Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Transcribing Oral Stories
Now that all of you have print copies of the stories that we listened to in class on Monday, I'd like to think about the ways in which these stories have been textualized. All of the stories that we listened to were told in English by bilingual speakers of a Native language. This reduces some of the complexity inherent in translation, because the storytellers provided their own translation and interpretation into English. However, the move from the spoken word to the written word in these stories is not nearly as seamless. All of the stories have been transcribed by different people, and in different ways. Some are presented as poetry, some as prose. In some instances we know a little bit about the storytelling context; in others not. We don't always know who has transcribed the story, nor what the context of the transcription (as distinct from the storytelling performance) is. Think about the textual version of the stories that we have listened to, and make some comments about the issues areound the transcriptions. What do you see as some of the problems and challenges in moving from oral to written? Is one style or method of textual presentation better than others in re-presenting an oral text?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I must say I am really soaking up these stories as I spent ten years working in the woods west of Quesnel as a forest technician, and I always wondered how the indigenous people spent their time during the long winter months before the invasion of Caucasians. I am beginning to believe that stories and/or oral traditions were a major part of their lives.
ReplyDeleteI do find the printed copies lacking when compared to the oral recordings we listened to. Things such as inflection, humor and song can not be captured as well in print compared to oral.
In the written rendition of "Deep Within our Spirit", I failed to perceive the flavor of humour that was strong in the oral with the account of the encounter with the grizzly.
Though the story by Aimee August was not handed out in print, how would the song she sang be written? That was beautiful and as I was listening to it I imagined hearing it in one of the many hundreds of beautiful spots that I had worked in over the years out in the woods. I felt privileged to hear it as I felt it was very powerful and full of meaning even though I could not decipher any words; if there were any. No matter how it could be attempted to be put to print, I would never get all that out of it.
I did think that putting the stories in prose as opposed to traditional story format was a lot more successful as breaks could be created so that the reader may guess at some inflection of some sort at given places in the print.
Hi Everyone,
ReplyDeleteI think it was really interesting to see the different ways that oral information can be written. Formal text like a paper as in the speeches to the Caucasian crowd, and then the style used that resembled stanzas in poetry--I loved it. I was skeptical to see how inflection and nuances would be shown in written form, and I am happy to say I can read the inflection in many of the stories. I was elated. I now see that the history is not only kept, but the feelings and character of the speaker comes through in written form. Not as speach does, but it works.
Three ways oral-recording-written. Hopefully history has more of a chance to be remembered but now we can all enjoy it as many of us would not have had the opportunity to listen to the stories. See you all in class.
It is such a challenge to change a story from an oral piece to a textualized one. So much can be lost simply by putting paper to pen or fingers to keyboard, in an attempt to prevent a story from being lost forever. The question is, it is worth keeping a story that may have been documented differently than it was originally told, if that means preserving the history behind the story? I believe the answer to be yes.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there is also no doubt in my mind that often the oral traditions of First Nations people become significantly different when textualized. When it comes to oral storytelling, the way the story is told can be as important as the story itself. While Wendy Wickwire attempted to maintain the flow that Harry Robinson has when he tells his stories, and does a fairly good job of it, there is still the notion that we aren’t getting the whole story.
Also, brought up today was the thought of the way people use language when they are telling a story. From reading Harry Robinson’s pieces, it’s obvious that he has an accent and does not always pronounce his English correctly. Wendy documents this quite well, but I have a feeling that some transcribers are not quite as productive when it comes to recording stories told orally. There is always the risk that we are missing out on some critical information such as the way things are pronounced, hand motions, and where and when the story was being told. Sadly, this is the price we pay in exchange for preserve First Nations stories.
You've all made some excellent observations here. It is clear that once a story is textualized, it exists as a print piece, and that is quite different from an oral performance. Translation is always problematic, and things are always "lost in translation." I wonder, however, if there are also things to be gained? Is it possible that, at least some of the time, the print versions of an oral story highlight certain things that we, as readers, might not notice, as listeners? Is it a question of better/lesser than, or of differences that we need to pay attention to? Can we keep differences at play by foucsing on them, rather than loss/gain? Is there something to be gained (lol) by this approach?
ReplyDeleteI believe a lot gets lost when stories are being orally spoken and then textualized. The tone of voice, rythym, romance, emotions and gestures are not being seen or heard in the story. In order to fully get feeling out of a story I must be able to hear it and feel the story from within. I am also a visual type of person so it would be nice to have the actual story teller on video. It would be much harder to transcribe the Lady singing that beautiful song. I think the feeling wouldn't be there if I just read her song. I believe both oral and written are very important for stories becauser they both send out different messages and meanings.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you as well, Myrna. Arnold Krupat has said (well, I think it was him...) that we need to face the nearly disabling fact, however, that most of us will learn about oral stories through writing. There is not much most of us can do about that. I also think, however, that having listened to some of the storytelling on tape makes it that much easier for us to "hear" the voice and rhythm in the written texts. Listening to Harry makes us "hear" Harry when we read...
ReplyDelete