Troubles of Biographers: Survivor Memoirs

Oprah interrogates Frey.

Trouble 4: Voyeurism

At this point, survivor memoirs become a necessary issue, namely the challenge they pose to composing good biographies. 

To define: survivor memoirs are a sub-genre of autobiography (sort of). They almost always follow a specific pattern: chapters about the author's terrible childhood and teenage years followed by...

Survival, I suppose. Frankly, the emphasis on the horror of the past is so strong, the survival aspect kind of gets lost. 

The authors end up on Oprah a lot. 

Sometimes they lie. 

I dislike survivor memoirs intensely. I also believe they offer a rabbit hole of supposedly good intentions for autobiographers and biographers. That rabbit hole should be avoided. Here's why:

1. Survivor memoirs almost exclusively focus on the horrors of the past, usually in excruciating detail. There is a kind of therapeutic achievement in reciting those horrors but for the reader, they eventually lose their sting.   

Modern survivor memoiralists appear to believe in a

kind of medieval Wheel of Fortune--luck, not ability.

2. Survivor memoirs rarely focus on the survival part of survival. There is often an implied reason for the survival--"The strength of my character!"--but the reader rarely witnesses that strength of character: the decisive choices, the acceptance of aid from others, the long-term plans, the resulting philosophy and current life experiences. 

Again, such events are often implied (hence, the visits to Oprah) but weirdly enough, the authors exhibit an almost freakish indifference to how they made their way out of the horror. The very thing that I find interesting--and could prove helpful--is sacrificed for Stories About All the Terrible Stuff I Experienced! Therapy by Popularity!

3. The authors of survivor memoirs rarely provide any type of outside support/defense for their experiences. In fact, there is an underlying (Victorian) attitude that a demand for such evidence is callous and rude. The authors may even argue that they aren't trying to prove anything; they are just relating their perceptions. They are attempting to capture the feeling of events rather than the reality. 

Memoirs do have a fictional, crafted feel. Unfortunately, quite often the events in survivor memoirs are presented and defended as givens. I once questioned one such memoir and was told, more or less, "But she is so nice!" I was flummoxed as I often am in such conversations. What does the person's niceness have to do with her fallible memory? 

Absolutely nothing. 

4. Despite the focus on horrors and subjective memories, these survivor memoirs are intensely popular. I have no idea why unless the missing description of any actual hard work is part of the attraction. I am often forced to fall back on the uncomfortable explanation of human voyeurism, the same attraction people have to suicide jumpers on bridges and terrible vehicular accidents. 

I should make clear at this point that I often believe--when I am forced to read these memoirs--that the author did work hard to escape/triumph over a negative past. I even sometimes accept the author's perceptions. Often, the events can be backed up by outside evidence. 

Law & Order: CI has an episode "Faith" in which the

editor "fixes" a survivor memoir to become a best-

seller. She has been conned but continues to believe.

However, I can never shake the unsettling feeling that the publishers/editors have cut the original manuscript to fit the accepted formula for the genre. (Oh, get rid of all that stuff about your study habits and work interviews! Tell us more about your Pain!)

The memoirs collect believers, not skeptics.