Comments on: Drawing Lines in Nonfiction: “Old” vs. “New” https://lauriethompson.com/2011/03/10/drawing-lines-nonfiction/ Inspiring and empowering young readers Sat, 05 Dec 2020 16:52:25 +0000 hourly 1 By: Joni https://lauriethompson.com/2011/03/10/drawing-lines-nonfiction/#comment-82 Sat, 12 Mar 2011 07:10:40 +0000 https://lauriethompson.com/?p=685#comment-82 Ah, interesting discussion that makes me think of our conversation last weekend about the chakra ms. Fiction? (Not for a Hindu, maybe.) Nonfiction? (Not for anyone of a traditional medical bent.) Speculative nonfiction? Potentially. I think it could be any of the above, depending on how it was treated.
Anyway, this might be a good discussion topic for our nonfiction master class, huh?

]]> By: Laurie Thompson https://lauriethompson.com/2011/03/10/drawing-lines-nonfiction/#comment-81 Fri, 11 Mar 2011 16:54:10 +0000 https://lauriethompson.com/?p=685#comment-81 In reply to marc aronson.

Marc,
Thanks so much for reading for my post and for expanding and clarifying your argument your responses here and here. As I posted over there, my concerns can be (and were) addressed simply by changing the terminology used. With this kind of label, I agree it is a useful distinction in the minds of both authors and readers. I’m all for “speculative nonfiction,” just as long as it is revealed as such (which I’m sure any responsible author would do). Looking at the books that have been receving attention in recent years, I would venture that the market is embracing this newer approach to children’s nonfiction as well. Thanks for starting, and continuing, the debate! I think it only helps make the industry we love stronger. 🙂

]]> By: marc aronson https://lauriethompson.com/2011/03/10/drawing-lines-nonfiction/#comment-80 Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:04:44 +0000 https://lauriethompson.com/?p=685#comment-80 Laurie:
Thanks for engaging with my article — I’ve responded to you and Jim over in my SLJ blog. But I really don’t agree that the key difference is between “straight” and “creative.” That is a distinction. But the kinds of writing I am talking about gets its excitement not (or at leat not necessarily) from using “fictional techniques to turn facts into story” but rather from emulating real detectives or scientists in the quest for knowledge. In other words, the thrill comes from thinking, not (or, again, not only) from storytelling. Storytelling often aims for closure after taking a reader on a satisfying journey. Thinking is open ended, it leaves the reader to keep hunting for new answers. That is the kind of NF for younger readers I see taking shape.

]]>