Reading any controversial issue, there are multiple factors that can lead our thought process to choose one side or the other. With literature in this format, constantly back and forth, the order of information has such a strong impact on swaying the mind. Regardless of my (or any readers) beliefs and personal experiences I feel that Anna Deavere Smith’s choice to have Rabbi Joseph Spielman’s interview placed first in the Crown Heights section of the play had a immense influence on which side of the story I was to believe. As humans we tend to believe people are truthful and side with what we hear first, proven by the fact that most people tend to have similar political views as their parents. So when I read Spielmans recount of the incident my instinct was to believe his recall was the truth and that was how the event on August 19, 1991 really took place. While this may not have been the case, it was what I subconsciously leaned toward. Smith tries to force the reader to pick a side, and even with her choice of placing Carmel Cato’s provocative interview last, to me the primacy effect had a much stronger influence on this issue than the recency effect. I am curious as to how my reading of the play would have gone had one of the characters recalling the event from one of the black residents of Crown Heights.
(240 Words)
l completely agree with your comment that the order of the interviews is critical to our overall interpretation of the event. When I read it for example, I had an automatic reaction to believe the first account of the accident and to question the subsequent interviews more frequently for validity than the first, simply because it was the first time I heard the story.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I didn't think about it until you mentioned it, but I am curious to see if my reading of the play would have been different if a different order had been used too.