sacrebleuser

I really appreciated the way you let the interviewees speak for themselves and relay their own experiences without too much commentary. I have my own suspicions, but can you tell us a bit about why you decided to write the piece in this way?

Confirms.

Their stories are so individualized and sharp. I imagine it would have been extremely challenging to convey these deeply personal narratives from the perspective of an outsider. My suspicion was that it may have been vulgar to do so. It occurred to me that the presence of a narrative voice (always inflected with intention) could potentially overwhelm their stories, inadvertently recreating the same power dynamic that kept them quiet in the first place—relegating them to silence once more.

In any case, the way you wrote it felt very right. It was important to preserve the voices of these men. This sort of story isn't really told. But in reading this article, I got a sense of how these men speak; they had the opportunity to cast themselves rather than be characterized. I just thought that was a remarkable way of approaching the issue of assault and power in the military.

*Edit: Wording