Oh, what a tangled web we weave when…we bastardize the language to soothe our own egos. I am sick and tired of hearing people refer to “fiction novel” and “nonfiction novel.”
I am grateful that the folks who create the Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary have still not succumbed to this idiocy. MW clearly defines a novel as “an invented prose narrative that is usually long and complex and deals especially with human experience through a usually connected sequence of events” and fiction as “something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story.”
But then there are those who insist on muddying the waters, notably the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, which has yielded to the 40-year-old silliness of the “nonfiction novel” by defining it as “A factual or historical narrative written in the form of a novel.” AHD even uses Truman Capote’s book In Cold Blood as an example (more on that in a moment).
And we mustn’t forget the once prestigious, although now almost irrelevant, Encyclopedia Brittanica that, in its online edition, calls a “nonfiction novel” a “story of actual people and actual events told with the dramatic techniques of a novel.”
The genesis of the term “nonfiction novel” is usually credited to Truman Capote, he of the towering ego pandered to by the fawning liberal elites. In a 1966 interview in the New York Times, Capote insisted he invented the “nonfiction novel” with — you guessed it — In Cold Blood. He claimed this new genre consisted of creative, narrative reporting. Then why not just refer to it as narrative reporting (which it is)? Because Capote’s ego demanded he invent something new to help bolster his literary status.
Thus, the “nonfiction novel,” which is an oxymoron (much like Capote himself, it always seemed to me). In the 1966 NYT interview, Capote says:
The nonfiction novel should not be confused with the documentary novel–a popular and interesting but impure genre, which allows all the latitude of the fiction writer, but usually contains neither the persuasiveness of fact nor the poetic attitude fiction is capable of reaching. The author lets his imagination run riot over the facts! If I sound querulous or arrogant about this, it’s not only that I have to protect my child, but that I truly don’t believe anything like it exists in the history of journalism.
I have no particular quarrel with Capote’s (of anyone else’s, for that matter) use of fictional techniques in nonfiction writing. In fact, I think the best of nonfiction reads like a well-done narrative novel. However, Capote’s insistence on defining a new genre — the “nonfiction novel” — sounds much like the equally muddy waters Hollywood all-too-often dives into with “documdramas” and movies “based on actual events.”
And let’s not forget the truth-be-damned, invented stories of far too many memoirists.
I think it is dishonest, misleading, and disingenuous to call anything a “nonfiction novel” regardless of the American Heritage Dictionary or the Encyclopedia Brittanica.
A novel is fiction.
I think there is no non fiction novel as what defined by the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language or by Encyclopedia Brittanica online edition. A novel is a work of imagination, nothing else although it is based on a true story. It is a fiction which means it happens only in the author’s imagination.
I agree, but the term “nonfiction novel” has unfortunately become entrenched in the English language.
Regardless, you will never hear me call a book a “nonfiction novel.” I think I’d gag if I tried!
Great post, Walt. I imagine the terms nonfiction novel and now true-life novel are used to protect publishers and authors from lawsuits. Why else would anyone want to complicate something that should be so simple?
Maybe, but I think Capote came up with the nomenclature just to make his books seem different from the other novels in the market. After all, he made a career out of being different.
But, just because somebody of Capote’s literary stature invented (assuming he really did) the label nonfiction novel, doesn’t mean it’s a great idea.
Of course, movies have been muddying the waters for years. What exactly does “based on a true story” really mean, anyway?
that’s what I thought. …totally agree. A novel should always be fiction.
What would one call something that would be called a “nonfiction novel”?
That depends — is it fiction or nonfiction?
Many works labeled “fiction” are tapestries that intricately weave plots, events, and even characters based on “real” historical events. The matter is most certainly more nuanced than treated in this discussion. As for “non fiction novels” or “fictional reality,” I don’t know either, but the black/white delineation of fiction/nonfiction has never been intellectually honest. Writers such as Dostoevsky based many of his stories on actual criminal cases, Names were changed, time periods were shifted sometimes but they were very much “factional” or whatever you wish to call it.
Historical novels based in large part on actual people and events are still fiction, although to varying degrees. My historical novel Devil in the North Woods is an example. In fact, so as not to leave the reader wondering, I included a short explanation right upfront:
“The 1908 Metz, Michigan, fire is an historical fact. Devil in the North Woods accurately traces its beginnings, progress, and devastating results. Newspaper accounts and documented interviews record the names and actions of those who survived, as well as of those who did not, and form the basis for much of the history in this book. Henry Hardies was a real person who survived the fire and whose family anchors this story.
“Other characters in this book are either composites of real people or have been created solely for fictional purposes. The majority of the conversations, details, emotions, and motivations have been fictionalized, although much has been drawn from 90 years of hand-me-down Hardies family stories.”
I think that kind of explanation should be part of the unwritten contract between writer and reader in such cases.