After I read breaking clean I really liked the essay and connected to it emotionally. I had no idea that the part of the type writer was in fact not true that that situation really didn't happen. I was at first shocked because it was such a vivid part of the essay, I didn't understand why the author would use a made up piece of information to be one of the most outstanding parts.
Wednesday after the meeting I kept thinking about if what she did was morally wrong because it is supposed to be a non-fiction story. I have yet to come up with a conclusion. As we discussed I would say that in this certain situation that it is okay she did this because it is probably how she felt and she wanted to convey and paint a picture of the raw emotion that she felt. Using this scene as opposed to "people looked down on me because I used a typewriter to express my emotion" or something like that. There is a way better understanding of what she went through with the scene than just a plain sentence. As a reader I don't have a problem with the "stretched truth" because a lot of the time the reader isn't going to know the difference.
However, What Happened in Vegas is a little different story, because it is an informative article readers are going to rely on the fact that what the article is saying is accurate and true. Therefore, if it is not than readers can be highly misinformed. I think that is why this article matters. Yes, it was a bit cynical and sarcastic but for me it kind of drove the point home that if the author of the article doesn't care about checking the facts maybe readers shouldn't trust their credibility and as a writer that is really one of the only things we have to go off of for people to read what we have to say.
As a writer I am stuck at the question, "would I, as a writer be able to 'stretch the truth' to be able to make my non-fiction story better?"
I think this question differs from every writer and comes down to the morality of the writer himself or herself.
No comments:
Post a Comment