Post 5: How much truth should there be in memoirs?

      In my opinion, in order for a book to be non-fiction, it needs to be close to 90% true. Non-fiction is something that is not made up, so it shouldn't have many made up elements in it. However, say one part of your book seems dull, and needs to more "meat" in it, then an author should be allowed to embellish the story a little, just to make it more interesting and gripping. For instance, in James Frey's novel, A Million Little Pieces, he says he was put in jail for three months, when in real life, he was only in jail for a couple of hours. This would be okay, because the end result of being in jail is the same. By saying three months, it made his life sound more interesting, and more gripping to an audience. But with this said, there should still be lines between fiction and non-fiction. If someone wants to read non-fiction, then they should be able to read something that is real, and not made up. and if someone wants to read something that's fictional, then they should be able to read something that is made up, and no real. "Obliterating the lines between fiction and non-fiction" would not necessarily be the best decision, in my opinion. It would just cause too much controversy over whether or not something is fake or real. But that's all that it is: my opinion. But to me, non-fiction should stay mostly true, and fiction should stay mostly fake.