<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Gautam John <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gautam@prathambooks.org">gautam@prathambooks.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
It isn't so much about official and unofficial narratives - it's about<br>
dominance and if this is the only one then it is the dominant one. And<br>
dominance is about more than just the existence of a single narrative.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br></div></div></blockquote><div>I think it's about all of these: what's considered official and unofficial and what dominates - and maybe what's seen as definitive too.<br><br>
While one narrative may dominate in the short run, in the medium and long terms the existence of multiple <br>narratives usually does ensure that no single POV can rule. (look at all the voices and multiple perspectives around Steve Jobs' passing).<br>
<br>Agree that power is also part of the equation: whose voice? whose narrative? who puts it out?<br>
<br>And I think part of it is how we choose to see it and who/what we choose to hear - if I choose to see Tory's piece as dominant because it was commissioned by the Foundation, then that determines how much power I give it. If I decide it is an interesting chronicle of a moment in time, then it becomes 'a' version, not 'the' version.<br>
<br>Also: want to second Hisham in suggesting that people add their comments on Tory's piece, since that too is the intention.<br><br>And I'm bowing out of this now, since I'm on a flight with lots of time to spare and could go on and on and on. :)<br>
<br> Cheers<br>Bishakha<br><br><br></div></div>