when they do, or when your memories make up a collective, you're playing a different ballgame. this is why historical analysis is so important - because you can have 2 people with entirely opposite recollections of a single event, and when this occurs, both contribute but neither commands legitimacy. oral history only truly works as a retelling of factual events when there are numerous points-of-view involved (and of course, people know this - no one goes around believing every word of the Iliad was historical). don't trust the individual voice when it comes to history unless it is backed by documentation or other kind of evidence.
this is why being a historian, to me, is such a noble career. you have to really be a scholar in order to command any kind of unbiased historical expertise. love love love history. but memory fails me, which is why i suck as a history major. Joanna, what a dumb excuse.
back to my original topic. blogging can serve to alleviate time's distorting effects on memory. it can capture the author's feelings at the time they are being felt, events as they are occurring, etc. less room for error on a test when you just studied the material, right? this does not preclude the many negative effects of blogging, though, such as feeding blogger narcissism and reader hostility, and especially general inanity. wow, what am i doing here? haha
