Rolling Stone: Creative Nonfiction, Fiction or Lies

The article written about ‘Jackie’ at UVA by Rolling Stone magazine underscores the importance of knowing the difference between reporting fact, using the genre of creative non-fiction to tell a story and fiction. If the article, A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA, was written as creative nonfiction and this was not stated, then it is a lie. If it was written as fiction and published as a news article, it is also a lie.

Creative nonfiction is based on facts that support the story. In the telling of a true story using the genre of creative nonfiction, the reader learns truth as well as the importance of that truth. This is not journalism and reporters are not paid to write creative nonfiction. Nor is a reporter paid to embellish the facts of a story, nor manipulate their meaning. Sabrina Rubin Erdely, the reporter of the Rolling Stone article should be well aware of this.

When I first read the article about what allegedly happened to ‘Jackie’ when she was a freshman at UVA I thought the writing or the telling of the story could have easily been a really good work of creative nonfiction. There was an arch to the story, a perfectly timed presentation of the main character’s thoughts, and clear descriptions supported by hard-hitting dialogue that assured the anguish of my response. My partner and I then discussed whether the style of article was appropriate and I reasoned that regardless, it was probably allowed by Rolling Stone as it made compelling reading. My partner was more skeptical. Still, given that the story was reported as fact in a reputable magazine I believed the facts of the article were true despite the creative-nonfiction-like style of presentation.

As it turns out, the article about a planned, gang rape at the University of Virginia may be a good example of creative nonfiction. Or not. It may be simple fiction. Either way, the consequence is the same – it can’t be believed.

When creative nonfiction is presented as pure fact, then it becomes a lie and the essence of what is being revealed loses any power. I’d like to believe Jackie was trying to tell her version of something that happened. Unfortunately, I can now only guess that she told her story and that it was then so changed to suit the agenda or perhaps the story-telling abilities of the reporter that there is nothing left that can be believed.

In the Rolling Stones article, if the story was retold as creative nonfiction by a reporter who has strong writing skills, whatever power the truth of the story may have had was completely lost by not noting the use of this writing style. If the story was retold as pure fiction, then Erdely is guilty of lying by submitting it as a news report. If Jackie knowingly told lies about what happened to her, (which I don’t believe as she tried to stop the publication of the article), Erdely is still accountable for not fact checking – as is the whole staff of Rolling Stone.

Shame on Rolling Stone for allowing the article to be published as fact. Shame on the writer for ignoring the difference between reality and fiction. Shame on me for blindly trusting the author and the magazine to understand the power of the written word and their jobs.