Recounting History

I've often thought that accounts of events should always be written in 2 versions.

One, the immediate, visceral, raw account of things as they happen. Capturing it fresh prevents rationalization and perspective from setting in and spoiling the true experience. It's like plucking fruits off a tree and munching on them atop the branches. The writer is just a medium in this case. Transmission loss is minimal and the reader can afford to transport herself to the event. The only biases induced are that of the writer's eyes - different people focus on different elements of a canvas - and of his language - not everyone can write like Michael Palin.

Second, the thought through account which finds meaning, pattern and motives in events through a retrospective lens. This allows the author to add his bit. It's like eating a fruit jam where the processing, sugar and preservatives enhance (or distort) the original taste of the fruit. The writer is not just a medium but also the filter. He chooses what to amplify, what to ignore, what to dissect, what to connect. The only truth is the event - no one can dispute it's occurrence - but your account will bear little resemblance to another account of the same event.

Both versions are important. The difference is that of emphasis. One is the truth and little else. The other a reflection of the author's intellect with the event just providing the spring board. The reader is better off in either case as long as she realizes the difference and digests accordingly.