Change the Narrative

Because People Use that Word Way Too Much

https://www.textstudio.com

There was a time when people would tell each other stories.  We would hear and read stories, true stories, fake stories, it didn’t matter.  When we came across a story, we would say, “that was a good story” or “that was a sad story” or “that was a funny story.”  But those days are long gone.  Nowadays, we are much too aware. We use a bigger word.  A smarter word.  That word is “narrative.”  

A few days ago, I was watching Game 1 of the National League Championship Series between the Mets and the Dodgers.  The analyst in the booth, retired pitcher John Smoltz, used the word “narrative” several times.  Actually, more than several. (And yes, I re-watched that horrible game to bring you these examples. You’re welcome.)

Bottom 1st – [on Mookie Betts] Yeah, he definitely looks like a different hitter and the narrative has changed. That’s how quick it changes in the post season. You just can’t pay attention to the noise.

Top 2nd – I tell ya, at some point in this series, Pete’s [Alonso] gonna have to change the narrative of being too passive. He’s taking a lot of strikes.

Top 4th – [About the playoffs] Those who have been-there-done-that a lot know how to deal with the narratives and really kind of the overkill of how its viewed.

[About Alonso] Yeah, I mean, you don’t have many scenarios play out like this . . . where you’re in the final year of your contract and you go into the postseason, and a lot could change. It might even add to the narrative of a re-signing if he continues to hit big homers.

Bottom 5th – [on Dodger’s Manager Dave Roberts] What would be totally unfair about that narrative, once again, he did not have his starters able to pitch . . . that’s part of the game, I get it, but I don’t think that narrative can continue when you’ve lost how many pitchers during the year.

Top 6th – Game-Ones are always important but they’re not as significant in a seven-game series as they are in a five-game series, so that helps the narrative even if the Mets do not come back and win this game.

To be fair, no one does—or should—regard Hall of Famer John Smoltz as a steward of the English language. There’s no Boswell's Life of Smoltz.  He’s an above average baseball analyst on Fox Sports, which puts him in rarified air in this day and age (especially compared to the dogshit that is ESPN baseball).  But he is an example of a reasonably smart person who has become quite fond of using the word “narrative” in all sorts of contexts.  Like seven times in one half of a baseball game.

Did he take an online journalism class this off-season?  Was he having a stroke? 

Most of us have a general sense of what the word “narrative” means.  At its core, a narrative is a story, yet the use of the word “narrative” instead of “story” suggests an awareness of the story as being a story.  In other words, there are certain elements that comprise a story—like a point of view and a plot—that exist in all cases.  But when you use the word “narrative” in every-day contexts, like a baseball game, you are telling the world that you recognize that the events and information being processed are actually presented as a construction, an intentionally organized accounting of events.         

For John Smoltz, he usually uses the word “narrative” to mean “what people are saying about a particular player, coach, or team.”  For example, Pete Alonso hit one of the greatest clutch home runs in baseball history—thinking about it brings me tears of joy—and Smoltz wants to make the point that this clutch home run will be relevant as to whether or not he re-signs with the Mets this offseason.  But Smoltz says it different.  He says it will be part of the “narrative of a resigning.”  Why cheapen it that way?  Make the point that it is relevant information.  Similarly, make the point that Mookie Betts is hitting better now, and therefore people are having a harder time saying that he sucks. Make the point that Pete Alonso has been taking a lot of pitches. Why does it need to be one step removed as someone else’s narrative? Why is it relevant whether other people are making the same observation? 

In Game 2, the Mets hit a grand slam in the second inning.  Later in the game, Smoltz said that the grand slam “changed the narrative for the Mets.”  What? At this point, it might make sense for John Smoltz to eliminate that word from his vocabulary, because it’s not making the world any clearer for anybody.

“Narrative,” as used today, has become a loaded term.  It suggests that the underlying organization of events, the story, is subject to scrutiny, to dissection, that it’s somehow dubious or unreliable.  Perhaps it’s a way to cope with the seemingly infinite amount of information we are inundated with every day.  If we regard everything as a narrative, only then are we able to navigate through the modern world without becoming too attached to the truth of anything.  It’s pretty darned cynical, if you ask me.

My personal rule of thumb is, unless you are telling a story about a story (in which case using the word “narrative” might be appropriate) just talk about the thing in itself.  Today, many people will hear or read something that seems untrue or misleading and they snap back, “that’s your narrative,” or even more direct, “that’s a false narrative.”  (“Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion man.”)  In this context, what they really mean is “that’s bullshit.”  Which version do you prefer?  I know which one I prefer.  

On the flip side, if they come across something that rings true or moves them, they might regard it as a compelling story, but they will still often use the word “narrative” when talking about it, maybe because they believe it sounds smarter, or more likely because it’s reflexively at the forefront of everyone’s brain.  But by using that word, we diminish the power of the underlying compelling story.  How about, instead of uttering the word “narrative,” we just give it a simple “Amen.”

The grand slam didn’t change the narrative for the Mets.  It won them the game.  Just say that, please.