I think that autobiographers can’t tell the truth because one, they are subjective and two, their memory may not be the best source. Because our memories of things and events change, there would be no way to know if what is written is real or made up, unlike a biographer who can conduct interviews and cross-check facts.

I think there are three reasons that causing autobiographers can’t tell the truth. One is that one might unable to be honest to himself if the event he wrote is negative to his statue on the society. Second reason will the event is not only related to himself or herself but also others who don’t want to disclose themselves, such as the first question pointed out. The third reason is even the writer is telling the truth but the reader may doubt about the authenticity of the story and may think the writer is lying.

Autobiographers cannot tell the truth because individuals are not always true to their selves. I believe that an autobiographer might no be able to tell because that individual might not want to harm reputation or lose any credibility one may have earned. Furthermore, subconscious reasons might prevent the autobiographer from telling the whole truth. For instance, one’s mind might have blurred out traumatizing events. Lastly, an autobiographer may be writing immortalize one’s self. If this is the motive, that individual might not want to have their shortcomings etched to their image, so he/she might lie about their life.

A person can’t have an unbiased stance on their own life. They will take their own side, or the side of their friends and family, always resulting in a skewed perspective of a story rather than an objective one.

Autobiographers write about themselves, and they believe that there is too much at stake: friends, family, and a reputation. They fall victims to fear’s trap by writing only the details that make them look better to the reader. It is difficult to remain unbiased, when discussing one’s own life.

Autobiographers cannot tell the truth because sometimes self-opinions become influenced in fear of losing respect and prestige among other people. They pick and choose whatever glorifies their own image the most, even if it isn’t completely truthful.

When autobiographers write about their life, they usually feel some type of pressure to make an impression. They need something to gravitate readers involved becoming invested in their life. This can lead to stories becoming convoluted and fabricated. Controversy usually sells, which makes over dramatizing stories beneficial.

Because most of the time an autobiographer will be writing a good stuff of himself and avoid any negative thing. that is why is hard to be an autobiographer because you must be brave to accept everything the way it was considering the pros and cons of the life lived.

Autobiographers can’t tell the truth, because we always see ourselves in the best light. Remember situations with our own perspective whose memory is corrupted with “how I remember it”.

In any situation there is his story, her story and the truth. Autobiographers are frauds? I can agree with this somewhat, because in order to be writing a book about yourself, you must be held in high esteem in your field. You must have self confidence, and you must also want people to see you better than you actually are.

Autobiographers can’t tell the truth because of their own viewpoint. I think people tend to look back on mostly the positives aspects or mostly the negative aspects of their lives. As such, they lose the ability to be objective about what was going on in that time in their lives.

Autobiographers struggle to balance of pride and humility. If they skew too far to either side, the audience will begin to question their authenticity. Even if one extreme is the truth, one might tweak the story to find the right balance that is palatable.

Autobiographers can’t tell the truth because the truth may be too harsh and personal for them to reveal. They may leave out certain factors that are hurtful and embarrassing. They can leave out the truth all-together or alter it.

A journalist’s literary imagination could play around with the facts in a more objective way but also would use words and phrases that could minimize the power of an idea or matter.

I think biography and the journalist’s literary imagination can serve as an antidote to an autobiography because it remedies some of the problems with autobiographies (like an autobiographer’s inability to tell the truth). For instance, autobiographies tend to be biased or omit facts, and biographies can address that problem by presenting different sides of the story in a more objective way and fact checking the stories. A journalist’s literary imagination presents that story in an appealing way that is engaging and interesting to read.

Biography and literary imagination might serve as the antidote to autobiography in many ways.

One way that biography counteracts is by adding an unbiased facilitator that can help the individual tell the true story. The biographer can even help the subject recollect past events and illustrate in a manner that provides justice for the subject. Also, any biases an autobiography may have can be mitigated.

The journalist’s literary imagination can also counter autobiography in terms of how the journalist writes. The use of the journalist’s language will play a strong part in the antidote. in addition, literary imagination allows the reader to understand a subject in a more profound manner and leave a more thought evoking presence.

Biography coupled with journalist’s literary imagination can describe a person’s life as colourfully as it was lived. No one’s life is as drab as facts in bullet point form. Biography and literary imagination solves the issue by losing the personal bias an autobiography would have, but keeping the energy and soul of an autobiography.

A journalist’s literary imagination can serve as an antidote by a creative and legitimized combination. Biographies will present more facts that allows people to be more educated compared to an autobiography. These facts can be presented in a appealing way through quotes and statistics.

Biography can serve as an antidote to autobiography because the journalist, in theory, has a more objective viewpoint. The journalist can take multiple accounts of someone’s life and try to mesh together the “realist” version of that person and their story.