In the book “New Directions in Law and Literature” edited by Elizabeth S. Anker and Bernadette Myler, the chapter by Peter Brooks titled “5 Retrospective Prophecies: Legal Narrative Constructions” analyzes the concept of legal and literary traditions of narrativity. Brooks claims that “the narratives presented in law as well as literature are not themselves events in the world but rather the way we speak events, the way we give them significant order”(Brooks 92). To discuss this idea further, he first identifies how he feels the “status of narrative in law, and in legal studies, are strangely uncertain and ambiguous.” To this vital issue, Brooks inquired into various methodologies that use narratology, such as legal writing and practices, the detective story genre, and theories from fellow critics, to tie together the influences of this literary device on legal analysis; despite his claim to the overall unrecognized effects within legal professionals.
Brooks begins by identifying the detective genre, utilizing Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories to identify how the “narrative process is about discovery and creation of a meaningful sequence”(Brooks 92). His argument is also essential in the legal world, which he identifies as the connection between the deduction process within the detective genre and the legal doctrine of “inevitable discovery.” The subsequent legal example he employed, Nix v. Williams, showcases the connection between what he calls “the logic of a certain kind of narrative explanation that derives beginnings and middles from ends”(Brooks 94). From this, Brooks’ critique of the work of fellow narrativity analysts further explains his main points of the implications of narrative as a speech and cognition form. Under the Huntsman’s Paradigm, Carlo Ginzburg, a well-known historian, stated, “Perhaps the very idea of narrative…was born in a hunting society, from the experience of deciphering tracks”(Brooks 95). However, Brooks emphasizes the connection of the legal realm and wants to redefine these ideas in practical scenarios where narrative analysis can support legal proceedings. Using another primary source, he looks to Jerome Bruner’s claims about the narrative construction of reality, which can be defined as “the ways in which narrative sequence, plot…are used by humans to make sense of their lives”(Brooks 100) to bring us back to the legal system. Here, Brooks asserts his frustrations as to why, if the conclusion should be to become more knowledgeable in narratology to understand stories and their effects, there are so few acknowledgments within the legal system where storytelling is such a paramount factor. His finalizing critiques lay with the idea that within the legal system, “the law regularly issues “retrospective prophecies” which never seem to address the “narrative construction of reality as an explanatory system” (Brooks 104).
Because Brooks first analyzed the established remarks of literary and historical scholars on the concepts of narrativity, his later emphasis on their connections to the legal world makes us, as readers, view both in a cohesive way. I found it to be a great mechanism to highlight underlying similarities between things such as the actual story and the telling of events or the reasoning behind detective novels and supreme court cases. What is persuasive and incredibly interesting is Brooks’ usage of legal doctrines, such as inevitable discovery, to pinpoint his ideas on the significance of narrative characteristics in the reality of legal practice. More specifically, he raises the issue of understanding what actually happened in a factual, objective manner versus how those events were told. Brooks’ multifaceted approaches to various examples, which allow for an understanding that goes beyond the seemingly strict divides between literature structures and legal proceedings to find commonality, is well worth the inquiry. The detective novel becomes paramount as well, not just because it deals with a crime-oriented plot but because of how crimes and sequences of events can shape the reader’s assumptions and expectations. From this, factual relevance from the case law of Nix v. Williams states, “The evidence…was properly admitted at respondent’s second trial on the ground that it would ultimately, or inevitably have been discovered even if no violation of any constitutional provision had taken place”(Nix v. Williams). Taking Brooks’ view, I felt it illustrates the nature of a constructed retrospective property; which has been defined previously as “that which is plotted forward to the predictable outcome can be so ordered because one, in fact, stands at the point of their outcome”(Brooks 97). Despite the event already occurring, the ability of legal professionals, writers, and jurors to fully accept this notion of causation, timing, and sequence of events in relation to one another, they also accept – perhaps unknowingly, the usage of narrative manipulation as a method to make sense or even moral justification of our legal system.
Works Cited
Brooks, Peter. “Retrospective Prophecies: Legal Narrative Constructions .” New Directions in Law and Literature, edited by Anker, Elizabeth & Meyler, Bernadette, Oxford University Press, New York, 2017, pp. 92-108.
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984).” Justia Law, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/467/431/
