Question 1
King’s decision to include two different stories of creation seems completely logical to me. To omit a version simply because one does not believe it seems contradictory. Also, is that not what the First Nations have been fighting against this whole time?
I do not think that people must chose a version of the story to believe, there are many people in fact, that do not believe any of the creation stories and simply believe in a scientific explanation. This is not to say that the stories lose their importance if one does not believe them, it is the stories that are told that create a people, a culture, and a history. Personally I believe in a scientific explanation, that does not mean that I don’t value all versions of the creation story. My family is of European descent and although we are not religious at all, the religious practices that my family follows such as Christmas and Easter have been absorbed into cultural practice and have become my families culture even without a focus on religion. These practices make my family complete and without them we would be missing our family traditions.
By allowing us to hear two creation stories together, King is able to convey the importance of having stories that make our traditions instead of placing the importance on the belief in the stories themselves. I do not believe that King emphasizes the believability of one story over the other. Although he clearly spends more time, and gives more detail to the story of “The Woman Who Fell from the Sky,” I believe that how King tells the story is true to the culture of the stories themselves. Historically “The Woman who fell from the Sky” would have been told orally and with detail, perhaps the details would have been slightly different had someone else told it, maybe it would have been longer or shorter, it might have even had a different tone or been told to teach a lesson unrelated to the creation of the earth. All of these variables mean that King had a choice in how he chose to tell the story. The story of Adam and Eve is more cut and dry. It has been written down and read for hundreds of years. Those who believe in the story believe in the bible and what is written, and therefore is unchanging. The way King told the story of Adam and Eve complements this more structured belief system.
Wendy Wickwire discusses the importance of hearing a story many story many times before one is able to come to any conclusions about it. (Robinson, 19) This is critical to understand when one thinks about the importance of preserving these stories and why perhaps King placed more detail in the First Nations story.
Overall it is important to understand that no matter what your beliefs may be, it is easier for people to exist within a framework than to be floundering. I believe that King told these two stories together to create an understanding that no matter where we come from or what we believe in we all search for this framework and as long as we are content with how we share these stories with others, one does not have more importance than the other.
Works Cited
King, The Truth About Stories, Chapter One: You’ll Never Believe What Happened Is Always a Great Way to Start.
Robinson, Harry. Living by Stories: a Journey of Landscape and Memory. Compiled and edited by Wendy Wickwire. Vancouver: Talon Books2005. (1-30)
Hi Jennifer,
I totally agree with you regarding that one does not need to pick one story to believe in. I like how you mentioned that some people do not believe in creation stories, as that was left out in King’s stories and I think it was important to mention. Like you said, many people do not believe in creation stories and have their own scientific reasoning to make sense of everything. To each person, every version of creation will be different and like you said, no story is more or less significant than another. I believe that indeed is the soul power of a story. If everyone had the same opinions we would lose so much of the perspective we gain from one another and the ability to be problematic thinkers. I like to think that with each new opinion, we enhance our brain’s ability to grow and process a little more each time. We push each other, we stump each other, and we help develop each other.
The idea of framework that you mentioned is one that I wasn’t able to put into words and I am really glad I read your blog. People believe because they understand the structure or the frame that a certain idea is being put into, regardless if that idea is plausible to them, they understand the frame.
Thanks for sharing!
Jessica R
Hi Jessica,
Thanks so much for your comments!
I very much agree with your statement about how if we all had the same opinions we would lose our ability to be problematic thinkers!
Also thank you for mentioning that you liked my concept of framework, this is a concept which I feel is true not only in beliefs but also in our daily lives. I truly believe that we all strive for a structure (or framework) with which we live our lives and it is this structure that allows our world to function and move forward. That is not to say that a framework is always positive, however without a structure there is no strength.
Thanks,
Jennifer
Hi Jennifer,
Thanks for sharing! You made a very intriguing statement – that the way King tells the story “is true to the culture of stories themselves”. It seems as though you also might be suggesting that King is commenting on the nature of oral storytelling vs. written narratives through these opposing creation stories as well – and if so, I totally agree!
When telling the Earth Diver story, he mentions that he tried to create an “oral storytelling voice” (King, 20). He uses colloquialisms, a conversational tone and as you pointed out, adds his own touches/ creations to the story. The story itself has multiple voices and multiple creators. It’s a very organic story, in that sense. Yet because of all of this, he says it lacks authority. Whereas in the Christian creation story, it’s interesting to note that quite a bit is quoted verbatim from the bible. Within the story itself, there’s just one voice and one single creator. Like you pointed out, being a written text for hundreds of years, it tends to be unchanging. It’s static. And this creates, as King says, a sense of legitimacy, of veracity (23).
It’s an interesting thought on how many of us perceive certain stories to be ‘true’, just because they are constant and static – and I feel that King might also be trying to draw our attention to this fact. What do you think?
Cheers,
Tarana
Hi Tarana,
I totally agree that we perceive certain stories to be “true” simply because they are constant and static. I also feel that this is true not simply of stories but also in how we go about and live our daily lives. Is it not true that we follow laws because they are static and written? Think of the challenges that people face when trying to change these static ways in which our societies live and think. For example, the gay rights movement has been fighting for decades for equal rights and the challenge that they have faced is changing these static beliefs. Women’s rights are also fighting a static war, I guarantee that if you picked random people on the street and asked if they believed in gender equality they would say yes, yet we still fighting.
In this sense, yes, I do feel that King is trying to point out this fact. It is so obvious that it is true however this issue remains constantly overlooked, and I feel that by sharing these stories together King is preventing a static reading.
Thanks so much for your comment,
– Jennifer