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
Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.