Dishing dirt is the point of autobiographies
One of Philip Guedalla’s best observations was that “autobiography is an unrivalled vehicle for telling the truth about other people”.
The barrister and biographer hit on something we all know to be correct – that memoirs are really only worth reading for the dirt authors dish on others, rather than what they tell us about themselves.
I recently asked a politician to name the most odious person they had ever encountered in Westminster. Without hesitation they replied: Sir Alan Duncan. It is probably no coincidence that the MP, along with countless others, had been trashed in the former foreign minister’s diaries, which were published in April this year.
Such was the backlash against the book that I briefly considered collating the views of everyone in SW1 on Sir Alan and pitching it to a publisher.
So when Prince Harry suggests that his autobiography will provide “a firsthand account of my life that’s accurate and wholly truthful”, he is surely not being entirely straight with us. You cannot ever give a wholly truthful firsthand account of your life when you know it is being read by others.
What we will get is Harry (and Meghan’s) truth – but not necessarily anyone else’s. And as far as I can tell, their truth is that they are only ever victims and never to blame for anything.
Perhaps Harry will surprise us in this memoir by accepting some responsibility for his own actions. I’m sure we will all be keen to read it.
But as with all of the Sussexes’s recent outpourings, there will be no right of reply to those on the receiving end of their “truth”.
Which is ironic really, when you consider all their attacks on the supposedly one-sided media.
As someone else once said: an autobiography usually reveals nothing bad about the author except his memory.