A reader is considering cutting off ties with a sister-in-law who published a memoir that misrepresented her partner, prompting a question about who owns a family story and whether reconciliation is possible.
The reader explained that the sister-in-law wrote an emotionally charged memoir of family dislocation and trauma, in which she "massaged the truth" of the family's past to portray the reader's partner as emotionally damaged. In fact, the partner is empathetic and was beloved by those he worked with, the reader said. The memoir contained many omissions and mistruths, and the sister-in-law failed to factcheck with the family.
The sister-in-law tried to de-identify her brother, but he would be recognisable to anyone with a basic ability to search the internet, the reader noted. Legal action was considered but decided against. The reader asks: "Who gets to tell a story in these times? Whose story is more 'true'? And should we cut off all ties or attempt reconciliation?"
Expert insight: who owns a story?
Psychologist and psychoanalyst Prof Alessandra Lemma, who was consulted for this column, said the core question is "who owns a story." She explained that the way people experience facts is highly subjective and individual, and there isn't a correct account in a strict sense, because versions are filtered through our own internal world.
Lemma noted that the reader's letter approaches the situation as if there is an objective truth, with the reader and partner owning that truth, and the sister-in-law misrepresenting something. "Many families have fallen out over this: whose truth is the actual truth?" she said.
She advised the reader to first have a conversation with their partner to decide who wants what: does he want to do something about it, or is the reader the one aggrieved? "Everyone has a different version of a situation, and yours may be different even to your partner's," Lemma said. "You can't undo what has happened, so is there a wish to bring the family back together, and does that override the injury of having been treated as you have?"
Considering reconciliation
The column suggests that the sister-in-law should have taken more care when writing about her brother. The reader mentioned that the sister-in-law has been challenged over the memoir, but did not specify by whom. The column advises that a face-to-face discussion would be the "grownup, decent thing to do," but only if the partner wants to engage in that.
If the relationship between the family members was relatively OK before the memoir, the column recommends attempting reconciliation. Lemma also pointed out that, despite the grievance, it would be a real shame if a book about family dislocation and trauma results in more of the same.
The column concludes that the reader has every right to feel aggrieved, as the situation sounds upsetting, unfair, and largely avoidable. The sister-in-law's inclusion of the brother in a way that could identify him, without a heads-up, is questionable unless his inclusion was an essential part of the book.
