Pull up a chair, and let’s talk about something that keeps many of us up at night when we’re trying to figure out someone’s story: discrepancies. Forget about a smooth, easy narrative because life, it turns out, is anything but. Memories play tricks, perspectives twist, and everyone has their own agenda, whether they realize it or not.
As someone trying to piece together a life, these aren’t just minor irritations. They’re like earth-shattering cracks threatening to crumble everything you’ve built. That birth date that shifts depending on the source? A key event that supposedly happened in two different places? Motives interpreted a dozen ways? These aren’t things you can just brush aside.
Look, ignoring these bumps in the road? That’s just being scared to dig deeper. Minimizing them? That’s just lazy. My job, and yours if you’re doing this, isn’t just to tell a story. It’s to dig, to analyze, and to build the most accurate, nuanced, and frankly, bulletproof account you possibly can. Consider this your personal how-to guide for navigating the minefield of conflicting information, transforming what seems like a mess into a chance for real insight.
Breaking Down the Beast: What Kind of Discrepancy Are We Dealing With?
Before you can even begin to tackle discrepancies, you need to know what you’re up against. They’re not all the same, and your approach will definitely vary depending on the type you identify.
1. Factual Inconsistency: When the Hard Data Just Doesn’t Match
These are the most basic ones, and sometimes the most frustrating. They’re about verifiable facts that flat-out contradict each other.
Think about it:
- Dates: A birth certificate says January 15, 1920, but the person’s autobiography claims July 15. Uh oh.
- Locations: Two different historical sources place a crucial meeting in different cities.
- Numbers: Accounts vary wildly on how many people were at an event or how much money changed hands.
Here’s my game plan:
- Primary Sources First: Always go for the original. That birth certificate from the city archives? That trumps a memoir written decades later, every single time. A newspaper report from the day? Usually more reliable than someone’s memory years down the line.
- Build a Source Hierarchy: Not all information is created equal. I literally rank them in my head, or even on paper. Official records, original letters, contemporary news articles – those are top tier. Oral histories, memoirs written when someone’s very old, and secondary analyses? Still valuable, but they take a lower spot.
- Seek Corroboration: Can you find a third, unrelated source that backs up one of the claims? If the autobiography says July 15, does a family Bible or a letter from 1920 confirm it?
- Look for Transmission Errors: Was it just a typo? Did someone misread a number? Sometimes the simplest answer is the right one.
- Weigh the Evidence, Don’t Just Count It: One solid, official document can absolutely outweigh ten anecdotal stories. It’s not a democracy here; it’s a court of evidence. For example, if an official marriage certificate says May 10th, and five family members swear it was May 15th, that certificate almost certainly wins.
2. Interpretive Discrepancy: Different Perspectives, Different “Truths”
These aren’t about conflicting facts, but about different ways of understanding the same facts, events, or motivations. They usually come from personal bias, emotional involvement, or just different moral standpoints.
Like when:
- Motive: One biographer says someone left a company out of principle; another claims it was a calculating power move.
- Intent: Friends remember a “joke” as lighthearted, but the person it was aimed at describes it as a deliberate insult.
- Impact: People argue whether a policy implemented by the subject was good or bad for society.
My way of handling these:
- Identify the Source’s Lens: Understand why a source might see things a certain way. Is it a rival? A devoted fan? A disgruntled former colleague? A neutral academic? Their relationship to the subject and the event is super important context.
- Dig for Underlying Agendas: What does each source gain or lose by their interpretation? Reputation, legacy, money, emotional closure – all these can sway perception.
- Seek Nuance, Not Resolution: Often, there’s no single “right” interpretation. My job here is to present the various perspectives, and explain why they exist. “While X believed the decision was altruistic, Y, a competitor, saw it as a ruthless maneuver.”
- Present Multiple Perspectives: Don’t rush to pick a side. Lay out the conflicting interpretations clearly, giving each its due. Then, if you do lean toward one, explain your reasoning based on the broader context and more evidence.
- Embrace Ambiguity: It’s absolutely fine, and often more truthful, to say that the subject’s true motivation isn’t clear, or that an event’s impact was seen differently by various groups. “The exact reason for her sudden departure is still debated, with some suggesting professional jealousy and others pointing to a major philosophical shift.”
3. Memory Malfunction: The Fog of Time and Emotion
Human memory? It’s notoriously unreliable. It gets distorted, details fade, and sometimes we just make things up to fill gaps. This is especially true with oral histories and old memoirs.
You’ll see this with:
- Sequence of Events: An old friend remembers one thing happening before another, but documents prove the opposite.
- Dialogue: Specific quotes are “remembered” that don’t match written records or the person’s known speech patterns.
- Omission/Exaggeration: Witnesses either forget crucial details or beef them up to make a story more dramatic.
My approach here:
- Cross-Reference Relentlessly: Always treat personal recollections, especially those from many years ago, as needing serious proof. Look for letters, diaries, news reports, or official documents from around the same time that can confirm or deny the memory.
- Consider Emotional Weight: Highly emotional events are particularly prone to memory distortion. Trauma can hide details, while triumph can inflate them. Be skeptical, but also empathetic.
- Factor in Time Decay: The further removed a memory is from the event, the more likely it is to be off in the details, even if the general idea is correct.
- Interview Multiple Witnesses (If Possible): If you’re relying on oral history, talk to as many people as you can who were there. Common threads are much more reliable than unique recollections. If one person vividly remembers a specific color dress worn at a party in the 60s, but two others recall a different color for the same event, it’s safer to just say the dress was present without specifying the color, or to note the discrepancy.
- Distinguish Fact from Perspective: A witness believed something happened, but did it actually happen as they described it? Make that clear in your writing. “While her sister vividly recalled M. moving to London in 1955, immigration records confirm the move occurred in 1957.”
4. The Self-Serving Narrative: Crafting Their Own Legend
Many people, especially public figures, actively shape their public image. Autobiographies, interviews, prepared statements – they’re all designed to present a particular version of events, often leaving out inconvenient truths or inflating achievements.
Things you’ll notice:
- Claiming Undue Credit: The subject takes full credit for a group achievement.
- Minimizing Failures: A big setback is glossed over or reframed as a “learning experience.”
- Altering Relationships: Distant acquaintances become “close confidantes.”
How I deal with this:
- Read Autobiographies with Extreme Skepticism: These are inherently biased. Treat them as a source, not the source. They represent the subject’s desired legacy, not necessarily the objective truth.
- Corroborate Everything Self-Reported: Assume nothing the subject says about themselves is completely accurate without external verification.
- Interview Others Connected to the Subject: Find people who were present during the events the subject describes. Their perspectives can offer crucial counterpoints.
- Compare Against Public Record: Did the subject claim to have founded a company in 1980, but public records show it was incorporated in 1982 by someone else, with the subject joining later?
- Analyze the Subject’s Character: If the subject is known for being grandiose or evasive, their self-reporting needs even more caution. If a subject consistently downplays their privilege while claiming humble beginnings, but census records show their family owned substantial property, note the contrast.
The Investigator’s Toolbox: How to Deal with It (or Admit You Can’t)
Once you’ve figured out what kind of discrepancy you’re facing, you need a systematic way to deal with it. Your goal isn’t always to definitively “solve” it, but to handle it transparently so your work maintains integrity.
1. Diving Deep into Primary Sources
This is your first and best defense. The closer you get to the original, unbiased record, the clearer things usually become.
What I do:
- Unearth Original Documents: Go beyond the published collections. Look for archives, university special collections, government records, and private family holdings.
- Analyze Handwriting and Signatures: Are there multiple versions of a document? Is a signature consistent? Subtle details can reveal alterations or multiple drafts.
- Cross-Reference Within a Single Source: Does a subject’s diary contradict itself across different entries? Does one letter from a collection contradict another from the same person written around the same time?
- Contextualize the Document: Understand why a particular document was created and for whom. An official report written to explain a failure will be very different from a private letter expressing frustration. If a subject’s letter home says they are thriving, but a contemporaneous medical report indicates severe illness, the latter, an objective medical assessment, carries significant weight.
2. The Art of Critical Source Evaluation
Not all sources are created equal. Developing a rigorous system for evaluating source reliability is absolutely essential.
My checklist:
- Proximity to Event: Was the source present at the event? How soon after did they record their observations?
- Relationship to Subject: Friend, foe, family, neutral observer? Each relationship carries built-in biases.
- Motivation for Creation: Was the source created for public consumption, private reflection, official record-keeping, self-defense, or self-promotion?
- Consistency with Other Sources: If a source is the only one making a certain claim, be very skeptical.
- Internal Consistency: Does the source contradict itself? Does it contain things that don’t fit the time period or are logically impossible?
- Expert Review (If Needed): For highly technical or specialized discrepancies, I’ll consult someone who’s an expert in that field (e.g., a military historian for battle strategy, a doctor for health issues).
3. The Power of Corroboration
Finding multiple independent sources that agree on a point significantly increases its credibility.
My action plan:
- Aim for Triangulation: Can you find at least three independent sources that agree? The more, the better.
- Beware of Circular Corroboration: Make sure sources are genuinely independent. If Source B just cited Source A, and Source C just cited Source B, you don’t have true corroboration. You just have the same idea being repeated.
- Identify Origin Points: Trace information back to its earliest known appearance. Was it a journalist’s error that was then repeated everywhere? Or did it come from a primary document? A persistent myth about an escape might be traced back to a single fictionalized newspaper account from the 1930s, even if it’s been repeated in many later biographies.
4. The Skill of Interviewing and Questioning
If you can talk to living witnesses, their input can be invaluable, but you need to handle it carefully.
My approach to interviews:
- Prepare Targeted Questions: Don’t just ask general questions. Focus on the specific discrepancy. “Mr. Smith, your memoir says the meeting was on Tuesday, but Ms. Jones’s diary indicates it was Wednesday. Can you help me clarify?”
- Listen Actively for Nuances: Is the interviewee hesitant? Do they contradict themselves? Do they sound like they’re guessing or recalling a vague impression?
- Avoid Leading Questions: Don’t put words in their mouth. Let them tell their version naturally.
- Present Contradictions Gently: Frame it as seeking clarification, not accusation. “I’ve come across differing accounts regarding X. Could you share your recollection?”
- Follow Up with Documentary Evidence: If an interviewee strongly insists on a version of events that contradicts documented evidence, gently present the evidence and ask for their thoughts. “I understand, but this letter from your mother, dated the day after, mentions the event occurred in New York, not Boston. Do you recall anything that might explain the difference?”
5. Embracing the “Unresolvable”
Sometimes, no matter how hard you try, you just can’t definitively resolve a discrepancy. And that’s okay! It’s an honest reflection of the historical record.
What to do when you can’t solve it:
- Acknowledge The Discrepancy Transparently: Don’t hide it. Readers appreciate honesty. “Accounts differ as to the precise date of his birth; his official birth certificate indicates January 15, 1920, while his family consistently celebrated it on July 15, 1920, a discrepancy that remains unexplained.”
- Explain Why It’s Unresolved: Describe the conflicting evidence and why one can’t be definitively chosen over the other. “Despite exhaustive research, including interviews with surviving colleagues and scrutiny of company records, two competing narratives persist regarding her resignation: one attributing it to a hostile work environment, the other to a lucrative offer from a competing firm. Neither claim is fully substantiated by the available evidence.”
- Discuss the Implications: How does this unresolved discrepancy affect your understanding of the subject or the event? Does it highlight their elusive nature, a period of chaos, or a deliberate attempt to hide something? “This persistent confusion regarding his movements during the war highlights the clandestine nature of his work and the deliberate effort to obscure his presence.”
- Present Probabilities: If you can’t be certain, state what’s most likely and why. “While definitive proof is lacking, the overwhelming weight of circumstantial evidence suggests that he was the primary author of the controversial memo, rather than his often-credited subordinate.”
Integrating Discrepancies into Your Narrative: Building Trust
How you present discrepancies in your writing is just as important as how you investigate them. Your goal is to build trust with the reader, not to confuse or bore them.
1. Smart Placement and Pacing
Don’t interrupt your flow for every tiny conflict. Group similar points or address them at logical breaks.
My tips for placement:
- Footnotes/Endnotes for Minor Details: For small factual disagreements (like a slight spelling variation for a minor character, or slightly different dates for a non-critical event), use notes. This keeps the main text clean.
- In-Text Discussion for Significant Conflicts: If a discrepancy directly impacts a key interpretation, a critical event, or the subject’s character, discuss it right in the main text.
- Chapter dedicated to Controversy (Rarely, but effectively): For a deeply contentious life or a period full of conflicting accounts, a dedicated section or even a chapter (e.g., “The Question of His War Years”) might be warranted. This allows for a comprehensive exploration without derailing the main chronological narrative.
Example: Instead of “Smith was born on Jan 15 (Source A says Jan 15, Source B says Jan 17, Source C confirms Jan 15),” write: “Smith was born on January 15, 1920. While one family anecdote places his birth two days later, official records consistently confirm the earlier date.”
2. Transparent Language
Use clear, precise language that tells the reader where the information came from and how certain you are.
How I write it:
- Attribute Claims Clearly: “According to X,” “Y asserts,” “Z recounted,” “Documents indicate.”
- Use Qualifiers When Necessary: “Likely,” “possibly,” “it appears,” “suggests,” “it is believed,” “sources conflict on…”
- Avoid Definitive Statements Where None Exist: If you can’t be 100% certain, don’t write as if you are.
- Explain Your Reasoning: If you decide to favor one source over another, briefly explain why. “While his personal diary states he was in Rome, official travel manifests from the period clearly show him in Berlin, suggesting either a deliberate misdirection or a lapse in memory.”
3. The Power of the Contrasting Voice
Presenting opposing viewpoints directly can enrich the narrative and show you really know your stuff.
My methods:
- Juxtaposition: Place conflicting accounts side-by-side. “His wife described their early years as idyllic, marked by passionate devotion. His sister, however, remembered a volatile relationship, plagued by frequent arguments and long silences.”
- Direct Quotations: Where possible, use the exact words of the sources to highlight the difference in perspective. Make sure the quotes truly represent the overall sentiment.
- Synthesize and Analyze: After presenting the different views, offer your analysis of why these differences exist and what they reveal about the subject or the era. “This stark divergence in memory speaks volumes about the differing emotional investments in that period: for his wife, a cherished but perhaps idealized past; for his sister, a somber recall of familial strain.”
4. Maintaining Objectivity and Authority
Your job is to be the expert guide, leading the reader through complexity, not getting caught up in the drama.
How I maintain authority:
- Avoid Taking Sides Prematurely: Let the evidence speak. If the evidence isn’t conclusive, say so.
- Refrain from Personal Opinion or Speculation (Unless Stated as Such): Your conjectures belong in notes or explicitly prefaced with “one might speculate…”
- Maintain a Consistent Tone: Even when discussing controversial issues, your voice should be measured, analytical, and authoritative.
- Demonstrate Your Research: By presenting multiple sources and thoroughly explaining your approach to discrepancies, you implicitly build credibility.
Discrepancies as Opportunities: It’s More Than Just a Problem
Thinking of discrepancies only as obstacles is missing a huge opportunity. They are often vital clues, revealing deeper truths about your subject and their world.
1. Revealing Character and Psychology
How someone presents their own life, or how others see it, can offer profound insights into their character, anxieties, and aspirations.
For example: Someone consistently downplays their achievements publicly, but private letters reveal fierce ambition. This isn’t just a factual conflict; it shows a complex interplay between public persona and private drive, perhaps driven by humility, strategic maneuvering, or internal conflict.
2. Highlighting the Imperfections of History
Discrepancies underscore that history isn’t a static, perfectly preserved artifact. It’s a constantly reinterpreted and often messy narrative shaped by human memory and bias.
Think about it: Persistent conflicting accounts of a historical event, even decades later, show the power of personal narrative over objective fact, and how group memory can diverge. This can be as much a part of the story as the event itself.
3. Exposing Agendas and Power Dynamics
When powerful individuals or institutions present a particular version of events, while other sources contradict it, the discrepancy can reveal attempts to control narratives, protect reputations, or manipulate public opinion.
Like this: Official government reports gloss over internal dissent before a major policy decision, while leaked memos and personal diaries reveal intense infighting. The discrepancy exposes a deliberate effort to project unity where none existed, highlighting hidden power struggles.
4. Adding Nuance and Complexity
A life free of discrepancies is often a life understood too simply. Conflicting accounts force you to dig deeper, to consider multiple facets of truth, and to create a far richer, more compelling portrait.
For example: A general is universally praised for a decisive victory, but hidden accounts from disillusioned soldiers reveal the profound human cost and moral compromises behind the glory. Presenting both narratives creates a more complex and human understanding of leadership and sacrifice.
The Biographer’s Ethos: Integrity Above All
Ultimately, how you handle discrepancies defines your integrity as a biographer. This isn’t about being the first to publish or having the most sensational story. It’s about rigorously pursuing the closest approximation of truth.
Your readers expect not just a story, but a meticulously researched and thoughtfully presented account. Confronting discrepancies head-on, with transparency and analytical rigor, isn’t just about problem-solving; it’s about building trust, revealing the inherent complexities of human existence, and delivering a biographical work of lasting value. Be the truth-seeker, not merely the storyteller.