Read It Forward discussion

Hundreds of you responded to our RIF poll "Truth, Fiction and War" - we were interested to learn that many of you believe that fiction can tell the truth of war better than history.

As always, if you've read THE WATCH, we want to hear from you!

If you haven't read, we want to know if you're interested in reading the first major novel of the Afghanistan War.

Goodreads emailed me that I won a copy of THE WATCH. When I receive it, I'll finish whatever I'm reading, then read THE WATCH.

I don't think the right word to use is "better." Fiction doesn't tell the truth of war BETTER; it's just usually more interesting than a history book, so a reader is more inclined to pay attention.

Story truths can be as compelling as nonfictional truths. In books about war, the story truth is usually based upon fact, yet there is the deeper meaning the author wishes us to see in the novel. I am thinking of Tim O'Brien's 'The Things They Carried' as a good example of a novel of story truths like that. As a demi-historian, it is important to note that most war novels take place during real wars, so there is that basis in fact, along with the feelings invented by the author to which we need pay attention; not all feelings in a novel are fictional.

Cheryl wrote: "Story truths can be as compelling as nonfictional truths. In books about war, the story truth is usually based upon fact, yet there is the deeper meaning the author wishes us to see in the novel. I..."

You say that that an author's feelings in his novel are not always fictional. I don't think "fictional" is the right word. Feelings are never fictional, but they're emotional, not fact. Especially in historical fiction about a war, authors state their opinions as fact.

This is the danger of historical fiction. Too many readers think it's fact when, in truth, some of it is truth, some the author's opinion.

I'm reading THE WATCH right now. Towards the end of the book, the author has several characters stating as fact what is really partly fact and partly the author's opinion.

Great discussion, Cheryl and Beth! Thanks for participating.

I'd like to hear the author agree with me. :-)

I think that in a novel, feelings can be invented. It makes the story more interesting than just stating facts. There is always the author's 'opinion' or slant on the story. This is what delineates historical fact from historical fiction.

I finished THE WATCH.

At first I thought this book was an expression of the ugliness of war. Eventually, I saw it more as an expression of the futility of our presence in the Middle East. When I got to that point, there was a lot of preaching. It got tiresome.

I did not find this story engrossing or a page turner as some reviewers describe it. But I can see why many reviewers, probably those who liked the preaching, feel everyone should read it.

Beth wrote: "I finished THE WATCH.

At first I thought this book was an expression of the ugliness of war. Eventually, I saw it more as an expression of the futility of our presence in the Middle East. When I g..."

Thanks for your candid review, Beth!

Cheryl wrote: "I think that in a novel, feelings can be invented. It makes the story more interesting than just stating facts. There is always the author's 'opinion' or slant on the story. This is what delineates..."

Very true, Cheryl!

To each his own. A lot of people share your opinion. I disliked the preaching, which is what I thought seemed like the author's purpose in the whole book.