First stories tell us how the world was created. In The Truth about Stories, King tells us two creation stories; one about how Charm falls from the sky pregnant with twins and creates the world out of a bit of mud with the help of all the water animals, and another about God creating heaven and earth with his words, and then Adam and Eve and the Garden. King provides us with a neat analysis of how each story reflects a distinct worldview. “The Earth Diver” story reflects a world created through collaboration, the “Genesis” story reflects a world created through a single will and an imposed hierarchical order of things: God, man, animals, plants. The differences all seem to come down to co-operation or competition — a nice clean-cut satisfying dichotomy. However, a choice must be made: you can only believe ONE of the stories is the true story of creation – right? That’s the thing about creation stories; only one can be sacred and the others are just stories. Strangely, this analysis reflects the kind of binary thinking that Chamberlin, and so many others, including King himself, would caution us to stop and examine. So, why does King create dichotomies for us to examine these two creation stories? Why does he emphasize the believability of one story over the other — as he says, he purposefully tells us the “Genesis” story with an authoritative voice, and “The Earth Diver” story with a storyteller’s voice. Why does King give us this analysis that depends on pairing up oppositions into a tidy row of dichotomies? What is he trying to show us?
Why must we believe only one creation story? We might be all one species, but that does not have to mean that we come from the same source. We all come from different cultures, if there are multiple creation stories, that just indicates that perhaps we have multiple origins. For example, if reincarnation exists for some, it exists for all. If that’s the case, then doesn’t that mean we have a lot more to experience in life? Maybe you’re born into a Christian family this time around and you learn about their religion and their creation story. Next time, you could be born into an Indigenous family and learn theirs. In the end, if there is an end, it would be to have an accumulation of all these different lifestyles and maybe you could become a God yourself. Perhaps that means creating a new Creation story. That’s not too far-fetched since writers often create new worlds and ask their audience to believe in them.
As someone who came from an Asian background but was born and raised in Canada, I know enough about Asian myths as well as Christian and Indigenous myths. Why can’t we incorporate all of them? Why can’t we stop and realize that there isn’t one almighty story or religion?
I believe that this is why King emphasized the dichotomies of creation stories. Although he emphasizes the believability of each creation story, he also shows how each story’s voice is. The Genesis story is much more authoritative, inducing a “you-must-listen-to-me” tone whereas the Earth Diver’s storytelling voice is more relaxed and seems to be more flexible.One story is about the creation via a singular force while the other is about collaboration. By showing this dichotomy, it reminds readers to stop and think of the extremities of the division. King is trying to show false dichotomies by bringing attention to two extremities. Just because two subjects are put against one another, doesn’t mean that it is a win-or-lose situation. Just as a Nature-vs-Nurture dichotomy is false because both is required in child rearing, collaboration and a single will is necessary for creation. The Genesis story and The Earth Diver story are merely “perceived dichotomies– divisions we project onto the world because of our perceptions and bias.” By developing this dichotomy, King provides us with an example to return to when he advises against binary thinking. King is asking us to discover contradictions, nuances and subtlety in his dichotomies as a practice for future dichotomies that we may come across.
Work Cited:
Berkun, Scott. “The False Dichotomy of False Dichotomies.” Scott Berkun. N.p., 2012. Web. 11 Oct. 2016.
King, Thomas. The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative. Peterbough:Anansi Press. 2003. Print.
“Raven Steals the Sun.” Raven Steals the Sun. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Oct. 2016.
“The Four Mythological Symbols of China.” Ancient Origins. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Oct. 2016.
Hi Jamie!
I really enjoyed reading your post and I like how you started off with the question “Why must we believe only one creation story?” I think that this question completely encompasses the fact that we as individuals have our own ideas, beliefs, stories, experiences, traditions, cultures, and more. We all do not agree on everything and that is okay. I think that you make a great point that just because we all don’t believe in the same things doesn’t mean that there has to be a be all end all version of reality. For example, I believe in certain evolutionary theories but I also think that there is a creator of this world, or even multiple creators.
I like how you emphasize that writers are an example of how there can be new creation stories. Writers set up their own little worlds that can be very different than the world we live in, but we are asked to believe them and feel them. I think that if we get into a book this absolutely can happen and I often find myself believing in different versions of the reality I am used to.
I think that there should not be one “right way” of doing something and that one story should not have precedent over another. How do you think the conversation about multiple creation stories can be promoted? I feel like norms created by different groups, such as the school, or the church promote that there isn’t room for more than one interpretation of creation. Do you think that in the future this can be changed and how do you think it can/will be changed?
Thanks for your post Jamie!
-Chloë
Hey Chloë,
Thanks for your comment! I seem to subconsciously avoid evolutionary theories! I should definitely check some of the more uncommon theories out. But, I definitely like to think that there are many different realities, but at the same time one reality. One creator but also one that is enveloped by all. I’ve been told many times that these are mutually exclusive, but I don’t think that is how we should try to think.
Since we’re on the topic of writers, I think writing stories that incorporate multiple theories that are supposed to be in separate corners could promote conversation. Recognizing dichotomies or subjects that are supposed to be in their own corners and try to bridge the ideas.
Recently, I started reading this book called: A More Beautiful Question: The Power of Inquiry to Spark Breakthrough Ideas by Warren Berger. It is about bringing back the curiosity we had as children and question things. Even though different groups do try to promote questioning, it is also a power play. Asking questions can also translate to questioning authority. I agree that the norms created by different groups don’t help promote different interpretations, but being in those groups connects you with other people who might be questioning those systems as well. Those are the types of people, I think, we should be sparking conversation with.
I believe that this can be changed in the future and that depends a lot on our scope. I think a key part to that is to start small. We often want to aim wide and change big things, but it’s the ripple effects that create the most change. We might not be able to see the end goal, but uncertainty is a part of the process.
Hello Jaime,
I like how you bring together various creation stories and suggest that all creation stories rightfully exist. I also enjoy how the bigger picture insight you see due to your background, makes you ask “why we don’t know that there isn’t one almighty god or religion.” And, how you have seen King’s stories of two extremes, being a lesson in not getting stuck in binary thinking. I think it is inspiring. It is the kind of thinking that could be a solution for many of the world’s problems.
I do wonder though, if it is possible that while playing on the differences binaries of independence vs cooperation in the two populations, King is also showing why history has evolved as it has in Canada over the last 300 years? Where the independent, hierarchical style beliefs of the European’s overshadowing the collective beliefs of the Indigenous peoples has greatly influenced history. I mention this because, as I listened to King’s Aboriginal story of creation, in contrast to the Christian one, I felt sad that much of Western society today comes from such an independent, disconnected and somewhat lonely stance and would benefit from more connection.
I come back to liking your premise, that all creation stories exist and that King’s playing the two stories off on each other highlight the differences and advise against binary thinking. I believe a balance between extremes is the best way to navigate life which meshes with your thought that the creation of life takes both cooperation and independent spirit.
Great writing, really enjoyed your thoughts Jaime.
Best,
Alison
Hello Alison,
Thank you for your kind comment. I agree, building multiple perspectives could really help with many of the world’s problems.
I find your view very compassionate! I do think that King might be showing why history has evolved as it has. It is really disheartening to recognize that we live in such an interconnected society due to the internet, but still be so alone when it comes to real connection. What do you think we could do to increase those connections? I find that it is hard enough to make connections when making friends, so what might be some strategies to improve our abilities to make connections?
Thank you again, Alison.
Hello Jaime,
This week, I attempted to find blogs that answered questions other than the one I answered for this unit. That being said, I had almost chosen to answer this question for my blog, so I am glad I get to comment on yours because I also had a similar thought process when answering this question. It is a very interesting stance to question why we must believe in one creation myth or another, as opposed to believing in a multitude of creation myths. Or, perhaps, we can go in the complete opposite direction and not believe in creation myths at all! Though, I suppose that misses the point of creation myths.
What I like about your stance of pointing out that one does not need to pick a singular myth to believe in is that it undermines the dichotomies that King points out by presenting these polar opposite of creation myths. I think that King is attempting to reveal and dissipate the dichotomy that has been socially constructed into creation myths, and presenting an alternative to being caught up in these dichotomies, aids in this. The act of accepting a variety of creation myths also, to me, seems very Canadian as it embraces the idea of multiculturalism!
Hope
Hi Hope!
I like the fact that you thought to take an opposite stance and not believe in creation myths at all. It would definitely drive conversation into a different direction. Would that be more scientific? Would the opposite be evolutionary theories? At the same time, I quite enjoy the stories, so I’m not willing to give that up!
That’s an interesting take. Why the dichotomies? I recognize that many stories build on social constructions and that our current society can be seen as a social construction as well. I’d love to hear more about what you’re thinking about here because I don’t quite understand what you mean yet.
Let me know!
Sorry everyone!
I have been sick for the past week, so I haven’t had the brain energy to return your wonderful comments. I hope that you’ll casually peek at this post at some point 🙂