Do we need different sections for non-fiction compared with fiction?

[Michael]

What do people think? Should all books be kept together, or should we separate them into real crime and fiction?

[Lori]

I'm fine with keeping everything in one category, but it might be helpful to some to separate the two, as they maybe less familiar with the titles.

[Michael]

Thanks, Lori - any other views?

[Joseph]

I think it's fine keeping them together, you can usually tell from the title and/or author as well, and summarising of course. :)

[Carol]

As the saying goes. Truth is stranger than fiction, and I'd like to believe most avid readers probably know how to determine the historic crime books which are factual from the fiction which is most likely based on a factual event. However, in general, II doesn't matter to me whichever way the group would decide, or whichever way our "esteemed" moderator would prefer.

[Christine]

I think it's keeping those books together

[Michael]

Well, I'm happy to go with the general consensus - I must admit I'm a little surprised: I'd have expected more people to want to see the books separated, but it only goes to show how much I know!

[Christine]

Well that was my idea

[Stacey]

I'd think it'd be easier to keep them together in one - I know many authors I read take an actual historical crime and use it as the basis of the plot for their fictional characters. I wouldn't know whether to categorize some of my books as purely fiction or non-fiction, they're so interwoven!

[Christine]

Well i think that's the easy way to do it stacey