It’s interesting to see the conversation continue to unravel. The most compelling argument I’ve heard is that it offends the integrity and power of the facts to imply that somehow the reality of it all isn’t enough. 

I understand points on both sides.

I don’t think that creative nonfiction promises, exactly, to be as factually accurate as possible. I get lost somewhere between art in service of facts, or facts in service of art.

My initial thought after the Mike Daisey controversy broke and people began to make links, was that of course there is a difference between publishing in literary journals and stories picked up in The New York Times. And while the subtext should probably be examined, it is somehow different when you are writing something that contributes to an unfolding social issue…

[re: notes, notes, notes]


And a couple notes for keeping:

[NYTimes: Your Brain on Fiction]

[NYTimes: The Sentence as a Miniature Narrative]

[More on fragmentary writing in a digital age]

[SCMP: HKU on conducting a simulated ballot] (very old note)


Weekend note: my favorite thing about the city is that the redwoods are only thirty minutes away.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *