It's about me, but you wrote it; is it about you?

My Grannie Annie always liked to read Biographies because she said it was real life and would ask, "Who needs to read fake life?" I like fiction, myself, and I know others prefer personal memoirs.

I think the genres of write offer an interesting puzzle - a quirky twist, if you well, to the claims we have on why we write. One who writes an autobiography takes authority of their own journey (this is the truth of what happened to me). A biographer, however, uses his/her authority to depict the journey of someone else (this is the truth of what happened to them). Meanwhile, the fiction writer, uses reality to base imagination from and to build a tale that makes sense (this is the lie about what happens when you think about several truths together).

My question is, then, who has the most authority? Does authorship place the writer in an authoritative role? Why wouldn't a fictionalized story work just as well, for example, to explore President Obama's presidency? Or would it be better if he wrote the truth about his own life? Better yet, what if we hire a brilliant scholar to write about the president?

My quandary is, which is the right answer for the actual presidency that Obama leads?

Take any crime scene. Multiple tales are told from multiple people. Something TRUE did happen, but it might be impossible for any of us to know it -- even about ourselves. I guess that's why Americans hire so many lawyers.

Then there's the issue of "why write it at all?" Many people live many lives. When it isn't document textually, do they not exist?

I'm going to bed.