Book 2 Trailer

When Colton met Martin

An unlikely comparison: Colton Burpo from Heaven is for Real and Martin Luther King Jr. I see a striking resemblence between these two...one a little boy who took a little trip to Heaven and a historical figure who played a huge role in the advancement of equal human rights. Both have a vision of something beautiful that they want everyone to understand, but at times find it extremely difficult to get that through to people wanting so badly for the vision that they have to be evident to EVERYONE.

After Colton is fully recovered from his illness and out of the hospital, he goes to the church with his family so his dad Todd can officiate a funeral. Colton asks his dad if he knows if the man that died knew Jesus multiple times, getting more and more serious each time. When he senses that in fact this man may not have known Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior, he throws a fit and is extremely upset. He is especially upset when he sees that no one else in his family is as upset about it as he is, and this boy didn't even know the man that died. Something that was made very evident to him when he was in Heaven for those few minutes was that the ONLY way to get there is to have a relationship with Jesus on earth.

This is the same with MLK Jr., he sees how beautiful the world could/would be if blacks and whites were not segregated, and they lived as one peacefully. Each speech he made displayed passion and reason and an extreme desire for his ideas to be put into action.

A Contrast is that Colton actually traveled to this place and had an out-of-body experience with the beauty that he wanted everyone else to experience. Martin Luther King Jr. had never actually seen the peace he wanted for man kind, but knew it to be possible. He had faith. Just as Colton did. :)

Truth in Memoir

Well, in my opinion and I don't know how else to put it, a book has to be not made up to be considered non-fiction. This is the definition of non-fiction...right? Also, I would say that the events the author is telling of need to be completely plausible or the reader will feel like they are being deceived when reading. We of course wouldn't want that now would we? To me, it makes complete sense to exaggerate the detail and descriptions becuase that's what draws us in! That is what makes us excited and intrigued! I know personally that I would not be too angry if  I found out the season of an author's depression was in fact summer instead of the bleak winter they described in their story so it could fit the mood. I do think it matters if the book is labeled fiction or non-fiction. People wanna know what they are reading. For some reason, it would seem much more horrific and traumatizing to a reader to find out that a book labeled as non-fiction was actually fiction, than to find out that a fiction book actually was true! I guess this is difficult because there seems to be such a fine line between the two with truth-stretching these days. But why? If a book is true, it should be non-fiction, and if the elements of "made-up-ness" overwhelm the truth in story, then it should be fiction. Doesn't seem too trying to me.