AmyLiz, go get some sleep, you. And give the tot a Flintstone Valium, or something (I used to wish for someone to invent them when Jo had colic as an infant).

Deb, we're doing baby Tylenol before bed every night now. Four months old and teething like a fiend. It's mommy who needs a valium... :-)

The Perfect Storm would be my example of book-length creative nonfiction.

Did anyone see that a blog called gawker.com has fingered Amy Bloom as the whiny mid-list author from the Salon article? Doesn't strike me as likely, though. Especially since she's had a job for ages, while writing--she's a clinical social worker.

Kessie, I will send something soon. I've been completely distracted by the baby and other grim Real Life things the last week. And thanks for reminding me. Hil R., were you still interested? I think I forgot to send it to you in the great sucking void that was the last few days.

And anyone else who would like a beta read, I'd love to do it. One thing I can do with a sleeping baby on my lap is read at the computer, thank the lord. Deena, Lyra Jane, and Deb, I'd love to read something from any/all of you since you were kind enough to read for me.

Hmmm. I got bored by Perfect Storm very early on in the book, and never finished it. OTOH, I read Into Thin Air about twenty times; caught me from moment one. Krakauer's is really a memoir, in that he doesn't put reactions in dead peoples' heads; is that what Junger did?

I'm trying to differentiate the difference between them, so info is good.

A good group tonight, only three, but two of us read, and we both got some good solid useful feedback. AmyLiz, when it comes to doing beta on this, I'd be delighted to add you to the list, but be warned, we're talking the first 70,000 words. What I'm really wondering is whether to just put away any fears about pacing and finish the damned thing before I get opinions on the pace.

Deb, I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one who couldn't get through A Perfect Storm.

There are a few books I can think of that might fall into the category of "creative non-fiction."

Enemy at the Gates goes into a lot of historical, technical, and tactical detail about the siege of Stalingrad, but the author ratchets up the tension by following the fates of several different historical characters (some of whom are famous, others who are just ordinary Russians or Germans) throughout the siege. He doesn't add much to the historical record other than narrative structure, but that structure does amazing things for the book.

Richard Feynman and Leon Lederman both use their twisted senses of humor and storytelling abilities to make reading about particle physics both fun and funny.

In terms of food writing, I will re-read Alton Brown and M. F. K. Fisher for the sheer joy of the way they write.

Basically, I see "creative non-fiction" as writing that uses the tools of the storyteller--pacing, humor, voice--to hook the reader into reading for entertainment as well as for information.

put away any fears about pacing and finish the damned(wonderful) thing before I get opinions on the pace.

I'd say yes. But you knew that.

I taught another writer about KFKD...with attribution of course. Now, he says it, too. It helps to have a name. Kessie, your piece never arrived.

Anne, but are any of those ordinary Germans and Russians in Enemy at the Gates fictional characters?

This is where the ground gets muddy for me, and why I don't understand the label. Because it seems to me that if I'm going to write non-fiction, I'm going to do my utmost to make the humanity behind it compelling and gripping and readable. I'm going to give whatever the history of the story is - whether it's Bosworth or Salamanca or a biography of Edgar Allen Poe - an arc, pacing, a climb, something to make the reader want to be there. Otherwise, I'm writing a middle school history textbook, and even those, I think, need something more than "just the facts, ma'am", because the facts, in my worldview, are always going to be contradictable by a second viewpoint.

I think what I'm trying to say (I'm still on first cup of coffee, so forgive any scattering of brain), is that if you're writing non-fiction, something compelling drew you into the story in the first place. The siege of Leningrad is a heartbreaking, heroic nightmarish moment in modern history - I'd have tried to find survivors, and spoken to them. But if I'm translating what I perceive their memories to be, first from Russian to English and then from translated English into the written word, am I tampering with the truth?

The question makes my brain hurt. Luckily, I don't write non-fiction in booklength form.

When I think of "creative non-fiction" I think of The Liar's Club and Tobias Wolff and stuff like that.And you're all thinking "Thanks, Erika, the waters are not muddy enough."

I think that, to me, the difference would be that, in just plain non-fiction, the point is to tell what happened. Of course, the author's viewpoint, and what the author decides to focus on, will inform that. With creative non-fiction, the point is to take what happened and make it into an interesting story.

I think that Jon Krackhauer (I know I just butchered that spelling) is a good example. Under the Banner of Heaven is, supposedly, about two men who murdered their sister-in-law and baby niece in the early eighties. You could easily make a book about that. But there are a whole lot more chapters about the history of the LDS and Utah, and polygamous "fundamentalist Mormon" communities, and the Mountain Meadows massacre, and lots of other things that don't directly relate to the main story, but are indirectly related and make it a much more complete story, and are told using dramatic tension and reveals and other techniques that are usually used for fiction.

Anne, but are any of those ordinary Germans and Russians in Enemy at the Gates fictional characters?

No. They're all actual, real people. The author drew from survivor interviews, letters, diaries, etc. It's been a while since I've read it, but I don't think that he fictionalized or made too many assumptions. While reading, I kept flipping to the photo inserts (which include a number of candid shots--heartbreaking).

Because it seems to me that if I'm going to write non-fiction, I'm going to do my utmost to make the humanity behind it compelling and gripping and readable.

Exactly. That's why I'm so glad that there are historians out there who are documenting 20th century history, recording oral history on audio and video, and getting down all of the details of daily, ordinary-person life that I wish we had for other eras of history. I want to know what the people in charge were thinking and doing, but I also want to know what Joe Cannonfodder was doing and thinking, or all the John and Mary Civilians who woke up one day to find out their back yard was part of a war zone. I want to know what they thought about things when they didn't know how it was all going to end.

I think, need something more than "just the facts, ma'am", because the facts, in my worldview, are always going to be contradictable by a second viewpoint.

Wrod. It was interesting when I was visiting St. John, New Brunswick, hearing more about the American Revolution from the descendants of those who were British sympathizers and who wound up fleeing to a place where they'd feel more welcome.

if you're writing non-fiction, something compelling drew you into the story in the first place.

This is why I refused to see the movie "Pearl Harbor," and why I resent "Titanic" as much as I do. WTF is up with all the doomed love crap? Jack and Rose were dull. To me, interesting would have been Ida and Isadore Strauss, the old married couple (and owners, IIRC, of Macy's). They were the sort of old marrieds who called each other "Mama" and "Papa." Being both female and wealthy, Ida was pretty much guaranteed a spot on one of the lifeboats, but she would not, under any circumstances, leave Isadore, even though it meant going through all the terror and dread leading up to what must have been a horrible death. Jack and Rose? Ptooey.