{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03771849126034959, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014719411223551058, 'mean_word_length': 5.362573099415204, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Ethics of Writing the Caribbean: Latina Narrative as Testimonio

Both the testimonio entitled Me llamo Rigoberta Menchú y ası́ me nacı́o la consciencia (Menchú, 1983), and the controversy created by David Stoll’s study, Rigoberta Menchú and the Story of All Poor Guatemalans (1998), seem to have faded from intellectual headlines. The debate about the veracity of Menchú’s testimonio has indeed reached an impasse (Grandin 1). Yet in the 2001 collection, The Rigoberta Menchú Controversy, with a Response from David Stoll, Stoll persists in challenging the ability of testimonio to provide truthful accounting of human rights abuse (qtd. in Arias 400). The continuing value of the controversy, though, is its reinvigoration of discussion about the relationship between narrative and human rights abuse. Both of the epigraphs above point to the challenges testimonio writers face: locating a boundary between fiction=‘‘story’’ and what is often purported to be a truthful story=‘‘history.’’ The first epigraph does not refer to testimonio writers’ inability to record truthful events.