Memoirs: Half Truths and White Lies

cynic

The line between fact and fiction in the autobiographies is often wafer-thin. Long before the wave of contemporary memoirs, authors have been tweaking their autobiographies. Joseph Conrad invented a boat, HG Wells omitted his affairs, and Edith Wharton erased the existence of her ex-husband.

These days, authors prefer memoirs to autobiographies. Some for fear of being sued, others "spice it up" to make their book more saleable. In a work of non-fiction, we almost never know the real truth.

Do you feel authors should present the truth and nothing but the truth? Memories are not a cassette tape that can be replayed and memoirs are often the author's interpretation rather than the actual occurrence. How okay are you with authors making up their memoirs? Do share.

Mousetrap

I've not read many biographies/autobiographies or memoirs to offer anything much, but I do think presenting the truth is the only point of writing anything in this genre. If the person's real life or incidents aren't interesting enough, it's probably better off not writing anything at all. While adding fake stuff isn't acceptable, I think it is alright to interpret certain events in one's favour, because it is human tendency to do that.

A good case in point - Roald Dahl's autobiographies 'Boy' and 'Going Solo' for the young audience in which he pretty much projects his life as a very colourful one. I was quite fascinated by these books and there's no denying that they are damn well-written. Later I read Roald Dahl's biography by Jeremy Treglown that gives a not-so-glorious account of his life as a youngster. This book pretty much emphasizes that Dahl's school life and his job with Shell was definitely less dramatic than what Dahl made it seem, though thid is forgiveable.

What is unacceptable is this... I remember one memoir called 'The Education of Little Tree' by a guy called Forrest Carter. It is supposed to be the person's childhood with his Cherokee grandparents and his love for the life in Chattanooga. If you read it, you'll be so impressed by the story - simple, beautiful, tender and a bestseller. And here's the big irony - it not only turns out that the whole thing was fake, but also that the author was a leader of the Ku Klux Klan, who actively advocated against non-whites in the 1960s. Now this memoir is the 'whitest lies' I've read!

cynic

Mousetrap 27-8-2018 04:52 PM
I've not read many biographies/autobiographies or memoirs to offer anything much, but I do think pre ...

This is the reason I prefer memoirs to autobiographies. It is how the events are interpreted by the author. Autobiographies are often colored. What is worse, it is considered acceptable. You know something is seriously wrong when you come across a question like "Do memoirs have to be true?" on a writers forum.

divey

As they say truth is very subjective, what i feel or interpret is always my version of truth which may or may not hold for others. Same way be it memoirs or autobiography its always author's version of his / her life. We may like it more if it is more scandalous as we like nothing more than peeking into other's lives and that is precisely the reason that authors spruce up such memoirs. Most of the autobiographies are written when authors have lived up to their name and are more or less at the fag end of their lives so there is not much more to do for them. So I also think that they deliberately come out with such memoirs so as to remain in limelight and also get the money from sales of books. I am not a big fan of autobiographies as i feel that we learn by our own experiences rather than following in some one else's footsteps; as i said earlier everyone's truth is just half truth

jhsurti

divey 28-8-2018 11:41 AM
As they say truth is very subjective, what i feel or interpret is always my version of truth which m ...

Well said. My thoughts exactly. Ask yourself one simple question: Why would someone write an autobiography or a memoir? You will get your answers.

soothsayer

Is truth such a grey concept?-not sure. But whether it is autobiographies or memoirs-I find the ones I read show that some of the authors suffer from "selective amnesia". not sure which is better-his/her version of the matter or ' cannot recall  that happened' when they are countered .  Many readers tend to look upon their fellowmen as lesser/ inferior beings most of the time- so a very honest portrayal of  self particularly weaknesses is approached with a lot of hesitation. Result-Half truths or truth becomes casualty.

rkrishnay

I read many of them. People wanted to present the way they want to be viewed rather than being honest and truthful. As readers, it is our responsibility to ready different accounts on the same subject/version to frame our opinions

cynic

rkrishnay 28-8-2018 06:49 PM
I read many of them. People wanted to present the way they want to be viewed rather than being hones ...

Exactly. It appears to be more about retaining their public image (and stoke their ego), than the actual truth. Like @soothsayer said, is truth such a grey concept? Some authors prefer going off another tangent with a "fiction" based on true events. It offers them a free hand to fictionalize their story.

soothsayer

cynic 29-8-2018 10:27 AM
Exactly. It appears to be more about retaining their public image (and stoke their ego), than the  ...

you put that beautifully! Fictionalize

rainnice

Could not agree more with the above comments. Atleast memoir route there is hopefully some sort of fact checking too.