Should I include reconstructed speeches in my autobiography?
In my life so far, I have not delivered a speech to an organized audience, eventually I will, but I think this question applies to speeches not necessarily directed to an organized audience, but really anything that I have said that changed my life or the lives of other people. Also I think this question applies to speeches given by other people that have had an effect on my life.
When I write my autobiography I want it to be a clear insight into my life and how I lived it. I believe that my autobiography should be accurate, but it should also be interesting and engaging. There are plenty of ways to make it accurate while also keeping it appealing to the reader, and I do not think it is always necessary to include reconstructed speeches in order to keep the reader engaged.
I believe that monumental speeches should be written accurately as possible, with every detail included. If there is a long speech that would be difficult to read through to the end, then perhaps it would be a good idea to write a clean summary of it and only include the important details leaving out all of the extra fluff. When I have the option to stick with the original piece, I will not change it, but if needed, I would be willing to make a few minor changes.
When I think of reconstructing a speech, I think of rewriting it and completely changing the wording, or perhaps even changing what was said, and if I make major changes like these, I am no longer offering the reader an accurate reflection of my life. Perhaps my understanding of reconstructing a speech is different from that of someone else, but overall, I think that I should not include reconstructed speeches in my autobiography.