A discussion group for our UNBC course on Oral Literatures.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Question #2
Walter Ong has argued that, "Learning to read and write disables the oral poet." Do you agree or disagree with this claim? Why or why not? Connect your response explicitly to one or more of the storytelling examples that we have discussed in class.
I do believe that this question is somewhat broad in the fact that it depends on what kind of oral poet and what kind of listeners or readers will be interpreting the stories. Using Harry Robinson for an example, I think the fact that he learned how to read and write helped him to better communicate his stories to Wendy and therefore to we, the readers. Perhaps there are words in his native tongue that have no meaning in English and without having the added library of English words that would come with learning to read and write, Harry would not have been able to tell his story completely in English. This also leads to the thought that Harry would then not be able to tell his stories as well to an English listener and they would not be as "good". Maybe Wendy therefore would not have had any interest in putting these stories to print and they could have been lost forever.
I actually disagree his claim that learning to read or write will disable the poet. What Jim claims is right, the stories would not have come out as good and not been understood as well to the reader.
I was thinking more along the lines that these stories need to be preserved for generations to come and be available in all mediums for everyone to enjoy. If a person is hearing impaired, oral stories will not make a difference to them. They need it transcribed into the medium that they can understand. Since there is a certain amount of hearing impairment among all people, how is a person from a First Nations band able to take part in oral traditions?
This leads into my next point that as young children we are able to sound out proper pronouncation of many different languages. As we use the language most prevelant at home we lose that ability. So the more languages that we are able to be fluent in the better our understanding.
Since Harry was bi - lingual, he had the unique ability to transcribe his stories. Just as if we were bi - lingual we may take a different meaning from the stories.
As the saying goes, "Knowledge is power", we have only to gain from this through whatever medium that a story is told from.
I think if Harry Robinson had it his way in writing he would've lost the reader by the way he talks. It's not plain English and I also think that without Wendy Wickwire's help he probably wouldn't have had a book. I believe the comment Jim made, he said that the stories could've been lost forever. Wendy did what she could to satisfy Harry without wrecking the story. Harry was bilingual so it must have been hard for Wendy to understand. Walter Ong says "an oral culture has no text" I totally disagree because I believe we learn a language somehow. It has to be paased down by reading it and by listening but lots of repetition and learning the vowel sounds of the language. It was always my dream to learn my language and now I have it and I want to share it with everyone but I can not do so without the written part. I believe every story an elder tells comes from the heart and that's why Wendy didn't change a lot of Harry's stories.
Yes, I think that the question of audience and listeners is very important to how a text - whether oral or written - is interpreted. As Harry says about his and Wendy's collaboration, and the translation of his oral performances into printed words, "the stories is worked by both of us, you and I." I really like that image because it speaks to the relationship between storyteller and listener, both of whom have important parts in creating the meaning of a story. And I agree, Ong comes out too harshly in his insistance that anyone who has been exposed to the printed word is somehow "contaminated" by that exposure, and unable to be "truly" oral. Note the emphasis that he places on purity, and think about how that connects with some of the romantic notions that continue to define both the lived lives of Aboriginal peoples, as well as their literatures!
I think that Ong is going too far. Storytelling is dynamic. If a story is passed down to a First Nation person who has an education, and they in turn pass it down does it make it less, because it is in “proper” spoken or written English? I think not. Storytelling is dynamic as is the storyteller. The point is the intent of the storyteller.
I do not see how being literate is a bias. It makes the storyteller more flexible, and able to make informed choices. I just do not think that one has to put on the regalia and speak in his or her native tongue to be considered valid. It reminds me of photographers dressing up First Nation and Inuit people to present to the world a romantic picture of the wild West and the great white North.
In Quesnel, we have a young First Nations man who raps messages against drugs and alcohol to his native youth. It is great. He calls himself, ‘The Original Aboriginal’. His way of getting through to youth is working.
I have to add, that I personally prefer to listen to the Elders face to face. I like to catch their expressions, their accents, their presence, and the crowd’s reaction. However, I also appreciate the need to preserve the stories in whatever form the storyteller desires
I do believe that this question is somewhat broad in the fact that it depends on what kind of oral poet and what kind of listeners or readers will be interpreting the stories. Using Harry Robinson for an example, I think the fact that he learned how to read and write helped him to better communicate his stories to Wendy and therefore to we, the readers. Perhaps there are words in his native tongue that have no meaning in English and without having the added library of English words that would come with learning to read and write, Harry would not have been able to tell his story completely in English. This also leads to the thought that Harry would then not be able to tell his stories as well to an English listener and they would not be as "good". Maybe Wendy therefore would not have had any interest in putting these stories to print and they could have been lost forever.
ReplyDeleteI actually disagree his claim that learning to read or write will disable the poet. What Jim claims is right, the stories would not have come out as good and not been understood as well to the reader.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking more along the lines that these stories need to be preserved for generations to come and be available in all mediums for everyone to enjoy. If a person is hearing impaired, oral stories will not make a difference to them. They need it transcribed into the medium that they can understand. Since there is a certain amount of hearing impairment among all people, how is a person from a First Nations band able to take part in oral traditions?
This leads into my next point that as young children we are able to sound out proper pronouncation of many different languages. As we use the language most prevelant at home we lose that ability. So the more languages that we are able to be fluent in the better our understanding.
Since Harry was bi - lingual, he had the unique ability to transcribe his stories. Just as if we were bi - lingual we may take a different meaning from the stories.
As the saying goes, "Knowledge is power", we have only to gain from this through whatever medium that a story is told from.
I think if Harry Robinson had it his way in writing he would've lost the reader by the way he talks. It's not plain English and I also think that without Wendy Wickwire's help he probably wouldn't have had a book. I believe the comment Jim made, he said that the stories could've been lost forever. Wendy did what she could to satisfy Harry without wrecking the story. Harry was bilingual so it must have been hard for Wendy to understand. Walter Ong says "an oral culture has no text" I totally disagree because I believe we learn a language somehow. It has to be paased down by reading it and by listening but lots of repetition and learning the vowel sounds of the language. It was always my dream to learn my language and now I have it and I want to share it with everyone but I can not do so without the written part. I believe every story an elder tells comes from the heart and that's why Wendy didn't change a lot of Harry's stories.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think that the question of audience and listeners is very important to how a text - whether oral or written - is interpreted. As Harry says about his and Wendy's collaboration, and the translation of his oral performances into printed words, "the stories is worked by both of us, you and I." I really like that image because it speaks to the relationship between storyteller and listener, both of whom have important parts in creating the meaning of a story. And I agree, Ong comes out too harshly in his insistance that anyone who has been exposed to the printed word is somehow "contaminated" by that exposure, and unable to be "truly" oral. Note the emphasis that he places on purity, and think about how that connects with some of the romantic notions that continue to define both the lived lives of Aboriginal peoples, as well as their literatures!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSo how come you removed one of your postsk Jackie?
ReplyDeleteI think that Ong is going too far. Storytelling is dynamic. If a story is passed down to a First Nation person who has an education, and they in turn pass it down does it make it less, because it is in “proper” spoken or written English? I think not. Storytelling is dynamic as is the storyteller. The point is the intent of the storyteller.
ReplyDeleteI do not see how being literate is a bias. It makes the storyteller more flexible, and able to make informed choices. I just do not think that one has to put on the regalia and speak in his or her native tongue to be considered valid. It reminds me of photographers dressing up First Nation and Inuit people to present to the world a romantic picture of the wild West and the great white North.
In Quesnel, we have a young First Nations man who raps messages against drugs and alcohol to his native youth. It is great. He calls himself, ‘The Original Aboriginal’. His way of getting through to youth is working.
I have to add, that I personally prefer to listen to the Elders face to face. I like to catch their expressions, their accents, their presence, and the crowd’s reaction. However, I also appreciate the need to preserve the stories in whatever form the storyteller desires