I want to break down some of the definitions of particular terms I encountered this past week- or at least the way I’ve come to interpret them. If you can bare with me through this, then I promise I’ve got a story for you that will make it worth your while. Also, while some of you may have heard this story before, I’ve never had a chance to tell it from my perspective, and I’m super excited to try this out! I apologize if it’s a complete failure. I actually typed this story earlier in the week because I needed to get it out. It’s amazing how different readings and just crazy events in our current history start to make your own stories (although, this isn’t really my story- I’m just trying to narrate it?) feel insignificant or worse- boring. Our readings this week made me start to think about how I can tell a story and keep its representation...exciting
Based on my readings of Abbott and Meister, narratologists today would like to consider the definitions of narratology and narratives as broad and widely encompassing. On The Living Handbook of Narratology website, Meister explores the intricacies of narratology stating: “ Its concepts and models are widely used as heuristic tools, and narratological theorems play a central role in the exploration and modeling of our ability to produce and process narratives in a multitude of forms, media, contexts, and communicative practices.” Narratology wasn’t always so broad, it took several waves of exploration for us to reach this point. The Living Handbook explores the paths that led us to extending the interpretation of narratology, but more importantly it asks us to continue to consider how we can continue the expansion as we embrace narratology as a discipline. In The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative, Abbott asks readers to consider the use of the words “representation,” “presentation,” and “re-presentation.” Abbott suggests that whether a story is acted (presentation) or written (representation), the narrative is “mediated,” and is therefore a “re-presentation.” Abbott suggests that re-presentation involves the following: “conveying a story that at least seems to pre-exist the vehicle of conveyance.” Not all scholars agree with Abbott who cites Gerald Prince’s definition of narratology as:
The recounting . . . of one or more real or fictitious EVENTS communicated by one, two, or several (more or less overt) NARRATORS to one, two, or several (more or less overt) NARRATEES. . . . [A] dramatic performance representing (many fascinating) events does not constitute a narrative..., since these events, rather than being recounted, occur directly on stage. On the other hand, even such possibly uninteresting texts as “The man opened the door,” “The goldfish died,” and “The glass fell on the floor” are narratives, according to this definition.
I’m more inclined to agree with Abbott because an embellished story still needs narration even if the events are not entirely true.
I’ve got my favorite kind of narrative for how Gerald Prince’s definition of narrative could be considered inaccurate- an anecdote. This isn’t just your average anecdote it explores what happens when narrative become intertwined with fiction and reality. It’s got true crime, murder, and what ifs written all over it. Before I can dive right in though, I’ve got to give you some background. I have two moms. They separated with I was three (talk about a confusing time- they both began relationships with women named Melanie- that’ll be a narrative coming at you later- I call it Melanie and Melanie). My parents met when they worked at the Denton Police Department, and both went to work for the Medical Examiner's office shortly after I was born. Yes, they saw dead people, and, yes, it was awkward. Anyways let’s get to the murder, in July of 2002 my mom, Sylvia, had traded shifts with a man she worked with because she had custody of me for this part of the summer. This meant that if someone died this guy named Dwight would be investigating it instead of my mom. Now, if any of you grew up in Denton during the early 2000s then you probably know about Bobby Lozano. (If you’re friends with him or if someone out there in the blogger sphere is and stumbles upon this, sorry in advance for how this plays out.) Bobby Lozano worked for the Denton Police Department for many years, and both of my parents knew him. My parents are the “mind your own business” type of people, but they still saw Bobby Lozano do odd things that they couldn’t help but judge him for doing. For example, he was married to an elementary school teacher named Viki, but he would hit on and ask out secretaries who worked in the police department. On July 6th, 2002, Bobby Lozano dialed 9-1-1 claiming he had come home to find his wife dead from a gunshot wound. Instead of my mom, Dwight arrived to the scene. According to my parents, Dwight took pictures and collected evidence, but he failed to interview Lozano about the incident, which is usually pretty standard. The next part isn’t entirely Dwight’s fault, but the police’s as well- Lozano’s car and the family’s home was not investigated as thoroughly as it should have been. Lozano claimed that the incident was an accident. It was the result of a misfire when Viki was reportedly cleaning the gun that had killed her. AS IF THIS ISN’T THE MOST OBVIOUS LIE IN THE HISTORY OF EVER. There are some other added intricacies, but although Lozano was indicted for murder, it was later dismissed. In 2008, a reporter named Donna Fielder began digging deeper into the case.
In part, due to Fielder’s relentless investigation, and along with a new D.A. in Denton County, the case was reinvestigated SIX YEARS LATER, but Lozano was finally found guilty this time. I know I’ve left out some good stuff, like the stories Lozano told in an attempt to prove his innocence. Not to mention that during the six years he was free Lozano briefly worked at a realtor, and my mom Sylvia briefly worked with him during this time- yikes. I’ve recently asked my parents what they would have done differently if they had been the one to work the case. They both explained that they would definitely have spoken with Lozano the night of the murder. This is story is a representation and a presentation of a narrative that isn’t my own, it belongs to several others but not me. I’m telling it as a way of scrutinizing what it means to be what we might think of as a second-hand narrator. I’m telling it because when we receive a narrative in a particular way we might not think how the story could have been entirely different. If a woman had worked this case would the story have ended sooner? The representation, presentation, and re-presentation of stories is critical to think about when we consider our reception of the narratives we encounter. Also, this case has been analyzed by networks such as the ID channel. Who is Prince to say that the reenactments presented in true crime shows don’t depict narrative? If images can bring life to a story, and we now have the technology to give justice to these stories, even if the presentation has fictionalized characters the narrative remains intact. True crime and true crime representation seem to throw chaos into the expectations of narrative direction. Perhaps the issue with narratologists is that they want to fit narratives into a box, but there are narrators who are constantly tearing boxes down. And, in this case, I don’t just mean Lozano. The directors and producers take control of crime stories exploit and extort the narratives because of the fascination of the genre. In this case the underlying subtext asks how could we let this happen? A question we may not ask ourselves if we hadn’t had the chance to see the story portrayed in a certain way or through a certain medium.
This story makes me think about the limitations of definition, and what happens when we enforce particular concepts on to something so broad such as the concept of narratology. Abbott references Jean-Paul Sartre who suggests that there are no true stories. I want to deny this idea, I want to suggest that there are people who experience traumatic or life altering events and have the capacity to recollect these events in truth. But, I can’t. Every second we become a different person, and the narrative of a particular event, no matter how significant, starts to transcend its meaning through us. I want to be wrong here; I would love to be proved wrong, but I just can’t figure out how that would be possible. We want to say that thing/event happened, but can we retell it in its purest form? I’m just not sure.
I think as we venture further into this course the issue of separating our bias from narratives will come into play. Maybe our bias allows us to be more ethical, but I think sometimes our bias means we miss or misinterpret certain aspects of narrative, particularly when we are geared towards thinking in ways that match with our expectations. Sometimes we have to expect the unexpected, especially in unfamiliar narratives and the territories they take us.
I’ve got my favorite kind of narrative for how Gerald Prince’s definition of narrative could be considered inaccurate- an anecdote. This isn’t just your average anecdote it explores what happens when narrative become intertwined with fiction and reality. It’s got true crime, murder, and what ifs written all over it. Before I can dive right in though, I’ve got to give you some background. I have two moms. They separated with I was three (talk about a confusing time- they both began relationships with women named Melanie- that’ll be a narrative coming at you later- I call it Melanie and Melanie). My parents met when they worked at the Denton Police Department, and both went to work for the Medical Examiner's office shortly after I was born. Yes, they saw dead people, and, yes, it was awkward. Anyways let’s get to the murder, in July of 2002 my mom, Sylvia, had traded shifts with a man she worked with because she had custody of me for this part of the summer. This meant that if someone died this guy named Dwight would be investigating it instead of my mom. Now, if any of you grew up in Denton during the early 2000s then you probably know about Bobby Lozano. (If you’re friends with him or if someone out there in the blogger sphere is and stumbles upon this, sorry in advance for how this plays out.) Bobby Lozano worked for the Denton Police Department for many years, and both of my parents knew him. My parents are the “mind your own business” type of people, but they still saw Bobby Lozano do odd things that they couldn’t help but judge him for doing. For example, he was married to an elementary school teacher named Viki, but he would hit on and ask out secretaries who worked in the police department. On July 6th, 2002, Bobby Lozano dialed 9-1-1 claiming he had come home to find his wife dead from a gunshot wound. Instead of my mom, Dwight arrived to the scene. According to my parents, Dwight took pictures and collected evidence, but he failed to interview Lozano about the incident, which is usually pretty standard. The next part isn’t entirely Dwight’s fault, but the police’s as well- Lozano’s car and the family’s home was not investigated as thoroughly as it should have been. Lozano claimed that the incident was an accident. It was the result of a misfire when Viki was reportedly cleaning the gun that had killed her. AS IF THIS ISN’T THE MOST OBVIOUS LIE IN THE HISTORY OF EVER. There are some other added intricacies, but although Lozano was indicted for murder, it was later dismissed. In 2008, a reporter named Donna Fielder began digging deeper into the case.
In part, due to Fielder’s relentless investigation, and along with a new D.A. in Denton County, the case was reinvestigated SIX YEARS LATER, but Lozano was finally found guilty this time. I know I’ve left out some good stuff, like the stories Lozano told in an attempt to prove his innocence. Not to mention that during the six years he was free Lozano briefly worked at a realtor, and my mom Sylvia briefly worked with him during this time- yikes. I’ve recently asked my parents what they would have done differently if they had been the one to work the case. They both explained that they would definitely have spoken with Lozano the night of the murder. This is story is a representation and a presentation of a narrative that isn’t my own, it belongs to several others but not me. I’m telling it as a way of scrutinizing what it means to be what we might think of as a second-hand narrator. I’m telling it because when we receive a narrative in a particular way we might not think how the story could have been entirely different. If a woman had worked this case would the story have ended sooner? The representation, presentation, and re-presentation of stories is critical to think about when we consider our reception of the narratives we encounter. Also, this case has been analyzed by networks such as the ID channel. Who is Prince to say that the reenactments presented in true crime shows don’t depict narrative? If images can bring life to a story, and we now have the technology to give justice to these stories, even if the presentation has fictionalized characters the narrative remains intact. True crime and true crime representation seem to throw chaos into the expectations of narrative direction. Perhaps the issue with narratologists is that they want to fit narratives into a box, but there are narrators who are constantly tearing boxes down. And, in this case, I don’t just mean Lozano. The directors and producers take control of crime stories exploit and extort the narratives because of the fascination of the genre. In this case the underlying subtext asks how could we let this happen? A question we may not ask ourselves if we hadn’t had the chance to see the story portrayed in a certain way or through a certain medium.
This story makes me think about the limitations of definition, and what happens when we enforce particular concepts on to something so broad such as the concept of narratology. Abbott references Jean-Paul Sartre who suggests that there are no true stories. I want to deny this idea, I want to suggest that there are people who experience traumatic or life altering events and have the capacity to recollect these events in truth. But, I can’t. Every second we become a different person, and the narrative of a particular event, no matter how significant, starts to transcend its meaning through us. I want to be wrong here; I would love to be proved wrong, but I just can’t figure out how that would be possible. We want to say that thing/event happened, but can we retell it in its purest form? I’m just not sure.
I think as we venture further into this course the issue of separating our bias from narratives will come into play. Maybe our bias allows us to be more ethical, but I think sometimes our bias means we miss or misinterpret certain aspects of narrative, particularly when we are geared towards thinking in ways that match with our expectations. Sometimes we have to expect the unexpected, especially in unfamiliar narratives and the territories they take us.
Comments
Post a Comment