Question

What is true about an autobiography

Answer 1

A person writes about himself.

Answer 2

An autobiographical account may be inaccurate in various ways. It may be intentionally or unintentionally inaccurate – call these two kinds of error lies and mistakes. It may be factually or psychologically inaccurate. It is clear, for example, that Rousseau was incorrect about some of his factual claims. However, he argues that he is completely accurate about his own internal life. We only have his word for this; we can only have his word for it; there are no independent witnesses to his psychological states. But it is possible that he was lying or mistaken about aspects of his inner life. Of factual inaccuracies, some can be independently investigated and some cannot. Things claimed to be done in private, without leaving evidence, may be irrefutable. Of psychological inaccuracies there are various kinds. Authors may represent the thoughts, opinions and inner life of earlier selves according to their current perspective’s whim. They may ridicule, insult and denigrate the memory of earlier selves, or justify, motivate and explain their current stance by citing thoughts and beliefs that earlier selves may or may not have had. They may tamper with their earlier selves’ values (including morals), for the purpose, for example, of throwing their current values into sharper relief.

Many times an author may have forgotten parts of the story and so interpolates plausible events.
An autobiographical lie may be introduced for the sake of the formal structure of the work.
Authors may "fictionalize" adventures to render a substantive truth elegantly, compactly or entertainingly.
There is no instrument for measuring the truth of a writer's autobiography, other than our own sensitivity as readers. But writing of quality will always be true, for it has the person—the author—standing behind it. He steps through it to stand before our eyes.