Quote:
Originally Posted by desertgrandma
Seabound, "interviewing them twice over the years" is not what I meant by research.
Any book written as non fiction demands to be verified, does it not?
This quote, by the publishers
Even after such fabrications as James Frey's "A Million Little Pieces," another Winfrey favorite, publishers have said that with more than 100,000 books coming out each year, fact-checking is too time-consuming and too expensive.
is shameful. But, encouraging others to buy the book, without checking it out herself, is as bad.
If you are going to sell a book, you must take responsibility for the contents.
I know I just lost a lot of faith in so called "non-fiction".
|
This has been my opinion of 'non-fiction' for years. The only ones I tend to read are those of a technical nature, with an established base or easily verifiable, or those titles by individuals I would trust. Either way I still read them with a grain of salt. I started treating non-fiction that way sometime in my teens when I learned how many 'facts' from history that are constantly retold have been debunked -and widely accepted as being debunked- and are often the more well known. Simply because of an author or salesman (ie. politician) who gave a nice sensational count of the faux history. One doesn't even need to lie to give a reader a false viewpoint of the events, simply choosing the truth to tell about a situation very carefully can lead a reader nearly anywhere the author wants.
-MJ