife was not the daughter of a farmer. The timelines of the stories have been moved - he moved the main storyline partly to protect his identity as well, so that the character did not graduate from vet college at the same time as he did. He made many characters composites, or changed their genders. Many of the stories in the later books actually happened to his son, who worked in his practice for many years.

 

That said, the stories are pretty much all based on things that really happened, and the characters are based on real people (or composites of real people) -just like the Little House books - but that does not make the books non-fiction - it makes them fiction based on true stories. Lightning Lit got it very wrong on this one.

 

I recently read a biography of Herriot/Wight by his son, and was quite surprised at all of this. That said, it's probably as close to non-fiction as many of the "memoirs" that have been coming out lately, a large number of which take some pretty large liberties with the truth... maybe that's where our boundaries are getting blurred... Herriot did not however ever try to pass off his books as an autobiography (although they are most definitely autobiographical) - he jealously guarded his identity for as long as he could, and many of the things like gender changes to characters were in the hopes that his clients wouldn't recognize themselves.

[TXMomof4]

What I want to know is what is the difference between fiction and literary fiction? Who decides what qualifies as literary fiction?

[Ester Maria]

By the classical division, here is verum, the true.

There is falsum, the false.

And there is fictio, the problematic "in-between" area: that which COULD be true, but it's not.

 

Fiction comes from fingere, which is the equivalent of the Greek poiein - it means "to make". What's fictional is not necessarily "made up" (in sense of being fully and blatantly false), but it's certainly "made" - as in, it has an artificial nature.

 

Now, you might wish to proceed to say, but wait, ALL texts are "made" (a text is certainly not a natural state of matter, it assumes the quality of "being made") and thus possess an artificial nature - so what distinguishes a literary text from a non-literary text?

 

And here we come to a distinction. Literary text is not so much a literary text because of the WHAT of the text - what it deals with - but because of the HOW of the text - how it's written. A fiction is not a subject to external verification of its contents - since the referential function (remember the six functions of the text from high school, Jakobson's scheme of communication?) is secondary in such a text, and the primary one is the poetic one. That is why "War and Peace" is NOT a historical document and should NOT be used for a history study, even though it deals with some of the historical facts and even though it presents some of those that are true.

A fictional, literary text, does not communicate the facts about the external world, in spite of its vraisemblance. What it consists of is a purpose for itself, and is absolutely true within the realm of the text (one cannot "change" Tolstoy's work, but one CAN change and debate the contents of the works of historiography or science). It's the text in which the way it's written is more important than the facts and "facts" it operates with.

 

I recommend Iser's text for a good, easy introduction to the issue.

 

It's impossible to write a FULLY false text, which would be in no way dependent on our reality (or a fully true text, but that has to do with the philosophy of the language). Even if you write about flying dragons, you rely on the concept of flying, and so on - there is no such thing as 100% fantasy. All fictional texts take from the outside world - in different quantities. The fact that something deals with the outside world does not mean the text is not fictional, but if it creates its own universe around those facts, with an attempt to create it, and without an attempt to communicate the external reality, it's fiction.

 

"War and Peace" is a fiction just as much as "The Lord of the Rings" is.