By Isaac Butler
Here's the thing...
When you come out with a book that says that facts don't really matter in nonfiction, that if you bend or fabricate them without clearly signalling to the reader that you're doing so in order to increase the effectiveness of your writing it's generally okay, it really does have the long term side effect of decreasing the effectiveness of the future writing you do under the auspices of nonfiction.
So, for example, when you write a lovely little essay about Ansel Adams that purports to in some ways get inside the moment when Adams discovered what his photography was all about, the piece is immediately knee-capped, because it relies on quotes as a form of evidence, as a form of signpost on the reader's journey. And we already know from your book that the quotes you use in your writing have been in the past unreliable and unverifiable. So who knows on what basis the thing rests? And who has the time to independently verify every single quote in a blog post that is asking the reader to trust it in order to experience its loveliness? And if you can't trust the quotes, then what are we left with besides some supposition and lovely sentences?