The confliction of truth in creative
nonfiction is very real to me.Even
recently, I have pondered the concept in relation to my own writing.There are times when I worry that what is or
was my reality may not be the same reality as others who were involved in the
same situation.For the most part, these
are family members who may eventually read what I have written.I frequently wonder, fearfully, if they will
accept some aspects as my recollection or become defensive, claiming that I
have fabricated bits and pieces of my work.There are some parts of our history that some may be unable or unwilling
to uncover and admit.The mind is the
most powerful thing we own and, I believe, it has the ability to shut out
and/or enhance certain situations depending on one's own needs.In my opinion, it is important to remember
that memory is not concrete.Memories
may evolve, shrink, or stretch over time, causing shifts in ones
recollection.The way that my sister
viewed an occurrence in our childhood was, most likely, very different than
what I recorded in my mind. There is no
doubt that years later, through growth, maturity, and experience, our
perspectives have changed. This lends to
another view of that same situation.
I find it difficult to rationalize
the argument that memoirs can be fabricated or false due to the fact that no
one can truly know what you saw through your eyes; felt, smelt, and tasted
through your senses; or captured within your mind. Perhaps what was most important and pronounced
in a situation for you was only a miniscule detail to someone else, causing
them to lend it less attention and therefore, making your vivid details and
descriptions seem exaggerated or even false.
Unless the audience can place themselves within the thoughts and
memories of the writer, they cannot see what is seen through the eyes of the
author nor can they experience the sensations and emotions in just the same way
or appreciate them in the same way.