SLCLS Genre Study discussion

I am a natural doubter. Too often nonfiction ("true") materials seem to be less than the truth? Are you convinced that the true crime books you've read are the truth? Has reading a true crime book ever changed your mind about the guilt or innocence of the accused?

Nanette, aren't we talking about true and accurate? Just because no one can go back in ANY book and recreate every conversation word for or exact detail, no matter what it is, biography, sports victory, religious experience or bloody lurid detail of a murder, does not make it less true.

I think most true crime lands somewhere between fiction and true non fiction. I definitely think they add some details to make it more believable/scary. I should note I have read very little true crime so I don't know if my opinions worth anything

Is any non-fiction really true? Or is it all just the interpretation of one person, or two? For that matter what is truth?

And as for the guilt or innocence of a person I think true crime books try to define justice. Just because someone is not proven guilt does not mean they are innocent and that is where I find them fascinating. Did OJ do it? Did they prove it? Two different questions and according to our justice systems it has to be proven.

I guess this really is more a philosophical conversation, but when reading ANY nonfiction book, it is important to consider the motivation of the author. I think this is especially true when reading true crime.

I am reminded of me of the hymn, "Oh, say, What is truth?" (haha...sorry to bring church stuff to the discussion), in the song it says truth is "eternal, unchanged, evermore." Books are certainly updated and corrected periodically, to make them more true?

Also, what about the oath "the whole truth, nothing but the truth." Is it still true if you purposely leave things out or add (as suggested earlier) dialogue, etc. to help it seem more real to the reader?

Great presentation by the way, I really enjoyed it :)

I think the "True" in True Crime actually means "Real". And the classification of "Nonfiction" is apt, as it means "not made up". It's still just a story, but based on real facts and information.

When reading true crime, I act as jury, and make a decision based on the story as it's presented. It never makes me feel as though I "know" what happened. I just feel more solid in my judgment.

Truth doesn't exist in the human parameter. We judge based on our experiences, morals, and perspectives. No two people ever know the exact same "truth".

I absolutely believe that there is objective reality. I'll grant you that it is sometimes unknowable to us...

For me, the bottom line is that these books are entertainment, and to succeed as such, they've got to be believable.

All history is simply an interpretation of facts, written and presented. And all of life is history as there is no such thing as the present, each second becomes past as soon as soon as the next second passes, so all things are interpreted. As far as entertainment, before library school, I used to read AACR2 for entertainment - to each his own.

i think it's true as far as the author perceives. They are usually not primary sources, so it's hard for all the facts to be presented to the reader.