Whenever I think non-fiction, I don’t think my brain will ever be trained to not instantly think books first, and something like the Guinness Book of World Records’ 1977-2005 copies that were scattered all over my primary school’s library. I understand non-fiction to mean fact, and truthful, though when I think about why the decision may have been to use the words non-fiction, as opposed to documentary, I kind of first assume that whilst what we will be trying to document are non-fictitious, I guess I thought the words being more of a blight on the potential loaded bias that exists in documentary occasionally, perhaps sometimes inescapably so, though I’m not actually sure this is actually why this has been done for this studio. In fact, I don’t think so at this point, it kind of seems like the use non-fiction is geared more towards moving past the typical format of documentary on top of this bias.

In the Shield reading I think it helps contextualise for me, through its conglomeration of non-fictional thoughts, or written excerpts, to help us gain an understanding for what non-fiction consists of and the space which non-fiction operates in, being far reaching and quite illustrative as the only category that it needs to really fall in is that it is non fictitious. Though in that respect, I think the saying or thought “All the best stories are true” really fuels the flame as to what non-fiction could be, as here I feel like the word true doesn’t necessarily being 100% fact, but rather maybe like, genuine? Or something in that respect