Borges said that he happily professed the doctrines propagated by H.G. Wells, but “deplored his inserting them into his narratives.” Whether a writer writes fiction or any of the forms of non-fiction I don’t think it possible for that writer to be completely objective. A fiction writer, through one or many characters, can’t help but profess some sort of belief – how could they not, as each character ostensibly comes from their head. And, even though a creative non-fiction writer on a stunt is relating to you what is happening around her, she is telling you what is interesting to her; she must see a pattern of disparity as it relates to what she knows. I would say that it is the imbalance of the world around us that helps form our opinions. Your idea of dissimilitude will differ from mine.
It is the conflict between what I think is right and what other people are doing that I don’t think is so virtuous that will, sometimes, form my ideas for expressing my ideas. More often though, I think we gravitate to the things we enjoy and give meaning to our existence, and I just don’t think it possible to leave these things out of writing no matter how we may try.
Borges believes that if a writer is omniscient, we can confuse him with the universe or god. However, if the writer “descends to the level of pure reason, we know he is fallible.” Yes! Fallibility, humanness! This is what is attractive and inclusive. He goes on to say “Reality is inferred from events, not reasonings…. God must not theologize; the writer must not invalidate with human arguments the momentary faith that art demands of us.” I think this an argument for being there, in a moment, to describe that moment as faithfully as possible. I would go further to say that that instant is worth penning because you have compared it to your experience and it interests you and somehow you’ve found meaning in it.