For this application assignment, it was assigned to analyze “Retrospective Prophecies: Legal Narrative Constructions”, a chapter by Peter Brooks in the book “New Directions in Law and Literature” edited by Bernadette Meyler and Elizabeth S. Ankler and present the argument made by Brooks in regard to literary and legal narrative. The overarching idea he presents is “ an understanding of how narrative presentation shapes events recounted, for instance, and of how anticipated ends shape story events” (Brooks 92). He then continues on to say how individuals order events in sequences that are to give the scenario meaning; the draw between literary and legal narrative. In order to come to a consensus on his argument, Brooks uses literary examples of narrative and pairs them alongside legal concepts and practices.
The first example that Brooks chooses to exemplify his argument is the concept of narrativity. This concept is how well stories or pieces of work can demonstrate the narrative process of storytelling itself. He builds on this concept stating how detective stories are the most literary genre because it is most closely tied with narrativity. Taking an example from Arthur Conan Doyle’s popular detective series, Sherlock Holmes, he talks about how the use of the deduction process in the Holmes’ stories to further the narrative is similar to the legal component of “inevitable discovery.” This is as stated “ a doctrine that allows the prosecution to use results of an illegal search… if it can show that what was found would inevitably have been discovered if legal means had been used” (Brooks 94). In both the deduction process and inevitable discovery, details are laid out in such an order that individual one is significant for a larger outcome. Brooks draws this comparison to show how both of these concepts are crucial for their intended field and can demonstrate narrative role within both.
Another concept that Brooks uses to further the connections between legality and literary concepts involving narrative is the huntsman’s paradigm, hypothesized by Carlo Ginzburg. This hypothesis states that narrative is a cognitive process in which details are ordered in a sequence to provide them meaning and connection. Ginzburg argues that narrative is something that was discovered in hunting groups because of deciphering animal tracks and going after prey. Brooks takes this example and puts it to more realistic legal scenarios of which may be how someone passed away. In both cases, the minute details in the situation are arranged in such an order that it has meaning.
Overall, I find myself to agree with the argument that Brooks pieces together throughout the chapter. Prior to reading this I had seen narrative as something pureply put into literary context, or within the news. Outside of these platforms, narrative can also be implemented in people’s thought processes or in this case, legal proceedings. The most compelling aspect of this chapter was the comparison drawn from the Sherlock Holmes stories. This was something that I was able to buy into as a reader because of my familiarity with the Holmes’ stories because of the one we read prior to this assignment. I had some of the contextual background Brooks was using from the stories to create his argument surrounding narrative. The use of Holmes’ also aided in the persuasion of the legal connection Brooks is trying to create due to the crime aspect of both Holmes and the intended argument. If I had to further the analysis that Brooks gave, I would look more into the courtroom narrative he mentions alongside narrativity. I found this to be a profound example that could then be branched into subjects such as racial profiling, case building, evidence analysis, etc. It made me also question how much of legal cases are based upon the narrative that is built by prosecutions rather than biological evidence.
Works Cited:
Brooks, Peter. “Retrospective Prophecies: Legal Narrative Constructions”, New Directions, edited by Ankler and Myler, Oxford, UP, 2017, pp 92-108.
