The Truth Behind Memories

Michelle Obama's Becoming and Jeanette Winterson's Why Be Happy When You Could Be Normal? both beg the question of truth behind memories.  Obama recalls a memory that according to Freud (in Atwin's Of Memoir and Memory) would be deemed "indifferent" because her flashback is seemingly mundane and does not contain "dramatic or developmental significance".  Obama rebuttals this, acknowledging that despite this memory being imperfect (she includes the small details she's probably incorrect about/can't remember) the picture in her head still holds truth.  Whether or not her details are accurate, the fact of the matter is how the moment in time made her feel.  She felt liberated as she pulled away from her agenda, racing through the field with her arms in the air "like [a] little kid".  She doesn't remember the specifics because they are insignificant compared to the memorable feelings she had in that moment. 

Winterson's Why Be Happy When You Could Be Normal? asks the reader directly if they consider her memory to be true or not.  She nearly uses the word "true" ironically, because she knows the reader will never be able to confirm nor deny her personal memories; it's through this fallacy that she proves her point exactly.  She shares a memory she has of her grandad in his beloved rose garden, a moment where she questions if she's just witnessed her birth mother and her adopted mother get into an argument.  She asks the reader, "I have a memory - true or not?" - while much of the story is subjective and insignificant (the outfit she's wearing, Mrs. Winterson removing her apron, the slamming of the door, etc) the emotion behind the author's words is not insignificant.  The truth of the story is not in the details, but in the way Winterson feels.