Frow and the Question of Writing Up and Down

John Frow urges writers to “… rather than claiming to speak for anyone else, intellectuals should speak as intellectuals and address their readers as such”(78).  I thought this was interesting in relation to “Serial”, in which Sarah Koenig, who is an experienced producer and journalist, sort of seems to be coming from a bit more everymans place in her research.  In one instance Koenig is doing some field reporting but notes interruptions at one point to go for food (sets a more than casual tone). Why does she include these tidbits instead of sanitizing them as she does on this American Life? Well, you could look at this from two ways: one is that she is showing her audience her faults and  talking to them as she would anyone else, or she’s manipulating her habits as a journalist and a person to appeal to her audience that reaches across the demographics. While I think that it is most likely the former, we must recognize that her earnestness aids “Serial” in its allure. Its a normal person, investigating a normal crime, but its extraordinary in its complexities/ unknowns. In some respects I do think that she is  talking down to listeners, on occasion, we know that she knows how to properly research and question people, but she is charming and just like us when she notes her frustration and faults with the case.

Frow also notes that the divide between what is considered high and low culture is breaking down by the “commodification of high culture and the democratization of low”. This is especially pertinent to Serial, as it is on NPR, which is sometimes considered a little less accessible for everyday people but it concerns itself with an everyday cold case of what was considered to be a violent event between two average teenagers. Serial finds a way to combine the salaciousness of crime (lowbrow) with the profiling, narrative, and research of a book/ esteemed radio program.

Some people (according to Amazon reviews and my best friend’s boyfriend) felt that they were “jerked around” by Lauren Slater’s “Lying”. That by not being completely clear by the end of the memoir she was somehow talking down to the reader by not being upfront. In some ways this stance doesn’t acknowledge how authors may wield their authorial intent, Slater chooses to be unreliable, it is what pushes her story forward and is used as a metaphor as much as epilepsy is. This treatment, while maybe not being traditional, more asks its readers to prove themselves with their own bullshit detector. Does this put the author in a greater position of power? Yes, but this power relation does not equate with talking down to readers, in this instance at least. Slater does not flaunt that she in fact knows the truth, she herself admits to being a little fuzzy on it her own writings and recollections: ” I record my life, sifting and trying to separate what is real from what I’ve dreamed”(230).

 

 

One Reply to “Frow and the Question of Writing Up and Down”

  1. It’s interesting how you pointed out the “talking up/down” relationship between the author and the reader. I think I’ve found a new tension between the author and the reader; it’s almost like a war of who has the greater authority. Authors, on one hand, have the chance to manipulate readers, but readers have the right to interpret the author however they want to. A writer could be “writing up” to the reader and yet the reader could interpret the uncertainty in the text’s language (e.g. in Slater’s Lying) as a form of manipulation; a writer could be “writing down” to the reader and yet the reader could be comforted by the confidence and sureness in the narrator’s tone and be inclined to trust the author’s authority more (e.g. About A Mountain?).

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.