Not all narratives are created equal. Certain global narratives have a higher news value than others. For example, the earthquake and tsunami crisis in Japan has been on the front page of newspapers and in prime news hours on television. The same cannot be said of the feminicide in Mexican border towns such as, most infamously, Juarez. Professor at the University of Pennsylvania Gerald Prince’s discussion of the narratable and the unnarratable add to the discussion on why a natural disaster such as tsunami might get more coverage than the disappearances of female factory workers in Mexico.
Prince quotes William Labov, a noted sociolinguist at the University of Pennsylvania. “Pointless stories are met (in English) with the withering rejoinder ‘So what?’ Every good narrator is continually warding off this question… instead, the appropriate remark would be ‘He did?’”[1]. Essentially, a successful narrator must convince the audience that their narrative is worth being narrated. There is a “frequent necessity for the narrator to show why the narrative is tellable… [or] worthy of recounting.”[2]
According to Prince, a narrative stems from knowledge. Perhaps a narrative is worth telling if it convinces the audience that it is teaching them something, that it has something informative to say. “The hallmark of a narrative is assurance… and dies from ignorance and indecision.”[3] This is an interesting interpretation on what creates a lasting narrative because many stories worth being told lack certainly and exude nuance. The brutal kidnapping, rape, murder, and general disappearances of working women in Mexico cannot be fully explained. There is no certain way to stop the attacks or to figure out who is behind them. There are no official numbers on how many victims there are. Juarez is not an easy, or lasting narrative because the story being sold has uncertainties that are not comforting. As gruesome and terrible as the tsunami is, it can be explained by science; for the most part, it is a natural, not man-made disaster. The tsunami narrative does not “transgress a law (social, authorial, generic, formal).”[4]. Arguably, the image of gushing waves wiping away bodies and structures is still an easier pill to swallow than the brutal rape and murder of countless young women without anyone to blame for it.
Image is also vital to the spread of a narrative. With television and the internet as the dominant way Americans are getting news, a narrative that can be told with an image (video or picture) is the narrative that will spread. The video of a tsunami showed in class was terrifying, exhilarating, and gave the audience the “assurance” that they need. With the image, a narrative is seen as important and informative since one can see what is happening in another part of the world. One can hear, in the form of video, the fear of a family and see the sheer destruction of the tremendous ocean waves. In contrast, the feminicide in Mexico does not have an image attached to it. The female victims are faceless victims, as is the enemy. There is no human connection to the narrative that is shows the barbarism of humanity. What the Juarez narrative could use is a Neda; a face to define the tragedy and create a connection. A narrative lacking image and certainty, two elements that very much go together, cannot cause an uprising.
[1] Prince, Gerald. “The Disnarrated.” Style. 22.1. (1988): 1-8. Print. Page 5.
[2] Prince, Gerald. “The Disnarrated.” Style. 22.1. (1988): 1-8. Print. Page 5.
[3] Prince, Gerald. “The Disnarrated.” Style. 22.1. (1988): 1-8. Print. Page. 4.
[4] Prince, Gerald. “The Disnarrated.” Style. 22.1. (1988): 1-8. Print. Page 3.
No comments:
Post a Comment