Not muddying, clarifying: towards understanding the boundaries between fiction and nonfiction

Matthew Ricketson

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    Debates about the relationship between fiction and nonfiction are complex but remain critical to the field of book-length journalism, which is grounded in the practice of representing in words actual people, events and issues. These debates have been flavoured by the conflating of various concepts, which has the effect of muddying rather than clarifying the field. A review of relevant scholarship in narrative and journalism studies shows how some scholars conflate notions of narrative with fiction, of fiction with literariness, and of fiction with nonfiction. An examination of the historical development of journalism provides three points relevant to a better working understanding of the relationship between fact and fiction: first, the hard news report has never been the sole form in which news has been presented; second, a range of modes of writing usually associated with fiction are not the sole province of fiction, and third, the use of the word fiction in the term ‘fictional techniques’ to describe book-length journalism and literary nonfiction sends a misleading message to practitioners, critics and readers alike.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)1-13
    Number of pages13
    JournalText
    Volume14
    Issue number2
    Publication statusPublished - 2010

    Fingerprint

    Non-fiction
    Fiction
    Journalism
    Length
    News
    Literariness
    News Report
    Reader

    Cite this

    @article{1ca8c0b7b8f247a88524c14911672b36,
    title = "Not muddying, clarifying: towards understanding the boundaries between fiction and nonfiction",
    abstract = "Debates about the relationship between fiction and nonfiction are complex but remain critical to the field of book-length journalism, which is grounded in the practice of representing in words actual people, events and issues. These debates have been flavoured by the conflating of various concepts, which has the effect of muddying rather than clarifying the field. A review of relevant scholarship in narrative and journalism studies shows how some scholars conflate notions of narrative with fiction, of fiction with literariness, and of fiction with nonfiction. An examination of the historical development of journalism provides three points relevant to a better working understanding of the relationship between fact and fiction: first, the hard news report has never been the sole form in which news has been presented; second, a range of modes of writing usually associated with fiction are not the sole province of fiction, and third, the use of the word fiction in the term ‘fictional techniques’ to describe book-length journalism and literary nonfiction sends a misleading message to practitioners, critics and readers alike.",
    author = "Matthew Ricketson",
    year = "2010",
    language = "English",
    volume = "14",
    pages = "1--13",
    journal = "Text",
    issn = "1327-9556",
    number = "2",

    }

    Not muddying, clarifying: towards understanding the boundaries between fiction and nonfiction. / Ricketson, Matthew.

    In: Text, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2010, p. 1-13.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Not muddying, clarifying: towards understanding the boundaries between fiction and nonfiction

    AU - Ricketson, Matthew

    PY - 2010

    Y1 - 2010

    N2 - Debates about the relationship between fiction and nonfiction are complex but remain critical to the field of book-length journalism, which is grounded in the practice of representing in words actual people, events and issues. These debates have been flavoured by the conflating of various concepts, which has the effect of muddying rather than clarifying the field. A review of relevant scholarship in narrative and journalism studies shows how some scholars conflate notions of narrative with fiction, of fiction with literariness, and of fiction with nonfiction. An examination of the historical development of journalism provides three points relevant to a better working understanding of the relationship between fact and fiction: first, the hard news report has never been the sole form in which news has been presented; second, a range of modes of writing usually associated with fiction are not the sole province of fiction, and third, the use of the word fiction in the term ‘fictional techniques’ to describe book-length journalism and literary nonfiction sends a misleading message to practitioners, critics and readers alike.

    AB - Debates about the relationship between fiction and nonfiction are complex but remain critical to the field of book-length journalism, which is grounded in the practice of representing in words actual people, events and issues. These debates have been flavoured by the conflating of various concepts, which has the effect of muddying rather than clarifying the field. A review of relevant scholarship in narrative and journalism studies shows how some scholars conflate notions of narrative with fiction, of fiction with literariness, and of fiction with nonfiction. An examination of the historical development of journalism provides three points relevant to a better working understanding of the relationship between fact and fiction: first, the hard news report has never been the sole form in which news has been presented; second, a range of modes of writing usually associated with fiction are not the sole province of fiction, and third, the use of the word fiction in the term ‘fictional techniques’ to describe book-length journalism and literary nonfiction sends a misleading message to practitioners, critics and readers alike.

    M3 - Article

    VL - 14

    SP - 1

    EP - 13

    JO - Text

    JF - Text

    SN - 1327-9556

    IS - 2

    ER -