Truth in Non-Fiction

Q&A Question #2: Does an element of fiction taint a work of non-fiction? That is, if a work is almost entirely non-fictional, but has one fictional element, should we call the work fiction or non-fiction?

This certainly does not work in the reverse; elements of non-fiction do not taint works of fiction.

It seems, though, that a work claiming to be non-fictional should strive not to have any fictional elements. It also seems relevant whether or not the author intended the elements to be fictional, which is to say whether or not he knew they were fictional. Perhaps, as a lie needs intent to deceive, fiction must be intended to be fiction.

It does, however, seem next to impossible not to include elements of writing which stray from the absolute truth of what really happened. In putting the event into writing, the author puts her own style into the piece; she chooses what to include and what not to include. We never can see a perfectly full recollection of past events.

I think that an author should strive not to include fictional elements in a work of non-fiction, as that further skews the reality of the story, and is somewhat of a lie to the readers.