Tracking the ever-elusive Great American Novel

[David Casseres]

It seems to me that the book doesn't actually try to appear to be
"non-fiction" in the usual sense of the term.  Thus calling it
non-fiction could be seen as an act of fiction rather than fraud,
something many authors have done.  For what it's worth, I had
completely forgotten that the book was labeled "non-fiction," and
remembered it as fiction with a strong element of autobiography.

On 5/25/06, jd <wescac at gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh and for the record, I didn't think Warrior Woman was neccessarily a
> bad book, I just took issue with it being portrayed as non-fiction.  I
> would imagine that those who have read it would understand, but am
> certainly open to interpretation as to why it should be considered
> such.
>
> I think there's a lot of fiction out there that mirrors the author's
> life as closely as this does, and yet they're content to call it
> fiction and let it stand as is... my argument is that calling
> something non-fiction gives it, in a way, a certain slant that makes
> those who question it seem unreliable, since, hey, it's non-fiction.
> So while the book might be solid enough I interpret either her, or her
> publisher's, need to portray it as non-fiction (even though it
> comprises of fantasy and conversations long past told to her by a
> one-sided, family, source) as, in a way, an admission of weakness, and
> a belief that it couldn't stand on it's own as fiction (though I think
> it could).
>
> Perhaps I am too touchy.
>