Answers to Questions This is Not a Story by Denis Diderot - Essay Example

? Answers to Questions regarding Denis Diderot’s “This is Not a Story What does the narrative strategy of having 2 narrators dialogue with each other teach us about the story that is being presented? In Diderot’s “This is Not a Story,” the narrative strategy of having two narrators dialogue with each other teaches us that the interpretation of the events in any story would normally require at least two narrators in order for it to at least appear objective to the readers. The events in the story involve conflicts in the relationships that people share and generally involve love as well as who is right and wrong. The ethical issues behind these events simply cannot be labeled as either right or wrong, unless the selection is one of religion. Nevertheless, Diderot’s “This is Not a Story” is more like a discussion on human nature, for the second narrator implies that the selection itself is “a litany of shopworn anecdotes telling us what everyone has known since the day of creation: that man and woman are two very mischievous creatures” (Diderot 44). The idea of man and woman being mischievous creatures is indeed an opinion. It is not a fact and it would certainly encourage opposition, thus the need for two narrators to clarify the issue. Clarification of the ethical issues on the nature of man and woman in Diderot’s “This is Not a Story” is done by the two narrators by giving a wholly new and fresh interpretation of the events in the narrative. Although Diderot claims that “[his] little tale will not prove anything,” the second narrator encourages him to “go ahead [and to] go on and enjoy [himself]” (44). The mere fact that the second narrator is excited about something that is already known and that after all “will not prove anything” somehow implies that he believes that both he and Diderot will be able to shed a whole new light on these events. Thus, although the selection is “not a story” as the title says for it “will not prove anything,” the presence of the two narrators definitely allows a re-interpretation of the events in the narrative. The fact that there are two narrators for the selection lends various other features to the narrative which basically make it different from one with only a single narrator. Firstly, there is objectivity. For example, the affirmation of the second narrator lends strength and credibility to Diderot’s statement that indeed “there exist men who are truly good and women who are thoroughly wicked” (45). Moreover, towards the middle of the story, the second narrator does the same when Diderot mentions the opposite: “But then, if there are women who are very wicked and men who are very good, there are also very good women and very bad men” (49). The second narrator agrees with Diderot on both of these accounts, thus lending validity, if not verity, to the latter’s claims. If the narrative only had one narrator, the narrator would have sounded preachy and subjective. Secondly, there is validity and feedback. At one instance in the first half of the story, as Diderot begins to narrate how Madame Reymer wants to express her love for Tanie, the second narrator all of a sudden cuts him and says, “You can spare me Madame Reymer’s charade; I know all about it” (47). What the second narrator mentions somehow implies one thing – that what Diderot is saying is indeed true, for the former has also known about it. This therefore makes the first narrator’s statement valid, thus making the reader think that all the rest of the narrative is valid as well. Apart from this, the idea that the second narrator refuses to listen to the rest of the story in fact acts as feedback and does three very important things: it confirms the truth of the statement, it proves the credibility of Diderot, and it cuts the story short by getting rid of the unnecessary details. Thirdly, if unnecessary details are removed, there is also addition of vital information. When Diderot asks the second narrator what the latter knows about Madame Reymer and Tanie, the second narrator says, “I know as surely as one can know anything” and then proceeds by giving information about the characters (47). Without the additional details and with only one narrator, the narrative would have been biased. Fourthly, there is commentary. If Diderot’s task is only to narrate the events as they happened, the second narrator assumes the role of a critic or a commentator. As soon as Diderot speaks Tanie’s words for Madame Reymer: “You want to be rich,” the second narrator blurts out, “She was rich, the slut [and] she is [a] beautiful monster” (44). The comments of the second narrator do not only explain the previous statement of Diderot further but also increase its intensity. Fifthly, there is dramatic involvement. In the second half of the narrative, as Diderot introduces Mademoiselle de la Chaux, the second narrator notices something in Diderot’s facial expression and says, “There was a catch in your voice [and] I do believe you are weeping” (44). The truth is that Diderot himself knows what Mme. De la Chaux has been through and that the sadness shows in his voice, and this is what the second narrator notices. If there were no second narrator, Diderot would not be able to demonstrate his feelings through mere words. Thus, the purpose of the second narrator here is to narrate and describe to the reader what exactly is happening to the first narrator as he speaks. This in turn will add a dramatic effect to the mood of the narrative. Lastly, there is humor. Towards the end of the second half of the narrative, Diderot tells of an instance where Mme. De la Chaux offers Doctor Camus a chance to ask her to sleep with him, and to which the second narrator immediately reacts. The second narrator says, “If I had been in the Doctor’s place, I would have hoped that the rest would come later” (44). Diderot then replies, “Yes, but if it had been you and not him, Mademoiselle de la Chaux would not have made the offer.” (44) Moreover, through the continuous exchange of ideas between Diderot and the second narrator, the main idea is reaffirmed: “that man and woman are [indeed] two very mischievous creatures” (44). This both narrators somehow agree to as they narrate the events concerning two tragic stories of love. In fact, the second narrator further adds to this when he says, “Disgust and losing desire for a woman, is a terrible thing in love” (44). This further proves that, although there is nothing wrong with love itself, man and woman and their feelings always get in the way of developing a healthy relationship. 2. If this is not a story, then what, according to N1, would make it a story? According to Diderot, or N1, and as stated in the very first line of the narrative: “When one tells a story, there has to be someone to listen; and if the story runs to any length, it is rare for the storyteller not sometimes to be interrupted by his listener” (44). It is therefore clear that there are two things that make a story: a listener and an interruption from the listener. Nevertheless, as for the second requirement, Diderot does not say that “there HAS TO be an interruption” in the same way that he states “there HAS TO be someone to listen,” which means that a story may not have interruptions, but it DEFINITELY HAS TO have a listener. Furthermore, Diderot emphasizes this need for a listener as a justification for using a second narrator for his selection: “That is why…I have introduced a personage who plays as it were the role of listener” (44). It is, however, interesting to note that the second narrator “plays AS IT WERE the role of listener,” which means that this man is not perfectly the listener that Diderot expects a story should have. This now brings us to the question – if there is indeed a listener to this story, then why is this still not a story? The answer, is that, although there is indeed a listener, this man, as previously stated, is not perfectly a listener. The reason is that the second narrator not just listens but constantly interrupts Diderot as the latter speaks, when in fact, according to the author, the idea of interruptions is not a required element of a story. What therefore makes a story? A story is, apart from all its other essential elements, a narrative with a listener, who seldom if ever interrupts the storyteller. 3. How does the presentation of this text help or hinder its being considered a story? (Be sure to define the term “story”.) Dictionary.com defines story as “a narrative, either true or fictitious, in prose or verse, designed to interest, amuse, or instruct the hearer or reader.” Based on this definition, the presentation of the text in Diderot’s “This is Not a Story” somehow helps its being considered a story by employing a second narrator who gives the story objectivity, validity, feedback, additional information, criticism, sentimental touch, and humor. However, somehow the presentation contains negative elements like the presence of multiple quotes and the absence of paragraphs. Both of these might give the reader a hard time understanding the narrative. Although not stated by Dictionary.com, a story must employ clarity in order for it to efficiently “interest, amuse, or instruct.” Somehow this is where Diderot’s “This is Not a Story” fails. Works Cited Diderot, Denis. This is Not a Story. New York: Motilal Banarsidass, 1989. Print. “Story” [Definition]. 2011. Dictionary.com, LLC. 21 Aug 2011. Read More