Shooting an Elephant Response

For a text to be considered "creative non-fiction" it must, first and foremost, be factually sound.  While the author may shape the piece to read more like a work of fiction (hence the creative part of the name), the text's main objective is to inform its readers in a factually accurate manner.  George Orwell's "Shooting an Elephant" does just that.  Orwell combines fact with creative narrative to effectively tell a true story.  When reflecting on Ellen's questions (do we actually think Orwell shot the elephant and does it really matter) I believe yes, Orwell did shoot the animal and yes, it does matter.  

For me, breaching the rules of non-fiction by inventing a time, place, or event is comparable to breaking an academic honor code.  The breacher automatically loses the trust of those who are most important to their success (for students it is their professors, deans, and fellow students; for writers it is their editors and readers).  When an author loses the trust of his/her readers, it is almost impossible to gain it back.  

I can't help but think of the case of James Frey, author of the national bestseller "A Million Little Pieces."  Frey initially sold his story as true, gaining the respect and sympathy of millions of people.  It was later discovered, however, that not all of his story was actually factual, and his blatant dishonesty caused a major uproar across the nation. (Oprah even called him out on national television.)
As a reader who has been deceived, I believe it is incredibly important for writers to properly identify the genre of their writing and to remain faithful to it throughout the entirety of the text.  Though I suppose nobody can know for sure if Orwell really did shoot the elephant, I would like to believe that he honors himself, his work, and his readers enough to tell the truth.