is only capable of expressing language . Foucault ’ s argument that “ what is speaking is … the word itself ” and Derrida ’ s claim that “ reading … cannot legitimately transgress the text toward something other than it ” are both significant in this context . This is further intensified when we consider Scarry ’ s point that “ Physical pain does not simply resist language but actively destroys it ”. So from the outset we are faced with the dilemma of communicating pain through a medium that can only adequately represent itself , and which pain actively works to undermine . This dilemma does not become less pronounced when we begin to discuss or represent the pain of others , as Gourevitch does . In relaying the experience of Manase , a Tutsi fleeing the génocidaires , Gourevitch dedicated one sentence to the injury he experienced on his journey : “ Then he got shot in the thigh , and life once again became about little more than staying alive .” The clipped , detached nature of this retelling could be a truthful retelling of Manse ’ s account , but it could also suggest that Gourevitch is aware of the ethical and practical dilemma of representing pain and therefore opted for presenting the event in impersonal terms . But this creates another difficulty in that it places pain outside the domain of the verifiable .
However , at times Gourevitch does attempt to interpret the pain of others , particularly when they are incapable of articulating that pain themselves as in the case of the dead . Reflecting upon the mutilated bodies of Tutsis at a church at Nyarubuye , Gourevitch considered his inability to “ settle on any meaningful response : revulsion , alarm , sorrow , grief , shame , incomprehension ”. These varying responses could well be indicative of