The Palimpsest of Memory

1. If a thing is worth doing, it is really worth doing well?

2. Does memory improve or degrade an event?

3. Does memory improve or degrade a person in an event?

4. How does our version of an individual or event square with a performance of that person and/or event featuring that person?

5. Which is more important in our recollection of an individual or an event involving that individual, ambiguity or agenda?

6. Why is it unseemly to speak ill of the dead?
a-Adolph Hitler, for instance
b-Richard M. Nixon, for instance
c-Henry Kissinger may not be dead, but he is toast.

7. How are we able to impeach a president for lying about sex and not be able to impeach a president for lying about causus belli?

8. At what point do we want to upwardly embellish a pleasant memory?

9. At what point do we want to add more vitriol to an unpleasant memory?

10. At what point does memory of a person or event become a handicap?

Bonus Questions: Even if we are telling events as directly and guileless as possible, does it follow that the reader will believe the narrator?

How can the writer learn to imply that any given character is telling the truth?