Can’t the English language come up with a better word than “Non fiction”?
Its like using “non day” instead of “night”; “non smooth” instead of “rough”; “Non wet” instead of “dry”; or “non soft” instead of “hard”.
Any suggestions?
What do other languages use?
Factual? (At least purportedly so.)
I was just saying that someone a few days ago. I’ve always wondered about that, ever since I was a kid and couldn’t keep track of which one was real and which one was made up.
How about “factive”? Usable as either an adjective or a stand-alone noun.
But “non-fiction” as it is used on bestseller lists, library shelves, etc. is kind of a catch-all category. It includes not only facts but also opinions, ideas, criticism…
Factive or Fictive - I like it but it could be misheard/confusing…
“Non-fiction” doesn’t mean “factual.” It doesn’t mean “true” or “proven fact” or even “plausible theory.” Non-fiction
encompasses pretty much everything that isn’t a novel or short story with an author, which is what fiction is. If you go to your friendly neighborhood public library and look through the non-fiction section, you will find:
Psychology
Occult (horoscope, aliens, psychics)
Opinion of all kinds
The sacred books of every religion, commentaries thereon, all theology–including Wicca, Scientology, the Bible, and the Koran
Biographies
History
Gardening
Folklore, folktales, fairy tales
Technology
Cooking and nutrition, including every crazy diet fad
Chicken Soup for the Soul
Poetry
Other literature: plays, essays, epics, all sorts
Holocaust denial
Physics
Astronomy
Evolution and Intelligent Design and Creationism
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
Books by Hal Lindsey, Erich von Daniken, Karl Marx, and David Icke
…and much, much more!
Librarians are not in the business of telling you what is true and what is not. They are in the business of collecting knowledge and information and letting you figure out what you think.
AND Holy Blood, Holy Grail! 944, baby.
If a book is called factual or real it comes too close to implying it’s true.
Topical is a possibility, because they are sorted by topic.
Subjectal would be even better, but that’s not a word.
I don’t think there is a good substitute using existing words in English. In fact, you see the same problem with other similar English words. For example, if I’m telling you “a story” then you tend to assume that it’s made up. I have to specify “true story” to make sure you know that this is something that actually happened.
Words that imply truth are all too specific for the non-fiction classification. As some examples: news, science, report, history, testimony and biography all imply truth but each covers a pretty narrow band of the non-fiction category.
You’re making the error of the excluded middle. In almost all things, there are not merely 2 categories with an infinitely thin and easily determined boundary between them.
e.g. in addition to day and night there’s twilight (which comes in 4 official kinds). In addition to smooth and rough there’s lots of intermediate gradations of surface finish. And many more which are rougher than “rough”. etc.
The advantage of X vs. non-X terminology is now you do cleave the entire space into a binary distinction with a clearly defined and infinitely thin dividing line between them.
For certain kinds of categorization needs, this binary distinction is useful. In other words, it maps naturally into the categories at hand and to your intended use for them.
For other categorization needs the binary distinction is less useful. And so isn’t used.
Use the right tool for the job. I’ll leave it up to the librarians to explain specifically why Fiction vs. Non-fiction is useful, or is at least more useful than another categorization. That’s not my area of expertise.
I actually had a patron come up really mad to complain that we call it “non-fiction”. “Because ‘non’ makes it sound like it ain’t true!” Ladies and gentlemen, the public liberry.
Informative text or content area text is how I’ve seen the Common Core refer to non-fiction reading.
Clearly, said patron needed the services of a library, so at least they were in the right place.
Back on topic, the whole field of genre-labeling is something of a mess. Consider:
-If I write a book wherein the central plot revolves around solving a crime, it’s a mystery.
-If the crime is a murder, it’s a murder mystery, a subcategory.
-If the book takes place in 1768, it’s historical fiction; you usually don’t see the genre further subdivided, but that’s mostly due to its relative size, but most people, if asked, would go so far as to accept it as a historical mystery.
-But (here’s the biggie), if the book takes place on Mars, even if it’s only using technology, characters, and other elements that wouldn’t be out of place on Mars in 1768, it’s sci-fi. No questions asked, no other details necessary.
Even better, if it’s by a certain publisher it’s romance.
This. My understanding is that the author and/or publisher more or less has the sole authority to assert that their work is non-fiction simply by writing it from that perspective. For example, Sleepers by Lorenzo Carcaterra, the authenticity of which has basically been ripped to shreds by anyone connected to the story other than the author, is still considered non-fiction by the Library of Congress.
Doubleplus ungood crimethink.
Indeed, in many libraries non-fiction includes plenty of fiction in the 800’s - short stories, plays, etc.
I subscribe to Amazon Unlimited, and it seems like half the non-fiction titles are about Ben Carson or preppers. :dubious:
Yep, “informational text” is the term I’ve heard most in the education world. Nonfiction is the library term, though. as long as you can find what you’re looking for, what does it matter?