truth or fiction (cover, book club, best, crime)

[jertheber]

I'm wondering how many people have discovered the well kept secret of non fiction books being better than most fictional renderings. I'm curious because I've been reading nonfiction stuff almost exclusively for twenty some years and have concluded their superior standing in contrast to the best of fiction writings. I have read a number of Biographies of charachters that no central casting efforts could match, Jim Harrison's account of his own life was as good if not better than his efforts to entertain us with his imagination. Has anybody else felt this way?

[golfgod]

I'm with you on this jertheber. I used to read some fiction but my favorite living fiction writer; George V. Higgins, died a few years back and other than an occassional short story in a magazine it's been all non-fiction for me.

Have you ever read any of the "Flashman" series by George McDonald Fraser? They are "historical" adventures taking place in the 19th century and "Flashman" is the "Forest Gump" of the British Army. He is simultaneously the biggest coward and most decorated hero in the army. He is present everywhere, and right in the middle of the action. While they are fiction they are heavily footnoted and, AFAIK historically accurate.

Fraser has also written some non-fiction.

golfgod

[trustmeiknow]

I have always preferred non-fiction over fiction. Once in a while I'll run into a fiction book that looks good but it is pretty rare. I like non-fiction because I can skip to the information I want to read instead of having to read the whole book cover-to-cover, plus I can refer back to it over and over again. A fiction book I can only read from start to finish and not one section here and there, usually. I am more interested in facts than something that is made up, as a rule.

[LindaGrace]

I read both fiction and non-fiction. It just depends on the subject matter.

[matchpoint]

Fiction is far superior. Memoirs and Biographies resemble fiction anyway (thank you James Frey) because they are purported to be "true" but the writer only has access to one perspective, if he/she can truly remember it. I do read nonfiction (literary journalism stuff by Schlosser or Ehrenrich) but I treat all nonfiction as merely 1 piece to a larger puzzle.

[tijlover]

As they say: truth is stranger than fiction.

Some of the characters you read of in true crime books, there's no fiction writer who could create characters like that.

And biographies? Oh dear! Just finishing Jimmmy Swaggart's bio, about the televangilist. His growing up years in rural Louisiana? I could have sworn I was reading about rural India. How someone could have survived that is beyond me!

And that wife of his they called Dragon Lady. Ooooweee! If I had a choice between meeting up with a dangerous gang member in a dark alley, or Frances Swaggart, I'd pick the gang member! When they do an autopsy on here one day, they'll find not only were her bones made of steel, but her teeth as well. Could any fiction writer create a character like her!

Me? Non fiction all the wayyyyyyyyyyyy!

[LindaGrace]

So I'm the only one who reads both, with no real preference for one over the other? That's...weird. I thought most hard core readers read both fiction and non equally! My family certainly does.

Up until 7 years ago I read only fiction, but I joined a book club and we read both, so that's what introduced me to the wonders of non.

[Thyra]

Yes, LindaGrace.. you are Only fooling!! I only read non fiction...History.. no suprise..but I don't see why people can't enjoy both.

[BlueWillowPlate]

I read and enjoy both.
To choose one exclusively over the other is to miss out on quite a bit, IMHO.

[Gunluvver2]

I read hundreds of books a year (its called retirement) with fiction accounting for about 90% of my reading.

If fiction can be described as "telling tall tales" some of the "tallest tales" I have read were passed off as Non-Fiction.

GL2