My thoughts
about memoirs are as follows. The book doesn’t have to be the entire truth for
it to be considered a memoir. If the story is really boring, people aren’t
going to read it. Just vamping it up a little, doesn’t mean it’s not true. It’s
still the same story, just enhanced in places to make more of a profit and keep
readers entertained. I don’t see what is wrong with adding to the story as long
as the author isn’t completely changing what happened. It might as well be a piece
of fiction if it’s going to be a lot different than what actually happened. If
that’s the case, why not just put on the cover that it is based off a true
story? That way, you get the best of both worlds. Back to the point, I think
that if the story is changed only a little to increase interest, it can still
be considered a memoir.
I also
believe that half-truths are ok in memoirs. It’s not fair for readers to be so
upset upon finding out a memoir isn’t COMPLETELY true. It’s the author and
publisher’s job to create an interesting story that is going to sell and be
popular. So, if that means adding some fluff, then why is that so bad? Readers
overreact because they feel cheated. People lie to each other all the time.
Besides, they probably wouldn’t even have found out anything was a lie. It’s
not a crime to add to the story for the benefit of the reader (keeping it
interesting), and the author (creates more profit). Half-truths are totally ok
for memoirs as long as they don’t entirely alter the story.
No comments:
Post a Comment