People are upset when a memoir isn’t 100% true (The Guardian view on The Salt Path scandal: memoirists have a duty to tell the truth, 11 July)? Really? Get over it … it’s a book. Written by a person.
How many people do you know who always tell the truth? Plus, how many people do you know who tell a good story that has no embellishments in order to make it a slightly better story?
Even aside from enhancing a story, most people’s memories are inherently inaccurate. Two people at the same event will not report the exact same scenario.
A memoir is an opinion of a history that has been embellished to make it a good story. A memoir is not a dry historical account of events.
Just like a conversation in real life, readers need to distinguish the facts that they choose to believe from those that are embellished. I have no problem with this. A perfect historical account of most people’s lives would be very boring indeed.
Rachel A Lawrence
San Francisco, California, US
The best justification for the veracity or otherwise of memoirs comes in the prologue to Spike Milligan’s memoir “Rommel?” “Gunner Who?”, in which he used a line from the ancient Greek historian Thucydides on the reliability of memoirs: “I have described nothing but what I saw myself.” Then added: “I just jazzed mine up a little.”
Andrew Keeley
Warrington, Cheshire
