Why is writing so biased towards fiction?

As a full-time journalist and features writer I'm always curious as to why aspiring writers seem to frequently disregard writing news, features and other typical non-fiction pieces.

Some time ago I was a member of a writing group and I got the impression that being a freelance contributor to magazines was not considered on the same level as someone who has published a work of fiction.

Arguably, it is an equally challenging industry to break into, and writing non-fiction cannot be said to be any easier than fiction (there will always be anoraks at every turn to fact-check you!!!) but you could also say there is more scope to enter, with a huge variety of magazines, papers and journals always looking for beautifully crafted interviews and stories. It is also easier to make a living at this type of writing, by that I mean it will typically offer steady work, though does require a lot of commitment and tight deadlines.

Why then does it always seem to be the case that fiction writing is the primary aspiration of writers? Is it an expectation of overnight fame and riches? A desire for celebrity status? Is there more pride in being a novelist than a journalist? Is non-fiction considered restrictive?

 

I would say that for me at least, it would be harder to write non-fiction. In non-fiction you need to get things right, there is little to no margin for error. While in fiction I can just use my imagination to fill in shortcomings.

I admire those who work in the real world with real problems, writing about real things.

For me, it's also about escapism, the real world is very complicated and can be a bit of a burden, then it is easier to escape away to your fantasy or sci-fi world where the rules may be different.

 

Writing fiction is more like a hobby for most writers, because it's not really profitable unless you have a bestseller. Getting a book sold would be a personal milestone of achievement, even if it didn't pay for the food consumed while writing it. Regarding existing material to be inspired by, there's lots of old myths and legends in history to start from that most people haven't heard of, which is much better than copying misconceptions from television.

 

I do wonder how much sampling error is in play with respect to the original question.

For example - This particular forum has a little bit of everything in representation, but there can be no doubt that there is a strong lean toward novels over short stories and Science Fiction & Fantasy over other genres.

Other forums where I play have differing leans. Some are more General Fiction, some have a strong Romance Genre showing, others are balls deep in highly intricate Military Fiction.

Can it be that you are experiencing a surfeit of writers leaning into Fiction over Non-Fiction because you haunt their haunts rather than the more usual haunts of the Non-Fiction crowd?

 

Eric Blair was a journalist , essayist and critic before writing novels using the pen name George Orwell . I believe it was a more common route to becoming a writer in the past , Charles Dickens and Hemingway were journalist before becoming novelists. I believe, but I don't know if it is true , there is less opportunity to sell articles and like than there was back in their day?

 

That makes sense. I suppose if we're to view writing as a form of escapism then I can understand why most people would favour that.

Perhaps, but the original question was why so many aspiring writers seem to favour fiction writing over non-fiction journalism, or articles, scientific stuff, etc. No doubt many of the authors you have read never had any intention of becoming writers, but their expertise made it a viable option.

I'm not sure what you mean by sampling error. Googling 'how to be a writer' the clear favouritism towards novel and fiction writing gives an idea of how anyone might come to the same conclusion. It's anecdotal evidence, granted, but it's hard to argue for a sampling error when your 'sample' is years of being a member of writing communities. I even mentioned above, that joining writing communities made me feel a bit of an outsider. I don't think asking the same question of a journalist communities would provide any insightful conclusions either.

Besides, is it a defence to say judging message boards like this one doesn't count? The banner says 'writing forums', not 'science fiction and fantasy writers forums' after all. I found it by googling 'Writer's community' and it was the top result.

Presumably its popularity comes from the fact it serves the needs of people looking for a writing community of all walks of life, not simply science fiction and fantasy writers.

Anyway, this is all beside the point. This is certainly not an attack against fiction writers and I'm not asking fiction writers to defend themselves (I'm one too, remember!). But if you don't believe there's any truth in what I've seen, fair enough.

I would say there are far more opportunities to become a journalist now. It especially seems the ones who spin absolute drivel find the easiest work ...

But seriously, this is something I reflected on a lot. Most of the writers I admire had started as journalists. Dickens in particular, while he is lambasted now for his sexist views, was one of the great social reformers. I have read many of his articles where he catalogues the working conditions of the Victorian poor in order to petition for action from government. Doubtless it influenced much of his work, as the same will be true of the other greats. Even Lovecraft, the reviled master of horror, was an amateur journalist.

 

You talk like fiction writers don't have difficulty finding the right groups or the appropriate specific information they require. I've been to plenty of groups that really didn't offer me anything despite us all being there for fiction. And actually, the last in-person writing group I went to was 80% creative nonfiction writers.

I've been a nonfiction writer as well. I wrote articles for company blogs. There were communities about that, although less because less people do it.

 

For me, its because someone can cover a real topic in a plethora of different ways. Facts presented with various biased, depending on who wrote the non-fiction work. I do enjoy non-fiction, just have to be aware of who wrote it and then have to get somewhat familiar with the topic they are writing about so I don't believe just anything they say and so on. Its been relegated more to the research sphere for me.

I can pick up a novel and just read without having to worry about being lied to.

 

I agree with @Wreybies in finding a place that leans more toward your specific need.

Personally, i think Non-fiction is too targeted for an over all "writing group"in the sense that a non-fiction writer really does have to do a pretty substantial amount of research. For example, i am reading "The Great Pretender" by Cahalan, about the psychologist who went undercover with his students into mental hospitals in the 70s. I doubt Cahalan would have found this site helpful. She talks about visiting the research partner of the psychologist of subject. Mush of the documents and papers she used by this psychologist had never been published before and very sensitive and personal.

Someone writing a memoir would have to delve into the personal life and interviews of their subjects.

A supposed a non fiction writer would benefit from general help from sites like this, but theme? Genre? Tropes? Style? Would these really be beneficial to non-fiction? (Honest question... I dont know the answer).

More targeted groups would be better. A psychological society, for example,for Cahalans work. Genealogical societies have a bunch of writers who write books based on or about genealogy. Historical societies,likewise.

Is searching in places most aligned with your goal/purpose.

At least, thats my take on it.

 

It's really a hobby for a lot of people and writing newspaper articles merely for your own enjoyment is kind of a weird hobby.

 

Because I have no interest in writing reality. If I'm going to spend my free time writing, it's going to be stories that I care about and I get more than enough real world news the rest of the time.

 

In consideration of popular acceptance of fiction over non - fiction, it is my opinion, muddy though it may be, that they are not simply twin offspring of a common parent, but two very different species who share the DNA building blocks of words and punctuation.
Broadly speaking, non - fiction is subject to the confinements of fact and the foggy, adjustable rearview mirror of history. Fiction is so much more; in fact it is unlimited in its scope,themes and construct.
This freedom of thought and expression are what we are first exposed to as children larning to read. Fantasy is seductive ; Dick and Jane can ride a cloud or eat kumquats with a Cheshire cat . Thus begins a life-long addiction to whatever comforts the bruised psyche. Dick and Jane, in my experience at least, were never interviewed about their impending break up; nor did they ponder affairs of state.
So it goes with fictional writing and all its tributaries. Fair or unfair, fiction stands on non-fiction's shouders in an unspoken artistic class system .
Entertainment and diversion are the first course at any media table. While non - fiction may provide nutrition, fiction is dessert and consumers are, collectively, obese. It is natural therefore, that the apiring writer looking to advance his/her career would look to the fictional novel as the best and most fashionable oeuvre for gaining fortune and fame, disregarding the fact that many are called, but few are chosen.

 

I'm going to blindly believe I've just invented this... you know you get the epistolary, a story made up of letters, well how's about a literary piece/works told through headlines and column inches? A saga of a story, set over decades, I don't now, some elusive (big public interest) bandit to be the pro/antagonist/subject. A chance for a writer, well versed in the journo-field, to flex their typewriter skills and vary their style. Each scene the words of articles that lean left right, centre, and the shades between those?

 

Ultimately, very few people ever start writing in their teens or thereabouts by writing non-fiction, mainly because they and their peer group don't entertain themselves by reading non-fiction.

And that's also true of higher age groups. Very few people read non-fiction for entertainment. They read it to learn or be informed. And most people like to write what they read.

I could write a series of articles on Japanese history or database programming. But unless I'm running a website about those subjects or submit them to a website that does, no one is going to read them. And I really have no interest in doing that.

As for news articles, I'm neither a reporter nor a journalist, and not being on the scene of the news story, why would I write one? I mean, I'm not the guy interviewing the election candidates, so I'm hardly in a position to write from knowledge.

 

Still a better scenario. Most previous writing groups / communities I was part of made it seem like the split wasn't between fiction and non-fiction, but between fiction and fan-fiction.

*shivers*

Nevertheless, it's because both sides have amateur and proficient writers. However, only one side has exposure on the internet. You'll see a lot of forums and boards dedicated to amateur writing, worldbuilding, etc.

You'll see far less dedicated to ghostwriting, search optimizing, mass blogwriting, etc. They aren't really a hobby. Nor something "to be discussed". As far as I noticed, that's what makes up the bulk of non-fiction writing anyhow.

I may be wrong though.

 

There really are different skill sets at play when you look at journalism compared to creative writing. I'm speaking from my own experience, but journalism is all about getting the story. They used to say the biggest tool for a journalist was shoe leather. And I went through many pairs of shoes back in the day when I was a journalist before switching to creative writing. Journalism is very competitive, and a front page story one day doesn't mean you can't be fired the next. Gosh, I think I lived through a decade-long panic attack. Everything is fast in journalism. And the thing is if you're good at finding stories and uncovering issues, then the writing isn't as important. It's always the story that comes first. You also have to be a bit fearless to really be a good journalist. Man, when I think of the stuff I did to get a story it's kind of crazy.

I had more than one editor tell me I was lucky I was a good reporter because I was not the best writer. Still, everyone (or most reporters) in a newsroom wants to be the star. So, I had to compete in other ways. And the idea of a lifetime covering school committee meetings made me decide to go to some dangerous places around the world. Basically, my job was to uncover the truth. That was my main focus. The writing was just how I got the information out there.

I do have to say I don't think I ever sucked as a writer, and I was lucky to work with great editors. But when I started talking to agents and publishers about a book I was working on I was told things like "The problem with journalists is they can't write" and "These aren't chapters. They're magazine articles." Still, people were willing to work with me because I had a good story and access to sources others didn't. A good story will always make up for mediocre writing in journalsim. But the competition is pretty fierce and the pay sucks. Just thinking back of my past career is exhausting. It's not that journalism is easy because it's not, but news stories are written to be much more accessible to the general public, usually at a 6th to 8th grade reading level for the most part.

I'm reading the new Woodward book right now and it sure isn't Gabriel Garcia Marquez, but it's not supposed to be. Still, I don't think that takes away from his book and the story he's written. And it may win some journalism awards, but I don't see it taking home any literary award. Again, that's not what Woodward was ever trying to do with his book or any of the other things he's written over his long career.

I decided I was going to get an MFA. All my journalism friends were asking why and saying I was already a writer, but I knew I wasn't anywhere close to where I needed to be to sell fiction. A very small part of journalism is the actual writing. The hard stuff is in getting the story. I did have to learn to write differently. Moving past the short, clipped sentences was probably the hardest part for me. I felt like I was a recovering journalist for a long time, and I think that's kind of true.

I spent a year writing fiction and taking classes before applying to MFA programs. Without doing that I honestly didn't stand a chance. In creative writing the language is much more important. In addition to publishing fiction I also publish creative nonfiction, but, for me, essays also are not the same as straight journalism. Even with researching and fact checkers involved, the language (the actual writing) is often equal if not more important than what the story is itself.

Journalists have one of the hardest jobs out there. I'm not going to argue that, but the job goes beyond what's printed on the page. My journalism past I think does help me to some degree with essays and my judgement on what I think is important to say, but with creative work I don't need to get both sides of the story. I don't have to be unbiased. I'm still writing the truth, but I'm now telling my own stories and my own truths. When my essays are published, I often feel naked and exposed. I never felt that way as a journalist because they were always other people's stories.

With fiction it took me several years to start publishing. And I think I needed those years of failed attempts to start really writing at the level that's expected for literary writers. Sure, I had some good stories, I just needed to become a different sort of writer. I needed to become a better writer than I ever would have become in journalism. And that's because it really is a different form of writing.

I think news is important and freedom of the press is the backbone of democracy. But creative writing is more of an art, and that's important in different ways.

 

Journalism isn't real nonfiction. At least, it has different goals and intentions from nonfiction writing. And then you can subdivide nonfiction into serious nonfiction (history, historical biographies, instructional) and less serious (celebrity biographies, self-help). I would say that all three of those are conceptually different from fiction, in terms of writing and writing well.

 

A lot of journalism is just fiction these days. It's not intended to inform but to inflame.

 

Welcome to the information age...

Years ago, it took a media company; whether it was a magazine or newspaper with enough circulation; and thus budget, to hire journalists to go out into the world, to have them try and decipher what was happening, and then report on it to a populace who could not be there themselves. Today we are much more globalized, and have instant access to information as they unfold. We no longer need an intermediary to go there as people are already there, and they upload that information to youtube and facebook and its broadcast to the world. It is much more credible because there is no trying to figure out what happened, the people that know, report it instantaneously.

As an example: I do not need NBC to go to Turkey and report on a earthquake there. People in Turkey are already there and have uploaded their videos for me to see.

But the world does not exist in a vacuum. Fake news is prolific on all sides because there is a NEED for content, and that is just what the world is getting...content. It no longer has credibility because there is no time to discern if this is real or fake, it just has to fill a void for it to have value. We can even go back in time to when this started, and it was the infamous moment when Dan rather lied to the nation. That was the start of it all.

On the information that is harder to discern, there is only so much information a journalist can know. Today, there is so many back-door deals that a journalist cannot possible investigate the depth and breadth of what is happening and report back on it.

So fiction rules so that people can escape sketchy information overload.

 

I'm a trained journalist, though I have been far, far out of the industry for decades.

Writers of non-fiction, I think, tend to do it was a way to make a living. Professional bloggers, newsletter writers, print or broadcast journalists, academics, etc,...these aren't usually hobbies. Fiction can be a hobby, or at least a serious pursuit one can do while doing something else to keep body and soul together.

I think this is a lot of the answer to your concluding question. People who aspire to be non-fiction writers are usually working toward it from the beginning of their educations, or of their careers. Many who write non-fiction don't aspire to it, they do it (or, like me, fail to do it and move on to things they didn't aspire to). Fiction is something you can do in your basement. You don't need to be concerned with facts, what people said or didn't say, what they did or didn't do. Fictional people aren't going to sue you.

I think fiction writers dream of, but do not expect, overnight fame and riches. But fiction is something you can do without worrying about whether the time spent will bring you money or not. Perhaps there is some conflict between "art" and "commerce" there, but I'd argue Tom Wolfe, Eric Larson, Tracy Kidder and Susan Orlean (among others) have successfully combined the two.

 

I haven't read the whole thread, but what immediately strikes me is that fiction is far more emotionally satisfying. We go to non-fiction for different reasons—facts, information, news etc. And while some non-fiction can be profoundly exciting to certain people, for the vast majority an article just doesn't provide the emotional kick a story does. Therefore, maybe it's a romanticized idea, but the idea is that a writer is a writer of fiction, just as if someone tells you they're an artist you probably assume a painter, and most likely a painter of the traditional fine arts type material, portraits. figures, landscapes and still-lifes, rather than say a medical illustrator or something similar. We always prefer the romantic over the instructive or factual.