# Literary License in Non-Fiction



## Steerpike (Mar 8, 2012)

An author on NPR was advocating for the ability of non-fiction writers, such as writers of essays, changing the facts and using a higher degree of literary license to make a case. What do you all think of that?

https://plus.google.com/u/0/109666216625003157538/posts


----------



## Telcontar (Mar 8, 2012)

If you're changing facts, you're not writing non-fiction.


----------



## Devor (Mar 8, 2012)

I believe that's called _lying_.


----------



## Xanados (Mar 8, 2012)

I don't understand... Why would you change facts in a literary essay?


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 8, 2012)

I think most people probably feel the way everyone here does. From what I gathered in the radio interview, the author tries to make the point that you are communicating a greater truth about an issue, whether it is about suicide or some other important issue. His idea is that if you take license with the facts (stating things that in fact did not happen the way you are stating) to increase the dramatic effect, you are more likely to have an impact on the reader and communicate your greater message.

I guess he believes people get too bogged down in the literal facts.

I would not be happy to see this sort of thing without some kind of disclaimer letter the reader know that what is written isn't literally true.


----------



## Devor (Mar 8, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I guess he believes people get too bogged down in the literal facts.



Honestly, I'd like to see a journalist or essayist who simply understood the facts.  It's like asking an author to understand the time period they're writing in.  If you know where to look, there's mistakes everywhere.

And I guarantee there are people on this forum who spend more time trying to understand the facts they write about than the vast majority of journalists.


----------



## Amanita (Mar 8, 2012)

Like everyone else here  I don't believe that this kind of thing is acceptable at all. Not even for supposedly "good" causes. Especially in cases where the cause is controversial, it's very likely to be found out and make you lose credibility. I'm following news on two areas of subjects, chemistry and food where such debates are quite common. If someone's lying, the the other side _is_ going to find out and pick on it. This way, you and potentially worthy cause lose all respect. 
If there's no evidence convincing enough for a cause, maybe it isn't worth arguing for.


----------



## Reaver (Mar 8, 2012)

So... would the following excerpt from the 900 page manuscript I hope to submit to a very well-known non-fiction publisher be considered using literary license?                                        



*THE UNTOLD BATTLE
*                                                      By Dr. Cornelius S. Reaver, Ph.D.

                                                August 1944, Little Bighorn, Montana, USA

Very few people know the reality about the battle that was the true turning point in World War II.   Had it not been for the intervention of key crewmembers aboard the Federation Starship Enterprise (NCC 1701-G), who used their experimental transtemporal wormhole opening device (in conjunction with a standard cloaking device to avoid detection), they wouldn’t have been able to stop the insidious Borg/ Founders / Cardassian / Romulan /Axis Powers (BFCRAP or Beef Crap as the good guys called it)alliance that almost wiped out General Blackjack Pershing, General George Washington, General Hawk, President Abraham Lincoln and Pro-Wrestler Randy “The Macho Man” Savage’s famous tauntaun-riding “Ghost Riders in the Snow” cavalry brigade.

Fresh out of a bloody, nearly two-year-long battle with the Cobra/Legion of Doom (CLoD)alliance, the Ghost Riders had barely arrived and set up their trebuchets and ballistae when the Beef Crap forces attacked, riding their massive Sandworms and wreaking havoc with their Weirding Modules.

Yes, it looked like certain doom for the Ghost Riders, but the crew of the Starship Enterprise arrived just in the nick of time and wiped out the Beef Crap forces with a hail of photon torpedoes.

Indeed, if you visit the Little Bighorn National Monument with a Geiger counter, you can still detect trace amounts of photon radiation almost everywhere on the battlefield.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Mar 8, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I think most people probably feel the way everyone here does. From what I gathered in the radio interview, the author tries to make the point that you are communicating a greater truth about an issue, whether it is about suicide or some other important issue. His idea is that if you take license with the facts (stating things that in fact did not happen the way you are stating) to increase the dramatic effect, you are more likely to have an impact on the reader and communicate your greater message.



The problem with his assertion is this: Facts are the only thing we have that _actually support_ the "greater truth." If you are trying to communicate a "greater truth" and the _actual_ facts don't support it well enough, then that "greater truth" is *not true!*


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 8, 2012)

I realized I linked to Google+. If you couldn't see the original article, it is here:

'Lifespan': What Are The Limits Of Literary License? : NPR

I agree with you guys for the most part. An interesting example is that the author wrote in his essay that three things occurred on the same day in Las Vegas. They all occurred, but in reality they were spaced apart and not on the same day. The author views that saying they occurred on the same day is a more dramatic presentation. 

So the underlying facts are there, but have been toyed with. Not as bad as making them up wholesale, but still makes people nervous.


----------



## Devor (Mar 8, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> An interesting example is that the author wrote in his essay that three things occurred on the same day in Las Vegas. They all occurred, but in reality they were spaced apart and not on the same day. The author views that saying they occurred on the same day is a more dramatic presentation.



The author is wrong; the idea that they all happened on the same day is transparently unrealistic and saying so will destroy any credibility behind the idea that they happened at all.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Mar 8, 2012)

Devor said:


> The author is wrong; the idea that they all happened on the same day is transparently unrealistic and saying so will destroy any credibility behind the idea that they happened at all.



It'll destroy credibility among people who actually care to look into it. In general, what the guy is advocating is totally fine _if your goal is to convince people you're right at all costs._ And unfortunately, a large percentage of people are willing to believe further things that fall in line with their existing beliefs. So really what he's saying is, "Here's how to write propaganda!"


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 9, 2012)

Devor said:


> The author is wrong; the idea that they all happened on the same day is transparently unrealistic and saying so will destroy any credibility behind the idea that they happened at all.



Probably for most of us. But given the things I've seen people believe (after having only read it online or seen it in an email, for example) I have to wonder about this


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 9, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> It'll destroy credibility among people who actually care to look into it. In general, what the guy is advocating is totally fine _if your goal is to convince people you're right at all costs._ And unfortunately, a large percentage of people are willing to believe further things that fall in line with their existing beliefs. So really what he's saying is, "Here's how to write propaganda!"



Yeah, I don't think he is swaying most people. The author might not feel the same way if someone did it to make the opposite point he is making.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 9, 2012)

Reaver said:


> So... would the following excerpt from the 900 page manuscript I hope to submit to a very well-known non-fiction publisher be considered using literary license?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LMAO.

Wait, where's the creative license? Are you implying that's not how it happened?


----------



## Reaver (Mar 9, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> LMAO.
> 
> Wait, where's the creative license? Are you implying that's not how it happened?



No, no. Not at all.


----------



## Devor (Mar 9, 2012)

Reaver said:


> No, no. Not at all.





Reaver said:


> ....they wouldn’t have been able to stop the insidious Borg/ Founders / Cardassian / Romulan /Axis Powers (BFCRAP *or Beef Crap as the good guys called it*)alliance that almost wiped out General Blackjack Pershing, General George Washington, General Hawk, President Abraham Lincoln and Pro-Wrestler Randy “The Macho Man” Savage’s famous tauntaun-riding “Ghost Riders in the Snow” cavalry brigade.



Everybody knows that the "Beef Crap" quote comes from an article written three months after the fighting was over.  Stop spreading this garbage, man!


----------



## Reaver (Mar 9, 2012)

Devor said:


> Everybody knows that the "Beef Crap" quote comes from an article written three months after the fighting was over.  Stop spreading this garbage, man!



I beg your pardon, Sir...but it just so happens that I got my information...my empirical facts, mind you, from a veteran of this battle! 

So in the immortal words of Ultimus Manimus- "Like, cram that in your cramhole and like, get lost."


----------



## grahamguitarman (Mar 11, 2012)

If you want to make a point, then you should write documentary fiction based on real events, if you want to write non fiction keep to the facts - otherwise you are spreading lies and propoganda.

And talking of propoganda, everyone knows all this Borg stuff is just racism against people with artificial limbs.  Its time we stopped discriminating against the disabled in this way and gave equal rights to the artificially enhanced.


----------



## Reaver (Mar 12, 2012)

grahamguitarman said:


> And talking of propoganda, everyone knows all this Borg stuff is just racism against people with artificial limbs.  Its time we stopped discriminating against the disabled in this way and gave equal rights to the artificially enhanced.



I agree.  My earlier historic account was not intended to incite any type of bigotry against the Borg. And you must remember that it was Sir Winston Churchill who first demonized the Borg by misquoting their favorite chant: "Resistance is fertile."  By doing so, the famed Prime Minister turned the thoughtful, peace-loving cyborgs into mindless automatons bent on universal domination.


----------

