Write 500 words on this: “Should I include reconstructed speeches in my autobiography?”
I believe it depends. First, what is a reconstructed speech? The best way I can describe a reconstructed speech is like this. Imagine you had a conversation with someone but don’t remember everything said. The reconstructed speech is reconstructing what was said. These sound very important in an autobiography, because they are. But should you include them? Personally, it depends.
One reason I think you shouldn’t include them is if it is against something you dislike. If you remember a conversation when you were wrong, you might skew it, so you looked right. In the most recent autobiography I read, Geronimo. He twisted stories like the death of Mangas Coloradas. This was so it looked like he wasn’t as dangerous as he was. If you use reconstructed speech as a weapon, not a tool, you can end up twisting what actually happened or how you actually were.
Twain’s autobiography, which I just finished, also had quite a few reconstructed speeches. Twain’s autobiography was quite disjointed as he tells many stories with what is supposed to be accurate dialogue. In Twain’s book, he tells a story of one time when a man ate an acid fruit that tasted terrible for really no reason. I’m sure there was a reason, but Twain doesn’t include it. I believe he reconstructed it to fit with what he remembered.
Reconstructed speeches are a very tricky thing to use. I would say don’t rely on them as your main storyteller, but rather, if you need to use them, try to be accurate and maybe get another side of the story if possible. Now as if I were to include them in my autobiography? Most likely not; I find it to be a difficult subject to get right. If you remember correctly and have maybe another source, I believe they are okay to use.
WB School Blog 