Assignment 3:2- Spoken Versus Silent

For this blog assignment I would like you to make some comparisons between Harry Robson’s writing style in “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King of England” and King’s style in Green Grass, Running Water. What similarities can you find between the two story-telling voices? Coyote and God are present in both texts, how do they compare in character and voice across the stories?

In reading King’s Green Grass, Running Water, there are undeniable similarities between Robinson’s style and the writing style in King’s work. The influence that Robinson has on King, as Blanca Chester observes, is illustrated through the dynamics between the different types of stories that exist within the book. During assignment 2:6, I remember reading Tony Bae’s blog, where he mentioned finding the balance between oral and written stories, toeing that thin line of not being too colloquial or literary. I wonder if Green Grass, Running Water succeeded in finding that balance. While the story had a flow to it which made reading it in silence a smooth-sailing experience, it is also fit for reading out loud due to its simplicity. By simplicity, I meant the way it echoed Robinson’s straightforward style of story-telling. Unlike many literary works, it is not dominated by figurative language which are designed to evoke imagery in reader’s imaginations. That is an interesting difference between stories meant for oral-storying telling and those meant to be read. Stories which rely on orality do not contain much figurative language, unlike written literature, which is often overflowing with them. This is perhaps due to the role of the story-teller for each mode of story-telling. Images that are meant to be evoked by spoken stories often have the help of the atmosphere created by the story-teller’s mood and tone. They don’t necessarily have to profusely give out many descriptions in order to express a feeling. Rather, the story-tellers have the ability to create images in the listener’s mind through softening or raising their voices, talking in different tones, or slowing and speeding down the pace of the story. All of these can replace the purpose of using many words to describe a certain scene or emotion in the novel, and it is also the reason why oral story-telling provides such a different level of intimacy between the story-teller and the audience. It forms a connection between person to person, instead of person to paper. Of course, literary works also allow the story-teller and the audience to form deep connections and words, if used well, can create powerful images and emotions. However, that sense of connection stems more from the audience themselves, instead of something that is passed on from the initial story-teller. In other words, oral story-telling allows the story-teller to share and pass on pieces of themselves, forming connections between the people, while written stories allows the audience to make initial discoveries about parts of themselves, forming a connection between texts and people. These are not mutually exclusive definitions, and the functions of oral and written stories can definitely overlap.

The differences in King’s story and Robinson’s Coyote Makes a Deal with the King of England, lies within the roles that Coyote and the narrator take on. In Robinson’s tale, Coyote is a prominent character, and his exchange with the King makes up for most of the story. In King’s writing, while Coyote is an important character, he gives way to the other narratives and remains in the background. This now brings us to the role of the narrator in either stories, which is quite different. This interesting article talks about the role of the narrator in visual and written story-telling. The author mentions at one point that “narrators make their stories personal by providing meaningful reflections on their experiences.” This caught my attention because it made me think about who the narrators were in both King’s and Robinson’s stories. That is when I realized the absence of a narrator in Robinson’s tale, and that’s the characteristic that makes it so important as a story meant for oral story-telling. We, the readers, are supposed to take on the role of the narrator, and fill in the gaps left by Robinson’s purposefully broken syntax and imperfect grammar. King’s story, however, provides us with a narrator that, while still simplistic and colloquial, does not give the need for us to step into the role.

The article also peaked my interest in the differences between oral story-telling and visual story-telling. Visual story-telling is often used in today’s world as marketing purposes, but how about art as a form of story-telling? What are some limitations that it might have, and what are some way it might transcend what oral stories are able to provide for the audience? Furthermore, when we combine oral and visual, how much power can a story hold in terms of expressing a message?

Works Cited

King, Thomas. Green Grass Running Water. Toronto: Harper Collins, 1993. Print.

Robinson, Harry. Living by Stories: a Journey of Landscape and Memory. Ed. Wendy Wickwire. Vancouver: Talonbooks, 2005. Print.

Wagenstein, Oded. “The Importance of Visual Storytelling in Photography.” Photographylife. Web. 03 March 2019, https://photographylife.com/the-importance-of-visual-storytelling-in-photography

“Who’s Telling the Story? The Importance of Narrators in Contemporary Fiction.” Writing about Writing, 7 Feb 2013. Web. 03 March 2019, http://ucwbling.chicagolandwritingcenters.org/whos-telling-the-story-the-importance-of-narrators-in-contemporary-fiction/