Is the veracity of memoirs that important? | Autobiography and memoir
People are turned upside down when a memory is not 100% true (the vision of the guardian on the scandal of the path of salt: the memories have a duty to tell the truth, July 11)? Really? Stay … it’s a book. Written by a person.
How many people do you know who always tell the truth? In addition, how many people do you know who tell a good story that has no embellishments to make it a little better story?
Even in addition to improving a story, most memories of people are intrinsically inaccurate. Two people during the same event will not report exactly the same scenario.
A memory is an opinion of a story that has been adorned to make it a good story. A memoir is not a dry historical account of events.
Like a conversation in real life, readers must distinguish the facts they choose to believe in those who are embellished. I have no problem with that. A perfect historical account of the life of most people would be very boring.
Rachel a Lawrence
San Francisco, California, United States
The best justification for the veracity or not of memories comes in the prologue for Spike Milligan of Milligan “rommel”. “Gunner who?”, In which he used a line of the former Greek historian Thucydides on the reliability of memories: “I only described what I saw myself.” Then added: “I just jazz for mine a little.”
Andrew Keeley
Warrington, Cheshire
