|
Извиняюсь, вот контекст: Judges, I have said, are under constraints by which novelists are not bound. A novelist may try for narrative fit, and he may fail; or he may not try, he may even, to achieve some effect, go against it. Critics in turn may, justifiably or not, pan him for it. But that will be that: what he wrote is what he wrote. The judge has to try for whatever in his system counts as narrative fit, but if he is thought by higher or later courts to have failed, they will write a different ending. Eventually some ending gets accepted into the legal system, and the statement of that becomes the right answer; it was the answer which sooner or later was given and endured. If the legal system is a good one, the judgement will not be given or endure unless it is one which achieves a reasonable (not necessarily the only reasonable) narrative fit. So the narrative fit is the criterion which the judge should use in making up his mind what judgement to give, and he does not have the licence the novelist has to astonish and disappoint or delight us by departing from it; but in both cases the answer is determined by what in the end is written or affirmed.
|
