Indeed it is. You see what's happened? As mentioned before by someone, the written word obscures the truth, and can give rise to another meaning. Why, I've just been reading Elena Ferrante on a similar subject; how does something inherently fictional - like writing - capture truth?
History is, like sentence structure, linear. Time, like sentences, travel in one direction (at least, time does in the popular perception of it) That can lead to confusion. Word choice can imply a stop point, a barrier, a change to the line of history - that can be unfortunate, as in this case. Suffice it to say, it was not my intention to imply that everything I wrote before "the rest" wasn't historical. Though clearly that implication is there. No, as you quite rightly say, everything before "the rest" is (is? or was? see how grammar can distort) equally historical. The intended implication was that everything that followed needn't be detailed because, if it's not already recorded elsewhere (and I refer you to my autobiography for the detail) then it was immaterial to my intended purpose.
I'm pleased you sought clarification. It was a valid point and I hope you see my elaboration as worthwhile.
