1. The
Life
Span
of
a
Fact
By:
Brett
Henderson
Just
how
fictional
can
a
non-­‐fictional
story
be?
In
the
book,
The
Lifespan
of
a
Fact,
John
D’Agata
and
Jim
Fingal
battle
out
that
exact
question.
I
found
this
book
to
be
a
very
interesting
read;
I
liked
the
way
that
it
included
the
back
and
fourth
banter
between
John
and
Jim.
In
the
book
John
says
“It’s
called
art,
d***head.”
Jim
replies
with
“That’s
your
excuse
for
everything.”
John
rebuttals
with
“It’s
not
an
excuse,
Jim,
it’s
how
I
approach
the
genre”
(The
Life
Span
of
a
Fact,
pg.
92).
This
quote
is
an
example
of
the
knock
down
drag
out
fight
that
the
book
shows
for
its
entirety.
It
also
kind
of
sets
the
tone
of
the
book,
how
fictional
can
a
non-­‐fictional
story
be?
To
really
get
into
the
book
and
break
down
what
I
was
reading,
I
kept
in
mind
two
different
questions.
Whose
argument
is
more
compelling?
What
issues
does
the
book
raise?
Both
are
very
essential
when
processing
the
information
and
making
a
decision
on
who
you
agree
with.
Who’s
argument
is
more
compelling?
I
had
an
internal
battle
with
this
question.
I
see
both
sides,
half
of
me
wanted
to
agree
with
John
because
it
makes
sense
to
write
with
the
imagination.
For
a
writer
to
tell
a
story,
make
the
read
to
believe
that
they
are
living
in
that
story
and
emotionally
connect
with
the
surroundings.
The
other
half
of
me
likes
facts
and
statistics,
so
it
was
almost
frustrating
to
see
the
blatant
misuse
of
true
facts.
I
started
thinking
back
over
the
time
we
spent
in
class
on
credibility.
I
decided
that
I
was
on
Jim’s
side,
and
if
John
was
writing
a
“non-­‐fiction”
essay
it
should
be
factual.
I
came
to
this
conclusion
when
thinking
about
the
issues
of
credibility
we
discussed
in
class.
In
the
article
Principles
For
A
New
Media
Literacy
it
states
“In
the
traditional
news
world,
even
though
we
understood
the
prevalence
of
minor
errors
in
stories,
even
by
reputable
journalists,
we
also
understood
that,
by
and
large,
the
better
media
organizations
get
things
pretty
much
right.
The
small
mistakes
undermine
any
notion
of
absolute
trust,
but
we
accept
the
overall
value
of
the
work”
(Gillmor
D.
2008).
From
my
perspective
of
his
stance
in
this
article,
I
believe
that
he
expects
the
true
facts
most
of
the
time
to
bring
credibility
to
the
writer
or
organization.
He
understands
that
there
will
be
slip-­‐ups
that
are
going
to
happen.
If
the
organization
has
a
reputation
of
being
credible,
mistakes
can
sometimes
be
overlooked.
Jim
felt
uneasy
about
the
whole
situation
from
the
beginning.
In
a
conversation
with
the
editor
Jim
says,
“For
a
piece
that
seems
to
rest
on
the
weight
of
a
lot
of
details,
it
seems
a
little
problematic
for
John
to
be
washing
his
hands
of
their
accuracy,
no?
(The
Life
Span
of
a
Fact,
pg.
16)
I
felt
a
little
cheated
by
John
after
reading
this
book
and
finding
out
that
the
facts
from
the
story
aren’t
entirely
true.
I
had
never
heard
nor
read
the
story
before
reading
this
book,
so
I
can
only
imagine
what
the
readers
of
the
essay
felt
like
after
reading
both
the
article
and
the
book.
What
issues
does
the
book
arise?
I
think
the
main
over
lying
issue
is
the
discussion
between
the
two
authors
about
what
to
categorize
this
essay
as.
Coming
from
Jim’s
point
of
view,
fact
checking,
it
is
a
“non-­‐fiction”
essay.
He
believes
that
it
should
be
factual
and
truthful.
Jim
says,
“John,
but
don’t
you
think
that
the
gravity
of
the
situation
demands
an
accuracy
that
you’re
dismissing
as
incidental?
This
isn’t
just
about
the
name
of
one
slot
machine.
I
mean,
even
if
there
was
no
inherent

2. meaning
in
these
details,
you’re
giving
them
meaning
by
calling
attention
to
them.”
He
continues
by
saying
“You
are
writing
what
will
probably
become
the
de
facto
story
of
what
happened
to
Levi
and
so
every
detail
you
choose
to
do
that
with
will
become
significant,
because
your
account
will
be
the
one
account
anyone
is
ever
likely
to
read
about
him.
And
that’s
why
to
me
this
is
serious
business,
because
the
record
you’re
creating
now
will
be
regarded
as
the
authoritative
one,
if
only
because
there
is
no
competing
narrative
anyone
else
is
likely
to
read
or
write
about
this
kid”
(The
Life
Span
of
a
Fact,
pg.
107).
John
on
the
other
hand
see’s
his
writing
as
a
story
that
should
use
the
imagination
to
capture
the
reader.
John
states,
“It’s
not
that
I’m
claiming
there’s
no
meaning
in
this
flood
of
information,
Jim,
but
rather
that
the
more
important
thing
to
highlight
here
is
the
search
for
meaning.
An
integral
part
of
my
search
for
that
meaning
is
this
attempt
to
reconstruct
details
in
a
way
that
makes
them
feel
significant,
even
if
that
significance
is
one
that
doesn’t
naturally
occur
in
the
event
being
described.
“
He
also
states
“I
am
seeking
truth
here,
but
not
necessarily
accuracy.
I
think
its
very
misleading
for
us
to
continue
pretending
that
nonfiction
writers
have
a
mystically
different
relationship
with
“The
Truth”
than
any
other
kind
of
writer”
(The
Life
Span
of
a
Fact,
pg.
108).
In
John’s
opinion
he
is
seeking
the
truth,
he
is
find
answers,
and
then
writing
them
in
a
way
that
makes
the
readers
feel
like
they
are
apart
of
the
story.
This
is
where
the
issue
between
them
comes
in
to
play.
They
get
on
a
carousal
back
and
fourth
and
can’t
agree
to
a
clear-­‐
cut
solution
to
the
issue.
They
end
the
book
in
a
disagreement
and
go
on
their
separate
ways
continuing
their
different
outlooks
on
what
a
“non-­‐fiction”
story
is.
In
conclusion
I
really
enjoyed
reading
this
book.
The
back
and
fourth
banter
between
the
two,
which
was
a
huge
part
of
the
book,
was
something
I
haven’t
ever
experienced
in
a
book
before.
It
was
interesting
to
see
each
their
point
of
views
and
how
they
stood
their
ground
through
out
the
book.
The
whole
book
circles
back
around
to
the
original
question
I
had.
Just
how
fictional
can
a
non-­‐fiction
story
be?