What are your thoughts on being ambiguous over what is based in fact and what is fiction for the sake of building intrigue? Joan Lindsay's Picnic at Hanging Rock comes to mind as a good example of this. It has the pitch of being based on a true story, but what parts are true, and what parts are fiction don't receive any distinction. Joan when asked about her story would refuse to elaborate on many details. From her perspective, the mystery of the meta-narrative was important to the main story.
if it's a fictional account, then it's fiction and a writer has great license to play with "the facts" as it were. Something that's purported to be nonfiction, however, may contain errors or lies.
What are your thoughts on being ambiguous over what is based in fact and what is fiction for the sake of building intrigue?
Joan Lindsay's Picnic at Hanging Rock comes to mind as a good example of this. It has the pitch of being based on a true story, but what parts are true, and what parts are fiction don't receive any distinction. Joan when asked about her story would refuse to elaborate on many details. From her perspective, the mystery of the meta-narrative was important to the main story.
if it's a fictional account, then it's fiction and a writer has great license to play with "the facts" as it were. Something that's purported to be nonfiction, however, may contain errors or lies.