Dimitri's Response 1/22/2014

In Dori Laub writings in “An event without a witness,”  I focused on the section “The Imperative to Tell.”   Reading the text, it is easy to just kind of agree with him, but I also believe that looking so closely at this abstract subject makes it more serious than it is.  If a lady tells you a story about a traumatic event and you believe all the emotion and tension created in that story, you should not disreguard those emotions because her facts aren't what you heard.  I agree that certain questioning, especially the asking of questions that you already know the answer to, are unnecessary, and I am happy that he noticed that and incorporated more listening rather than schematic questioning.  To not stray from my point of interest, in the section “The Imperative To Tell,”  Laub states “in listening to testimonies, and in working with survivors and their children, I came to believe the opposite to be equally true.  The survivors did not only need to survive so that they could tell their story; they also needed to tell their story in order to survive.”(Laub).  He believes that they have to tell the story of survival and how they protected themselves in order to survive.  In a way I disagree, but I understand where he speaks from.  If they make it out of a life threatening situation and never mentioned it, it is in the past forever.  These rare life encounters are not experienced, or survived by everyone, so the telling of it is like a hero’s tale, though not entertaining to endure, it could be entertaining to hear and tell.  It is definitely different than getting bit by a snake and escaping, because if you do not tell someone immediately it is still a threat.