Grasping for the Wind

Memoirs vs. Histories

I prefer to read memoirs to histories. Seems a little strange doesn’t it? One would think that you can learn so much more from a true history than from a memoir. I disagree. Memoirs dive into the truth in ways no history ever can.

Histories are often dry, overly academic, and purport to be unbiased while in fact being exceptionally biased. With a memoir, this is avoided. Memoirs are intensely personal, and describe a history as seen from the inside. They have a narrative rather a subjective ordering of facts. Memoirs show the interrelatedness of their time and place much more easily.

This is not to say that histories aren’t useful. The attempt at objectivity is necessary, and nearly achieved in most cases, but the attempt often leaves the facts without soul. There are exceptions, and with the emphasis on narrative in modern literature, there will be more. This is however not always the case, and rarely true of the histories in the time frame I desire to read about, hence my reliance on the memoir.

I just find the memoir to be more open, interesting, and honest than the history. It is biased, but the reader is aware of this fact, and does not subconsciously place undue reliance on the author’s facts.

This is all just opinion. I'm not really saying one is better than the other, just what my preference is through experience.

Posted by John on January 16, 2007 10:54 AM | Posted to Literature and Language
Share: