John D'Agata and Jim Fingal on "The Lifespan of a Fact"

I am both an editor and an avid reader. If I find incorrect information in something I'm reading for pleasure, fiction or non-fiction, it ruins the entire thing for me. How can you then judge if you can trust any of the information? If I find incorrect information in something I'm editing, I correct it.

As a reader of non-fiction, I'd stop reading a book if I knew the author purposely presented facts wrongly. A disclaimer for such liberty is in order, or a different genre name. I respect that an author wants artistic license, and I may read that. But I'd feel deceived if that author did so under the guise of non-fiction.

John, the author, is, in my view, espousing a view indistinguishably close to evil. When you write non-fiction you get a chance to choose the narrative... and even that can be done truthfully or deceptively, but changing a fact, no matter how small, is a lie and totally unacceptable. If you want to write a fable go ahead. If you want to write a novel, go ahead. However, if you are telling a true story then you have to be faithful to it. In fact, i would further and say that ANY fictionalization of generally real events is a disservice to society. In our culture of information overload it is hard enough to filter and edit and discern what is true and important even without people purposely blurring the lines and mudying the water..

This guy pulls the wool over his own head by claiming he's an artist-artist-artist, and thus doesn't have to follow the simple dictates of truth. Dude, if you want to write fiction, go for it. But if you're writing a nonfiction article, get the number of strip clubs in Las Vegas right -- and don't worry about the rhythm of how the number sounds in the sentence.

I wouldn't trust his prose as far as I could throw it.

What astonishes me is that people comment with their outrage by saying "But if you're writing a nonfiction article, get the number of strip clubs in Las Vegas right", which, to me, indicates they haven't really listened to this interview or understood D'Agata's entire argument. He doesn't write "articles". That's the very basic foundation of his argument, and it is stated plainly, even in the excerpt that was read. He is an essayist. People just don't seem to understand the whole premise of the debate. They keep arguing something completely irrelevant- whether or not facts matter in journalism. Given that D'Agata is not a journalist and is stating that what he is doing is an entirely separate genre, spouting off about the need for factual accuracy in articles is a wholly moot point.