Memoir vs. fiction: an article apart?

[caption id="attachment_1002" align="alignleft" width="144" caption="Inspiration for overdue talk on "a" vs. "the""][/caption]

Not to drag James Frey back out of  the depths of repressed memory, but I was reading Daniel Mendelsohn's review in the New Yorker of  Memoir: A History, by Ben Yagoda, and came across this wonderful little acorn:

That last part is what a lot of fiction writers already know--that in many cases you take liberally from your own life (or those of innocent loved ones) and make a better story of it. Like the proverbial fisherman, we might embellish our yarns with lots of flourishes and exagerrations and perhaps even catch a hyperbolic bass, so that we get closer to what it really felt like. Closer to the truth. One of our great nonfiction instructors, Shari Caudron, and I were e-mailing about it, and she referred to the core of Mendelsohn's argument:

But the truth we seek from novels is different from the truth we seek from memoirs. Novels, you might say, represent “a truth” about life, whereas memoirs and nonfiction accounts represent “the truth” about specific things that have happened.

Could the difference between memoir and fiction really come down to the article before the word "truth"?

I'm not sure if there's really such thing as "the" truth, but I do know that I most respect the memoirists and nonfictioneers who dedicate themselves to trying to reel it in. And I don't think fiction writers get a pass when it comes to truthtelling, either. As we typically say when we get stuck on a story: Where did I lie? That's usually the spot where the wheels came off.

--AED

Subscribe to The Lookout