We recently published Drevlow’s amazing “Friends, Family, Neighbors, & Co-Workers All Shocked.”
Here, we ask him two questions about his story:
1) I adore the voice in this! So powerfully oblivious and yet also so powerfully aware. How closely do you think this narrator is really looking at their own motivations here?
I think one of the reasons I watch as much Dateline and true crime as I do (for better or worse) is that my very complicated brother killed himself when he was 18 and I can remember all the people who came out of the woodwork then—to tell their stories, to become a part of the story, to weave this story of my brother that didn’t seem at all true to me because I was on the inside of it. At the time, I was very cynical and kind of bitter toward these people, because in my mind, they were all somehow complicit in my brother being alienated and treated like a weirdo. I come from a small town and an even smaller school, where literally everybody knows each other and knows their stories—at least the outward stories. And at the time, I would go through my mind and think of the teacher who had been condescending, the preacher who had thoughts about suicide and sexuality, the friend who stopped being his friend. They don’t know who my brother was! Only I know truly who my brother was!
But 35 years later and after a lot of Datelines, I’ve become a lot more forgiving. This is one of my defenses for watching these types of shows and all the clear ethical implications of them. If nothing else, these shows reveal that everybody’s complicated, everybody’s hypocritical, that as the cliche goes—nobody comes out a winner in any of these things. Even for the ones who are doing it to insert themselves as part of the story or distorting the story to make themselves seem more important, I think a lot of them feel like they are doing it for the right reasons. They are the ones to help tell the full story, keep the story alive, or they are “speaking for the victim and the victim’s family”—even if their real motivations might be a little sketchy.
Mostly my story “Friend, Family, Neighbors, Co-Workers All Shocked” is trying to show both sides of the coin here—the way that with my brother and the narratives that people came up with has a lot of sides, including my own motives which were sometimes selfish and sketchy in their own way. Nothing’s binary or black or white. It’s all complicated, we’re all self-serving, but we also all try to have some sort of moral code for the good of the people even if this moral code is often highly suspect. Even if knowing all that means knowing that the true story of my brother got lost in the process.
2) And I love how it speaks to the viewer too — so much of reality (“reality”) documented in this true-crime format can be taken at face value, but everyone watching comes into it with their own beliefs and prejudices. Here, you’re really calling those beliefs into questions. Just how much of the narrative we’re given can we trust? What do you think?
Yeah, before I get done with my teaching career, I’d really like to teach a class on the rhetoric of true crime. It’s always really interesting to watch multiple versions of the same crime—whether it’s Dateline v 48 Hours v 20/20 v Snapped v whatever documentary they have come up with. And these days there are a ton of documentaries coming out about cases that I’ve already seen on Dateline or one of the other shows or vice versa. I think the one that really sticks out was Making a Murderer where the documentary series was clearly all about trying to show that Steven Avery might not be guilty and even if he was, that the criminal justice system had to bear some of the blame. And with that, they really vilified the police and the prosecution and showed how sketchy and kind of slimy they were (depending on your perspective). Then the Dateline version basically just focused on what a monster Avery was and how his defense was pretty weak. I remember I got into an argument with a friend online (which was a dumb idea in the first place for obvious reasons), but he was from a nearby Wisconsin town from Avery and he was pointing out how biased and distorted it was, and my whole argument was: Of course. All these shows are arguments—are narratives—and narratives mean editing certain things out, piecing together other things that make it sound like they were connected. Narratives, by nature, are always going to be distorted. But on the other hand, small towns and small town criminal justice figures are also just as biased and distorted in the narratives they use for treating people the way they do—especially poor people on the outskirts of the community (as I know firsthand from growing up in a small Wisconsin town myself).
Which of course, doesn’t take into account how much worse it is for people of color, especially women of color, who usually don’t even get shown on true crime shows, because the “narrative” about them from police officers, lawyers, and judges are just too damn morally and ethically heartbreaking to make for “entertaining” TV.
Mostly I just come out of all of these thinking it’s scary the way everything works—the way these true crime shows will vilify police one episode and then make them out to be heroes in another episode. Same with the defense attorneys and the prosecution. And of course the victims vs. the suspects. It’s interesting to see different versions to see how they decide who the “good guys” are versus the “bad guys.” And what scares me the most is that it’s these same narratives that police and lawyers are using in court to try to convince the jury to find one way or the other. A jury who is basically like the audience of Dateline, a jury who is probably made up of a lot of people who watch Dateline, influenced by Dateline in the way their mind works, susceptible to the same narratives, the same rhetoric, and the same gaps in the story that get withheld. I guess it’s the paradox that gets me. The same way that the Datelines of the world play with the facts and distort the truth to create a false narrative to entertain–that’s actually what makes them a good case study in how our judicial system works, except with lawyers and judges as producers and hosts and jury members as the viewers trying to sort out all the false narratives and rhetorical fallacies to figure out the facts. As someone who writes stories and teaches rhetoric, that’s why this all is so interesting to me and also so disturbing with its real life implications.







