One of the writing correspondants chiming in - after having spent a considerable amount of time taping back on the head of a damp Simon Armitage cutout...
I am now beginning to wonder whether the defence of the books is going to come in the form of 'writing a pure narrative of a coastal walk would be tedious. Elements had to be added for artistic effect and the production of a narrative arc in order to make a readable format.' Because the books aren't like a walking diary, they are more like a fusion of the record of a walk and a book which contains such narrative devices as oppression of the main characters to increase tension; interpersonal disagreements, difficulties with accommodation etc.
Because basically it's NOT a walking diary and there is a lot of reconstruction of events which are unlikely to have been recorded at the time, so therefore are just memories (and therefore entirely subjective). And all of which can be defended by the need to make a story (and therefore a narrative arc) out of randomly scattered happenings.
And it's making me wonder whether this could be considered a credible defence, certainly on the part of PRH - that it's not a purely factual record of a walk, it's an emotion-loaded (and therefore ripe for 'misremembering') memoir.