Paul de Man's "Autobiography as De-facement"

I will admit that some of the examples de Man used in his article were unfamiliar to me, and perhaps somewhat confusing. What I am struck with from reading this text is that there are several problems with autobiography. Of course, it is not something easily definable - for instance, de Man first says that title pages are autobiographical, so that could mean that all texts with title pages are somewhat autobiographical. Then, at the beginning of the next paragraph (922) he says that perhaps none of the texts are autobiographical. It seems to me that we have a problem with binaries when it comes to autobiography - the idea of the prosopepeia, meaning to give a mask or a face and de-facement. De Man states that, "Prosopepeia is the trope of autobiography, by which one's name, as in the Milton poem, is made as intelligible and memorable as a face. Our topic deals with the giving and taking away of faces, with face and deface, figure, figuration, and disfiguration" (926). The intent of an author or filmmaker in creating something autobiographical is it to reveal something about him or herself? Yet, by attempting to create the autobiographical, it is a representation of the person or thing. De Man suggests that it is a representation - a picture, image, or language - that is itself mute. We return to the cyclical diagram of the autobiographical. Autobiography as a revolving door, caught in a double motion, seemingly to escape problems that it will once again face. Autobiography is perhaps impossible, but what about the autobiographical? What Laurel's idea of the "imprint of self"? How could this be different from the problems that autobiography suffers?