In discussing the differences between fiction and non-fiction narrative writing, Ivor Shapiro (pp. 292-293)compares Stephanie Nolen's story "Into the Valley of Death" to a New York Times account on the same subject: civil unrest in Kenya following disputed election results. Both are "true" accounts, he says, "but Nolan's story is distinguished by an approach that reads like fiction--a fast paced, first-person narrative of a descent into danger." What specific elements make her story compelling in the same way that a work of fiction might capture and keep our interest? Also, are there specific points in her narrative where she might have been tempted to "tweak" or fabricate the truth about what she observed to make a better story, ala Jayson Blair,Janet Cooke, and the others we discussed in class?
I think Nolen's descriptions of scenes are especially compelling. She doesn't just tell us where the events occured. She provides descriptions that really make us see it. She also provides that human element. We may not be able to relate to her "characters," but we can feel for them.
ReplyDeleteAn example that stands out is the man who owned the electronics shop, who lost all his savings. In the next paragraph, she describes his reaction (or non reaction) to a burned woman. Wouldn't the story have been more interesting if the person was his daughter? Of course. But it wasn't.
Nolen might have been tempted to add a little more drama here and there, but she probably stepped back and said, "The story is already dramatic enough."
I do have one problem with this story. Throughout the semester, we've been talking about the use of first person, and how it can make the author a part of the story, when they shouldn't be. Well, in this case I don't think Nolen should have been part of the story. She makes herself a central character: a "white" savior who comes in to save the day. Perhap the story would have been just as compelling without this use of first person. (???)
A few parts of this story really captured my attention and made me want to keep reading. Nolen talks about when the truck’s engine died. They were in the middle of nowhere and an armed mob was on its way to block off the road. “I tasted the flat metal of fear in my mouth,” she wrote. This made me wonder what was going to happen next: would they get out of there before danger ensued.
ReplyDeleteLater on, Nolen wrote about when she approached tge armed mob of 200 men. It was very compelling to read about how a journalist handles herself in this situation. She finally came off to be a non-threatening person, and one of the men even shook her hand.
I think the story was written well enough that there weren’t many points in it where fabrication would have made it any better. I will politely disagree with Sybil because, to me, the fact that Nolen put herself in the story made it more interesting. I’m curious how the natives would react to an outsider – a “lone white reporter” – invading their territory at a time of major unrest in the country. I don't think we would get that impression without Nolen using first-person.
Nolen's story reads as good as a fictional story because of the drama and tension. Throughout reading the story Nolen was able to make me feel like I was in the truck with him, constantly watching my back, paranoid of what was around the next bend of the road. She was able to show the fear and uncertaintly of the characters she encountered, and herself.
ReplyDeleteThere were numerous times when Nolen could have exagerrated events or quotes throughout the whole story. With each of the characters she encounters she could have changed the quotes to be more intense or confrontational. She also could have added more violence to the scenes where she meets the Kikuyus.
Her descriptions of the people, the riots and the aftermath are definitely what makes her story better than the hard news one. There's a personal element to it. It puts people not only as rioters but also as victims.
ReplyDeleteShe might have been tempted to make tweaks when she's describing in the beginning the man looking at the charred body. Let's face it, if the man had recognized the baby, started crying and trying to hug the body this would have been a much more dramatic situation than walking away. Actually even though she didn't tweak and just let the facts as they are, that was still one of my favorite parts of the story. It kept me wondering for a second if he was going to recognize the body, what he would do.
Count me in with Sybil; the first-person account is troubling to me. The story (for me) read like a feature until the car they were riding in came to an abrupt halt with engine trouble; Stephanie Nolen got out of the vehicle and proceeded on without her group - in this moment she became a part of the story. This is where I felt it read a little more like fiction than real-life. What would the outcome have been if she had stayed with the vehicle? Sybil's point about the "lone white reporter" was dead-on; this gave the account of the feature a surreal feel to it.
ReplyDeleteA "Jason Blair" momemt could have occurred for Nolen when the group arrived in Nakuru and there was no hint of trouble. Nolen could have eliminated the mothers, with their children in their best clothes, and the couple of tourists heading to see the flamingos from her story and just used the information about the several thousand refugees at the fairgrounds. She chose instead to put in the truth that gave balance to her the content of her story.
The first one definitely grabs me more on an emotional level. The sensory details really just suck you in and make you want to read more. I think the line "there were people along the road, but no one spoke" just encapsulates the entire deprived, human element of the story perfectly in just those few words. She could have easily tweaked any of these details to enhance the drama of the whole thing. Even that one sentence I just mentioned could have been fabricated or tweaked. Was everyone truly silent? Could she really account for everyone on the side of the street? Was their silence just a reaction to this new and strange white journalist walking through their town? It's obviously splitting hairs, but still shows how easily the truth can be altered even if minutely.
ReplyDeleteSome storytelling tools Nolen used was the way he structured the story itself. He started with a compleeing part of his journey where the town was on fire, and took us back to the beginning. He moved through the beginning middle, climax and end just like a work of fiction might. There wasn't much of a resloution, however, except that they were out of immediate danger. But the country was still in turmoil at the end.
ReplyDeleteNolan could have easily tweaked areas of the stor. For example, where he distracted the mob of people long enough for the opposing group to break down the road block, and then he had to run for his life to keep from getting shot by an arrow. Or when their truck ran out of gas and a motor bike was suddenly available to go fill and siphon the gas into their truck. Oh, and the town they stopped at happened to be torched right after they left.
His journey through Kenya reads like a movie, and it may have been just one life in the entire country in crisis, and things like what happend to him were happening everywhere. It just sounded like he was involved in very compelling situations time after time throughout his story.