Talk:Creative nonfiction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Creative nonfiction article.
Article policies


This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Merge with New Journalism

It's been suggested on the New Journalism talk page that it should be merged with Creative Nonfiction, as there is quite an overlap with NJ, CN and other terms such as Literary Journalism. I think that a small subsection on this page explaining the origin of the term and perhaps the book of the same name might be appropriate. (I know that there's an exhortation to be bold, but I'm fairly new and not quite bold enough to merge them myself without others commenting). Liquidindian 06:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Do it do it do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.78.90.158 (talk • contribs)

Creative nonfiction has almost nothing to do with New Journalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.42.197.76 (talk • contribs)

How so? I'd say that New Journalism is more of a fashionable term for a particular group of writers than exclusively describing a writing style.--Liquidindian 00:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say leave them as two different articles. Creative Nonfiction book authors don't necessarily think of themselves as new journalists (unless they are working for newspapers or magazines). 69.182.145.113 18:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)CD

  • Agreed. "New Journalism" was more of a period WITHIN Creative Nonfiction (see Wolfe, Capote, Didion and others) than a synonym for the genre. The articles should stay seperate. --Felldestroyed 03:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

New journalism is a completely separate entity to both creative nonfiction and traditional journalism. It may have been fed by older - and then informed newer - creative nonfiction, but creative nonfiction itself is a broad, hifilutin term that really doesn't describe anything. Let new journalism have its own wing, as it's actually influenced creative nonfiction, not just come under it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.230.180.159 (talk • contribs)

There's alot of fairly obscure articles on here, and New Journalism is probably a more important movement than many of those which have been given their own articles. I think the link of 'related articles' is enough for people looking at either to check out the connections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.24.10 (talk • contribs)

☼ Being immersed in new journalism directly (I am a journalist that is called a New Games Journalist, but we use most, if not all, of the "new journalism" techniques), I believe no change should be made to this title or category. --K —Preceding unsigned comment added by KristinNcarpenter (talk • contribs)

>>I think the overarching major genre is "Creative Nonfiction" with "New Journalism" being a style of Creative Nonfiction, similar to nature writing or travel writing. I wouldn't want to see this well said article reduced, but inclusion under CNF seems fine to me. Rick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.112.69 (talk • contribs)

I've just discovered this topic, but from the evidence I have (people's comments on this page, length/notability/links connected to the article in question, Google test), I'd have to say Do not merge. Based on the vote and the aforementioned evidence, I'm removing the suggestion to merge. In the future: Please sign your comments by using for tildes (~) as such ~~~~ and also, When arguing over a merge or delete suggestion, bold your opinion. Thanks. 66.229.160.94 04:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Do not merge, concur that "New Journalism" is a subgenre within "Creative Nonfiction." Freerangelibrarian 14:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creative Nonfiction vs. Literary Journalism

It's my understanding that Literary Journalism is in fact a particular TYPE of Creative Nonfiction. I don't think it's accurate to say "Creative Nonfiction, also called Literary Journalism..." You could just as (in)accurately say "Creative Nonfiction, also called memoir..." or "Creative Nonfiction, also called personal essay..." Anyone else have an opinion on this? Hyperjoy7 03:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to post a question, but here goes. I am in a Creative Nonfiction class. We have been asked to find out publication outlets for short forms of Creative Nonfiction, essay length. Please advise.

Hyperjoy7, you are correct, literary journalism (also called reportage) is a form of creative nonfiction. The whole notion that CNF is a subgenre within journalism is irksome and reinforces my determination to write a history of the genre. Freerangelibrarian 21:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expanding and correcting this article

It's a good start but some of the contentions are questionable. Mailer as a pioneer of CNF? The list of representative authors had been very skewed toward New Journalism, which could explain the discussion above. I question some of the choices but preferred to take an additive approach. This article could use a section on form similar to the one for fiction, which would also provide a place to discuss the many literary journals where much of this writing is published. Freerangelibrarian 14:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] references

I'm sorry to put this here but even after reading about how to cite references I'm a little confused. I'd like to use this definition from Fourth Genre in the section on form and have several other links for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freerangelibrarian (talk • contribs) 15:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] research nonfiction; structure of this article

I've never heard such a phrase. I admit that it's hard to describe "uncreative" nonfiction. Also, is it a convention to list practitioners so high in an article? I would think a discussion of form would go higher (and would incorporate that side discussion about poem/prose, which is given too much weight where it is now). A brief discussion of the confusing terms might help... e.g. "nonfiction novel" versus "narrative nonfiction" versus "literary nonfiction," etc. (For that matter I'd like to rewrite this page so it read better anyway.) Freerangelibrarian 11:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] needs history section

Truly my next goal is to write a history of creative nonfiction. I feel dissatisfied by the litany of authors and also believe this article would be better served by a history of the genre, from Montaigne's essays through Woolf and E.B. White and on through the present day. Freerangelibrarian 21:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thx for this post

Oh, and did not know about it. Thanks for the information ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.83.251.141 (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I give up

The latest edits to this page are written so poorly that I really must disassociate myself with this project. I can't babysit this 24x7, and I returned to this page intending to show it to a friend only to find it riddled with the passive voice, academic jargon, and dubious statements out of touch with mainstream thinking in this genre. Y'all have fun with this, but I give up. freerangelibrarian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.224.220.60 (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copy edit

I've cleaned up this article a bit. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts.
You've removed a lot of material from the article, though, in many cases simply with the comment that it is "unsourced." Fair enough: add a {{Fact}} tag to it, and give some time for other people to work on it. Much of what you've removed is, as far as I can tell, correct and valuable in the article -- for example, the list of creative nonfiction practitioners, and the paragraph about the different ways in which creative nonfiction can be structured. (Structure is a tremendously important aspect of nonfiction writing; I'm a former student of John McPhee's and I can tell you that he emphasizes structure above almost everything else.) While removing so much seemingly worthwhile material, you added in a section about a creative writing program for law students at Hamline University?? I appreciate your efforts to improve the article but I'd encourage you to reinsert some of the big sections you took out and give other people a chance to debate/work on them. I'd rather not do it myself because it's hard to sort back through all of these 27 edits you've made in quick succession. Terence7 (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Upon further inspection, it appears that you didn't add in the stuff about Hamline University after all. Again, it's really hard to tell what exactly you did because you made so many edits in a row. Terence7 (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yup, I just tried to clean up a bit of a mess. So much was unsourced, it is easier - and permissable - to simply delete the text. I'll hand the article to you to build up what could be an interesting and well sourced article. Remember though that verifiability is not an option but a policy. If it isn't sourced, it can't be here. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Gee, thanks for "handing it to me" though it was equally "mine" to begin with... I guess I will try to sort through all of those edits, then.
I'm creating a category for creative nonfiction writers and will try to fill it with the list of the authors you removed from the article. A category is probably a better container for that list.
I've also restored the section about the structure of creative nonfiction; you can put a {{Fact}} tag on there if you feel it necessary, but let's not delete it so hastily. I'm trying to see if there's anything else that seems worthy of reinstatement. Terence7 (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I misunderstood! I thought you were interested in working up this page. I wouldn't be so hasty in reverting / replacing unsourced text. It is pointless. Why not source it? Someone else is just going to delete it or it'll end up at AfD. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, I'm just trying to avoid seeing this article needlessly gutted. Wikipedia "policy" aside, I think it's silly to delete huge swaths of mostly good and correct text for no better reason than it doesn't have a citation. Why not request a citation and give it some time?
And I am also suggesting that it is not the best editing practice to make such a large number of consective edits to different parts of the article, making it difficult to see what was actually done (even when you look at all of the revisions at once). Terence7 (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you and I disagree with you! I agree that I too do not want to see the article either gutted or deleted. I agree also that it can be hard to track edits if a lot of work is done. I disgree with leaving unsourced text up because it harms the project (i.e. the reputation of Wikipedia as a reliable source of info). As for tracking edits, there ought to be a better tool to compare revisions. However, I don't spend hours planning an optimum revision 'path'. I edit when I see a problem. It's messy and it is real. Most of my edits were MoS and policy / guideline related. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)