So I wonder whether, for the sake of a genre that is, by definition, grounded in the real, nonfiction books might do better without cover art. If book covers were blank, would people still read? Without titles and cover art? With only words? And yet our visually oversaturated society calls, always, for images. Sometimes, it seems, for pictures before<\/em> language in a world where the written word is increasingly phasing out of fashion. We cannot realistically afford to eliminate the visual. The connection between images and text and the space between them is flush with meaning. Yet as readers of nonfiction, it seems we are obligated to attempt to access the author’s story in its purest from. We owe it to them not to fictionalize fact. \u00a0At root, then, does paratext cheapen <\/em>nonfiction\u00a0text?<\/p>\n If nonfiction is considered a genre of \u201ctruth,\u201d how do these authors understand and approach the issue of paratext when their works are published? Paratext sets the authors at a disadvantage, placing the interpretation of their words one step further beyond their control. And in particular with nonfiction, I wonder if the danger of including … <\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/hamiltoncs.org\/lit220\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/didion.jpg\")
<\/a>