I’m a sort of in-the-middle person.  The Grey Zone was so named because I think there is very little all-black or all-white about, well…pretty much anything.  There is always another side, if we take the time to ask.

I think I have known this for a very long time, but it really hit home one day when I saw the following on Facebook:

There was considerable discussion (and argument) about the solution to this equation. I was fascinated (and a wee bit disturbed) because I’ve always accepted that math was a constant – maybe the only true constant – in our world, not subject to the whims of humanity.  But after doing some research, I discovered that the “Order of Operations” this video describes is really just an opinion and not even included in all text books.   If a student is not taught to solve equations in this way, s/he will come up with a completely different answer.  So…who’s right?

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/user_ed/2014/08/05/the-origin-of-the-order-of-operations/

Completely shook the very foundation of how I interpreted the world.  But that is worth its own post.

Now…to the subject of this post: writing dialogue in nonfiction.  There are a couple of ideas about this and writers who stand on either side hold onto their opinions like their lives depended on it.  It – and by association, truth – is, I discovered, one of the few things I believe is an absolute.  Even after coming to understand that almost everything falls in a grey zone (based on opinion), this seems quite black/white to me.

Some writers believe that if quoted dialogue is included in a nonfiction work, it must be actual verbatim dialogue, taken from the writer’s own interaction with or observance of the speaker or as documented on tape.  Others believe that it is perfectly acceptable to “create” dialogue based on what they think the speaker may have said or how s/he likely would have responded in the interaction.

I fall into the former category. If I write that my brother said, “I am going to kill you,” then you can be assured that is exactly what he said.  As I see it, a work cannot be called nonfiction if dialogue has been created.  Not even in creative nonfiction, which is not “creating truths,” but rather using various literary styles and techniques to create a rich, relatable but truthful story.

If I’m not exactly certain of what was said, then I can say, My brother was upset and said something like he would kill me or My brother was upset and that he would kill me.  It may not *pop* like dialogue but with it, I am assured I am being truthful and I won’t get an angry call or subpoena from my brother saying I misquoted him.

When writing memoir or other nonfiction that incorporates real  people – dead or alive – I believe we have a responsibility to honor their place in the story.  As a writer, I think we must treat our characters with respect, even if they play(ed) a difficult role in our lives. One way to do that is to be true to their words.

There are lots of arguments for creating dialogue.  A common one is that as long as we capture the essence of the conversation, that’s really all that matters.  But that is an interpretation of what someone said and as writers we need to allow the reader to interpret what is said and done in the work. I think that if we are unable to write nonfiction – creative or otherwise – without lying (or embellishing, if that makes you feel better), then we shouldn’t be writing it at all. We already have a designation for writing that is allowed to play fast and loose with both facts and truth – it’s called fiction. When I write memoir or any other kind of nonfiction, the “creative” part comes into play, not in what fiction I can create to make a scene pop, but rather in how I weave my words through the tapestry of my story. If we decide to redefine nonfiction, we lose all respect and any trust we may have had for the writer of same. How can we possibly know what in a story is truth and what is borrowed or “reconstructed” for the sake of art?