In our ASTU class, we recently read Running in the Family by Michael Ondaatje. This is a historiographic memoir because it’s about Michael’s family; but he tells it in third person as If he was living alongside the older generations. When I started reading this book, I took everything he said as the truth, no doubt about it. The whole time, I was thinking “wow his family is quite adventurous!” Once I got to class and we started talking about the book, someone brought up the fact that it didn’t all seem true. Which led us into a discussion about the factuality of his memoir. I was shocked to find that he, indeed, wove in false details into the stories he was telling. From then on, I read the rest of the book knowing the ridiculous affairs and tragic death stories, were most likely not actually true.

This got me wondering about how stories are told. If a celebrated author can publish a book with made up histories and call it a memoir, how important is the truth after all? Without all those extra details it probably wouldn’t have been as good of a read. After reading his memoir, I’m not going to go fact check him. Therefore, why does it matter if he tells the truth or not? In Michael’s case, a big reason for writing his memoir was to find some truth about his father. Yet, ironically, he tells the story with lies, to try and understand who that man was.

As children we are always told not to lie. It’s always better to tell the truth, but why is this? If the person believes your lie, and there is no reason to be upset from it; what is the harm done? We could argue that there is no harm done, since both parties were satisfied with the end result. In Running in the Family, Michael blurs the line between truth and fiction. Yet, as the reader, I am completely satisfied with the story that he has told. I don’t need the truth. Society has taught us to never lie, but sometimes, a little exaggeration is exactly what a story needs.