How is Writing Non-Fiction Different From Fiction?

If I were to sit down across the table from you, cups of java in hand of course, and ask you how writing non-fiction is different from writing fiction, how would you answer? Think on it.

Ready? Answer in mind?

You are wrong, Bucko.

Today I'm here to blast out of the water the three most common misconceptions the average humanoid believes to be true about non-fiction vs. fiction.

Myth:
In fiction you get to make things up, but in non-fiction you can only list facts.

Busted:
Would you seriously want to read a novel wherein nothing is true? Fiction needs to have facts incorporated in order to be believable.
And conversely, in non-fiction you need to creatively express your facts so that a reader doesn't shrivel up and die from literary dehydration.

Myth:
Story is fine for fiction but forget about it for non-fiction.

Busted:
We all live in some kind of story. Maybe your life is a drama right now. Or perhaps you're living in a sit-com. Whatever, story grabs hold of readers because that's where writing connects with their heart. This is every bit as much true for non-fiction books as well fiction.

Myth:
Writing fiction is harder than non-fiction --or-- writing non-fiction is harder than fiction.

Busted:
They're both hard. Each requires attention to detail, word choices, writing tight, and content that scoots the reader to the edge of his seat.

Sure, there are some differences between the two. There is no arc or climax in a non-fiction book, no protagonists or antagonists. Fiction has a theme but it's not a useful how-to tool.

The point is don't be all puffed up thinking non-fiction writers are smarter than fiction authors, nor put fiction writers on a pedestal of supreme creativity because non-fiction writers surely only deal in dust-dry words. Writers are writers no matter the genre. Words are words. The great divide isn't so great after all.