[s3r3nity]

> I don’t want those few and fleeting memories fractured and confused by other people’s interpretations.

So you want to maintain dogmatic ideological views without subjecting yourself to an uncomfortable re-examining of how rose-tinted your glasses might have been?

I was immediately turned off by this, and had a hard time finishing the post after reading that. Sometimes admitting that your idols are flawed human beings, but often trying their best nevertheless, can end in a better appreciation of the person.

[jimbokun]

He wanted to keep his first hand memories intact, and not be distracted by a dramatized or fictionalized account.

Why do you need the interpretation of people who weren't there, of events you have directly experienced yourself?

[sjwright]

I had the exact opposite reaction. The fact that he cares so much about his own memories is under-appreciated these days. And he's not wrong—the stuff written about Steve is highly opinionated and often quite vividly written, exceedingly colored by how his blunt nature made that particular author react emotionally.

[philwelch]

I think that’s a little harsh. The human mind is very good at mixing things up and connecting them together in unexpected ways. I think the author is being genuinely more protective of his own memories than he is of Steve or even his opinion of Steve.