Is there truth in autobiography?

I quote Inspector Morse (to Lewis), "Artists have an annoying habit of painting what they see rather than what's actually there." The autobiography is probably more distorted than other biography as our resentments, anger, egotism and frustrations are released on full rampage and given the whole stage to run riot on!

I think that memoirs are more untruths than novels - in as much as everything can only be seen through one's eyes, and novelists sort of accept that, whereas, if you say, 'This is how it happened' you are saying that your interpretation of events is the only way. Everyone loves the 'untrustworthy narrator' in fiction, but in Autobiography we are expected to 'believe'... I also know that had I told 'the story of my life' at various different stages of my life it would have come out differently... because my perspective changed. When I was younger I hated my mother, and thought she was the root of all my problems... now I'm older I can associate with the emotional experiences that led her to do lots of the 'cruel' things I experienced... Mostly I think it's more fun to base characters on aspects of yourself, rather than try and tell it 'like it is'. And the thing with autobiography is that you make yourself 'The Hero'... and let's face it, none of us are heroes all the time, are we?

That's why the best autobiographies are the self-aggrandising ones... such as Alan Clark (whose politics I loathed, but whose diaries I have read more than once because they are just SO GOOD), or Pepes (a whinging, cruel, wifebeater who buried his cheese in the great fire of London - it's just so funny)....

James Frey comes across as an angry, arrogant man who is sitting on a bundle of festering resentments..

I don't know why so many people are so into 'real life stories', but it seems to be the case that, if they are, they feel enormously cheated by the idea that they're made up, even though there's arguably more truth in good fiction than in one person's account. Interesting case: Lemony Snicket. Pick up one of his books and read the biographies of the author and artist. It's pretty clear that, despite being laid out in exactly the same way with no disclaimer or outside hint, the bio of the artist, Brett Helqueist, is true, while the bio of Lemony Snicket is not. Why do we draw this conclusion? Presumably because, in our experience of what the rest of the world gets up to, Helqueist's story is believable, while Snicket's is more akin to what we expect from fictional characters. So perhaps we approach things on the basis that, if they sound like something that happens in the real world, they must be truth, whereas if they sound like something that happens in fiction, they must be fiction. Unless, of course, the author makes a claim made for the opposite. This is, evidently, a pretty stupid approach to take in a world where nothing is entirely fictional or entirely factual.

* Is there truth in autobiography? * * Why do we do it? And, possibly more important, why do we expect others to read it? * Not being a literary scholar I wouldn't even hazard a guess as to why people do it, other than to say that maybe professional writers (ie. those already established and popular) already have a readership and it's a cheap story, (in the sense that the story line already exists and the characters set in stone, making lengthy plot planning unnecessary), that's bound to sell by the truck load. There seems to be some unfathomable idea that a writer's life is bound to be more interesting than yours or mine. Personally I believe that to be patent rubbish. I'm not saying THEIR lives are less interesting, merely that there is no good reason why they should be MORE interesting. My answer to Mark's initial question is, unless you know the individual writer there is usually no real way of knowing what degree of truth they choose to utilise in order to give their version of events. I can only speak for myself and say that my autobiography, (still only a brief outline, but I'm working on it) is absolutely 100% the truth as I believe it to be. (No doubt some of those mentioned would dispute certain events) As to why we do it, I've already given one possible reason above, but in my case it was catharsis, and to have my version of events spelled out for my family to read at some point, (I might add that as of right now no member of my family even knows of its existence). I posted it on the web at a point when I was fuelled with enthusiasm for writing sites, but to be completely honest, I don't 'expect' anyone to read it, much less comment on it. It HAS been read a few times, and it HAS been commented on, and I was encouraged by that, but I certainly wasn't looking for any kind of recognition or plaudits. There has been some pleasant and desirable repercussions though, along with a few sad ones!

I dunno, but I always liked that Fargo said it was 'based on true events' which was actually a complete lie.

"Surely, though, this is the case with all fiction? I imagine that most people think that fist fights go on for ten minutes at least, and that jumping from a building has a far higher survival rate than it actually does." Well, people are always arguing that fantasy violence influences people, so in a way the complaint is the same: "I and my fellow humans are gullible, weak morons who are unable to approach any medium of art or entertainment without attempting to duplicate the events therein."

yes i think the article anecdotally illustrates how gullible desperate people can be, though i do wonder how many other readers tried coming of booze the 'Frey' way and succeeded. I wonder how much pressure there was on 'Frey' to remarket the book as auto-biographical, as apparently it had been rejected a no. of times as a piece of fiction. It also appears therefore that 'not quite good enough' writing can be seen as exceptional with the atuo-biog tag. Now whose fault is that? Publishers who publish anyone who is a 'celeb', however dire the writing is, or the reading public who seem to crave this sort of book - forcing the publishers to find more? It is a bit like TV, real actors squeezed out by the 'stars' with no discernible acting talent from reality TV. Will this phase pass, or has the golden age of quality entertainment disapeared with the 20th century? Didn't Andy Warhol predict this shift? Anyway how do you turn a novel set in the future without men into an autobiog? Shameless plug for my book Xy chapter 18 due soon. Juliet

"Will this phase pass, or has the golden age of quality entertainment disapeared with the 20th century?" I don't think there's ever been a 'golden age' of quality, except in retrospect with an extremely selective memory.

This is a very interesting topic for me, as i've just acquired an agent on the basis of what could be called "inquiring memoirs". Basically this form is one that consists of a collection of memories which are framed, interwoven and interjected by reflections from the author. The problems of course, arise when the need to tell a good story supercedes the need for complete veracity. It could be argued that the only honest thing is to admit that you're lying about some of it to make a good story or to shore up a perspective. This gets tediously post-modern in theory, but i believe it is possible to converge narrative and reported-as-fact into a form which remains genuine as a piece of literature. We're not all blessed with the lionesque qualities of alan clarke, and i believe that writers need to maintain that the GREATER truth of the story is sacrosanct. I haven't read the new statesman piece yet, so i can't refer to the example it uses of the drug guy. But by the responses on this board he may have lied about kicking the drugs without assistance, that's such a fundamental part of the story, aligned with the major outcome, that i think that's just a bit sleazy.

I have read James Freys book. It is a vary good book and he is one of the many people who inspiresed me to write my stuff down. I admite I was a little disapointed to here about the lies he told. He said he lied to make himself look like a hero as a coping tool to his addiction. My mom and I are varey interested in this topic also if you have anymore information on James Freys book A MIllion Little Pieces please write to me at redcoldworld@hotmail.com or post it on this forum. I also have a blog you can visit to coment on this forum. http://redcoldworld.blogdrive.com

if you go to the smoking gun website, they have a comprehensive guide as to the truth or not of frey's book. it's really long and complex, but it's not just one or two details, there seems to be a great deal of lying going on. and like all prolific liars you get the impression that he's lost track of them all.

Harry Kerdean I read in this morning's paper that Frey has apologised for all the lies, it seems that very little of what he said was actually true. Oh and he's been dropped by his agent. I must confess I haven't read the book, but all the talk about it over the last week has made me want to. About his addiction problems, he probably didn't recognise any help he recieved which is often the case. By the way, my own biography, Naughty By Nature, is true, maybe I should exagerate some of the incidents and spice it up, maybe I'll have a best seller.

The best autobiography I have read is Julie Burchill's I Knew I Was Right. She totally admits that she will lie throughout the book.