What are we missing here?
Lesson 2.2: Question 5
Harry’s story would have been more insightful if it pertained details about the characters involved. For instance, if Harry had elaborated upon what kind of intentions the younger twin had by stealing the document, or what kind of duties he was assigned by his superiors, perhaps the story would have been less biased. Harry’s story immediately begins to convey the older twin as being the protagonist, and the younger twin as being the antagonist, without any background or description of the younger twin’ actions. The story leads the listeners and readers to believe the older twin to be obedient and the younger twin to possess malintent. In that regard, the story is told in a context of referring back to colonization, and the oral stories and traditions of First Nations people in North America. As interpreter readers and listeners read and hear stories, mustn’t they be aware of biases in the stories? Perhaps the purpose of Harry’s story was to simply summarize, and state the major points and events, while achieving a conclusion that explains affairs between while settlers and First Nation’s people, from the perspective of a First Nation’s person. Regardless, the story does possess biases, and as a reader, I cannot completely agree with the way the story was told.
Harry tells his stories in an intriguing and whimsical manner. The story begins by mentioning “a pair of twins charged to undertake a series of important tasks related to the creation of the earth and its first inhabitants” (Robinson, 9), and precedes by only describing what the older twin was instructed to do by his mentors. Why was there no mention of what the younger twin’s duties were? The story only mentions that “the younger twin stole a written document – a “paper” – he had been warned not to touch”, and fails to mention what duties he was assigned from his superiors. The younger twin was “banished to a distant land across a large body of water” (9) for lying about his act of stealing, while the older twin stayed in North America. The story conveys that the older twin is more honest and obedient, while the younger twin is deceitful and a liar. I find the story pigeon holes the younger twin as being a deceitful liar. Additionally, there was no mention as to why the younger twin had intentions to stealing the written documents in the first place. Harry’s stories lack content. Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed the story, and thought it was recited in a simplistic manner that really gets to the point although it lacks detail about the characters.
Work Cited
IMGSoup. Devil vs Angel Painting. Web. 11 June 2015. <http://imgsoup.com/1/devil-vs-angel-painting/>
Reel Life Wisdom. James Stewart. Doug Manning. 2015. Web. 11 June 2015. <http://www.reellifewisdom.com/don_t_believe_everything_you_hear_and_only_half_of_what_you_see>
Robinson, Harry. Living by Stories: a Journey of Landscape and Memory. Compiled and edited by Wendy Wickwire. Vancouver: Talon Books 2005. (1-30)
UBC News. Analytic thinking can decrease religious belief: UBC Study. Public Affairs. 26 April 2012. Web. 11 June 2015. <http://news.ubc.ca/2012/04/26/analytic-thinking-can-decrease-religious-belief-ubc-study/>
CecilyDowns
cecily.downs@gmail.com
50.67.14.216
I also ended up writing about Robinson’s story in my answer to Question 2! I’m curious about why you felt like both twins should be given equal space in this particular story. Why is a story being biased a bad thing?
Personally I would say that every story is biased to some extent even if it tries not to be, and some stories are extremely biased without being bad stories. Quite a lot of stories and literature end up focusing on one character and are automatically biased in that way.
HannahVaartnou
hannah.vaartnou@gmail.com
50.67.56.215
“In that regard, the story is told in a context of referring back to colonization, and the oral stories and traditions of First Nations people in North America. ”
Hi there!
The quote above is one that I have posted from your work. Can you clarify what you meant by this statement? I took this Indigenous creation story that Harry Robinson tells as a blurring of power dynamics between the colonizer and colonized. Harry is undermining the absolute nature of the ‘written’ story through the power of orality. I think Harry’s style is not only about summarizing. In fact, I would argue he is not to the point or concise at all. He rambles, but is in his ramblings that he creates meaning. Whitewick’s introduction states that Harry feared that he “was going to disappear and there will be no more telling stories” (Whitewick 29). I think Harry is challenging the western assumptions of story and culture. What do you think of my take on this story?
-Hannah
TimothyChoi
timothy_choi2003@yahoo.com.hk
206.116.74.211
Hi,
We both answered the same question. I like how you drew upon Adam and Eve, because how else can we think about this story without thinking about and comparing it with the fundamental narrative that informs European thought about how sin enters the world (at least that is how I interpret Robinson’s story). I think we have to be careful when we are reading this text, because this is Wickshire’s reinterpretation of Robinson’s story. If you do find that there certain details are insufficient and wanting, perhaps it may be Wickshire’s neglect or summary at fault, for we do not have the luxury of hearing Robinson’s full version of the story. When I read the text, it appeared much more as a summary of the story rather than its full form, and Wickshire pointed out the salient parts of the story for which she felt the most connection or significance, which is further reason to suspect that we have not been told the entirety of the tale. Secondly, as much as intention is an integral part of stories, this is an impossible task in a story about evil , because it can only be either internally motivated or externally motivated. In the latter case, we can keep asking who motivated it and attribute the blame to him or move to yet another source of motivation. It is very much like the child’s game of asking “why” to any answer until the parents become exasperated (I have done this on more than one occasion!) In other words, we inevitably run into a dead end and must accept the fact that at some level, it just is. Stories of evil must always build on premises of underlying, original evil; we have to simply believe that Satan is just evil, or else we will have to implicate God, his creator. Robinson’s story saves us the trouble by ending the uncertainty at this level.
Thank you for your thoughts!
Gretta
grettadattan@aol.com
159.92.9.130
Hello, thanks for the interesting read! I have a few questions regarding your post. I am curious about your position on authorial bias. Deep sketpical concern about a writer’s bias is necessary in news articles, press releases, and published articles/studies and these forms of writing should be scoured over in search of potential bias where there should be none. But every work of literature must have a bias and it is the informed and aware reader’s duty to find the bias in a piece and explore its presence. This, to me, is an integral and beautiful part of the reading process. Literary biases themselves can of course be criticised, but first they must be must be explored and then the position/colouring of the bias itself can be analyzed and then perhaps critiqued. I do not understand why bias itself should be condemned in a work of literature. I am not aware of a single piece of literature without at least a flicker of a bias and that is not a bad thing, bias is just a part of human creation and art. What bothers you about the leanings or biases of Robinson? The fact that his writing leans toward certain ideas and thoughts and beliefs or the ideas, thoughts, and beliefs themselves?
Also I don’t believe these characters are meant to be very well developed. It is a myth and like other stories in cultures around the world, the characters are meant to be two dimensional archetypal characters that are largely symbolic, not realistic. I really don’t think you need to know any details because the story really isn’t about what exactly went down, it’s about ideas and the characters and their actions are then really little more than symbolic ideas. Do you think the details about the duties, actions, crimes, etc. would have enhanced the meaning of the story?
Gretta
Hava
havarosenberg@gmail.com
75.166.217.43
Hey there! I liked your critique of the story, and I also thought it was overly simplistic in its character descriptions. It is interesting that the younger brother was the “evil” one in this story, because in the story of Cain and Abel, it is the older brother, Cain who commits the ultimate act of violence (killing his brother), and this troupe is reflected in a lot of Western storytelling/mythology. You mentioned that this story is told “in a context of referring back to colonization, and the oral stories and traditions of First Nations people in North America”. I’d love for you to elaborate on this idea, as well as what you think of the biases within the stories Robinson, and others, tell. Thanks for a great post!