There's been a bit of discussion on these threads about whether it matters whether Raymoth embarked on and completed the 630mile SWCP in one go. Let's say they just took 5 weeks to walk from Minehead to Lands End in 2013 and then did the rest in dribs and drabs over the next 3 years. Does it really matter? Does it really matter if they embellished real encounters, distorted reality and claimed to have undertaken a 630 mile walk along the SWCP in 2013-4 when they didn't. Can't we allow a certain amount of artistic licence?
Call me traditional, but I believe that if you are claiming to write an unflinchingly honest travelogue, it has to be exactly that. You can't airdrop subsequent walks into the narrative and claim it was part of the same tapestry. You have to have a clear dividing line between truth and fiction. if the story doesn't stack up based on the true narrative of what actually happened, then you can't simply distort the narrative. At that point it becomes fiction.
In 2021 I walked from Wiltshire to the Swiss Alps to raise money to repair the roof of the church in our village. I'd originally planned to continue to Rome but had to return to the UK after 2 months on the road (wild camping and staying with pilgrim host families on the Via Francigena.)
I wrote up my walk into a 300 page account of what happened but decided to take it no further for the very simple reason that having taken a break in the middle, that seemed to invalidate the whole concept of the enterprise (walking from St Peter's Church in Winterbourne Stoke, Wiltshire to St Peter's Rome)
I also thought what insights and angles can I add to the journey that haven't already been explored by others who have walked from Canterbury to Rome? The answer was, not very much! I wasn't willing to embellish the truth to spice up the narrative. That was a red line for me and for the travel writer (Harry Bucknall) whom I met before I set out on the walk.
His thoughts on the TSP controversy struck a chord with me, and I'm sure he won't mind me quoting them here. (PS His next book is due out next March!)
Non-fiction still requires an author to tell a story; sometimes for the narrative it is permissible to shape events to improve the read, but I think it all boils down to one simple principle, which is, tell the truth.