Alfred Romero
9/20/2022
Professor Frank
Introduction to Literary Theory & Criticism
Applications #2
The central idea of this applications assignment stems from the work of Peter Brooks in his essay “Retrospective Prophecies: Legal Narrative Constructions”, which can be found in chapter 5 of the book “New Directions In Law And Literature” (edited by Elizabeth S. Anker and Bernadette Meyler). The main issue Brooks presents to his audience revolves around the concept of narrative analysis and its absence in the legal realm to coincide within the concept of legal analysis. People involved in the court process know about how “the particulars of how ‘the facts’ are told make all the difference” when ruling in court cases (Brooks 104). As narrative plays an important role in the world of law, one could ask why it isn’t “recognized as a construction” (Brooks 104). This is essentially Brooks’s proposition that he follows along throughout the essay, revealing in his conclusion that “narrative analysis needs to take a place within legal analysis” (Brooks 104).
Brooks supports his claim by referring to works of fiction and real life cases. First, he alludes to the works of Arthur Conan Doyle, specifically his detective stories involving Sherlock Holmes. From an excerpt of Doyle’s work “Silver Blaze”, Brooks refers to a part of the story where Holmes finds a wax vesta match “buried in the mud at the crime scene” (Brooks 94). Holmes claims that he found the wax vesta match by “first hypothesizing that it had to be there” (Brooks 94). Brooks ties this “inferential process of abduction” and points out its connection to the concept of “inevitable discovery” (Brooks 94). Through Holmes’s searches comes a new concept reflected on by historian Carlo Ginzburg called the huntsman’s paradigm, which “may indicate in more general terms the use-value of narrative as a form of speech and condition” (Brooks 96). Brooks elaborates on this by providing insight from British literary scholar Terence Cave. Cave claims that the huntsman’s paradigm points an audience “toward that most basic and enduring and useful of plots” (Brooks 96). This could refer to the tracks/traces that could uncover a mystery within a detective story. In addition to the huntsman’s paradigm, or the “logic of narrative knowing”, comes retrospective prophecy (Brooks 98). Inevitable discovery claims that the quarry will end up being found. Retrospective prophecy asks “whether following the trail would inevitably have led to it”, where the trail alludes to the tracks/traces that would’ve led to an unraveling and the “it” referring to the quarry (Brooks 98). From these concepts, Brooks finalizes his argument (before the conclusion anyway) by providing his readers with some real life cases. One of these cases refers to Rusk v. Maryland and Maryland v. Rusk. This case involves a telling of a tale four times, where “there was a majority opinion and dissent: twice as consensual sex and twice as rape” (Brooks 103). This case came down to “the way the happening was told, with different narrative connectives, with a different understanding of how events fit together to make the chain of meeting” (Brooks 103).
As the narrative behind the story remains a major underlying component of how a “happening” comes to be, it should become unpacked and analyzed. Opinions may sway and different conclusions may become the outcome of a story with the same facts, but just with a different narrative presented behind those facts. Being able to unpack and analyze different narratives behind a telling can provide insight towards the bigger picture of the story by informing the reader of the “why” a happening occurred from the way the tale was told. Missing out on this opportunity leaves room for questioning. Why did this outcome of this story win over the other even though both stories had the same basis of facts? Missing out on unpacking and analyzing narrative inhibits the reader to answer such a question.
This argument makes sense. It’s hard to argue against the idea of narrative analysis not being considered as a factor within legal analysis, especially when Brooks provided real life cases to support his argument. But, this does bring me to a question, which is essentially what Brooks is trying to solve. If narrative is so obviously a factor into what makes a story believable, then why hasn’t it been officially addressed by the legal system? I’d want to take this analysis towards the idea of comparing narrative between concepts found in movies or TV shows. I feel as if this would more so visualize how important narrative is, supporting Brooks’s argument further.
Works Cited:
Brooks, Peter, ‘Retrospective Prophecies: Legal Narrative Constructions’, in Elizabeth S. Anker, and Bernadette Meyler (eds), New Directions in Law and Literature (New York, 2017; online edn, Oxford Academic, 22 June 2017), https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190456368.003.0006, accessed 21 Sept. 2022.
Parker, Robert. How to Interpret Literature: Critical Theory for Literary and Cultural Studies. Oxford University Press, 2015.
