John P. Moore wrote:I enjoyed reading the manuscript and am in agreement with Tom's comments. However, as I have explained to Haen, I do not agree with his approach of mixing fact and fiction. The reader should not be placed in the position of having to guess whether these tales are fact or fiction. My advice to him was to get rid of the fiction and stick to the facts which should still make the book a very good read.
I think ( first time for everything
) that I used the wrong wording, as you pointed out in the p.m.
I''ll try to set this straight:
The story is about a series of events, and experiences. However after so many years it is logical that I do not remember the verbatim conversations or sequences that took place. Just the total picture of the "gestalt". THAT's where the word "novel" slipped in, for lack of a better one.
THUS conversations and situations were recreated
to best best of recollection.
For example: " I arrived, talked, convinced and left", would not make much of a picture in the reader's mind; they may just be curious about WHAT was said and done; the latter becomes than a matter of fecollection and reconstruction.
IF it would be more acceptable for most readers, I will be most happy to call the whole writing a novel, leaving it up to the reader to decide how much and/or what they want to see as reality. It than becomes a good story with no pretense attached.
In the latter case, i might just go back to the "fly on the wall" approach. as I originally penned it down in the third person, i.e. "he did" "he saw" rather than the first person approach that Aberjona wanted.
Notice how I m getting more and more confused