Write a blog that hyper-links your research on the characters in Green Grass Running Water using Jane Flick’s reading notes.

The section of the book that I have done my research on is pages 126-135. I was particularly drawn to this section because I just had to figure out what Bill Bursom’s garish television display had to do with Machiavelli and why “The Map” was so significant. The following section is of Latisha Red Dog’s encounter with a group of tourists at the Dead Dog Café.

Lionel Red Dog’s employer, Buffalo Bill Bursom is a combination of two historical figures “famous for their hostility to Indians” according to Jane Flick (21). The infamous Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show created a glamorized version of the conflict between the Natives and European settlers for public entertainment. Bill reaps the benefits of having the Indians perform in his show, while suggesting their motive for protecting their rightful homes are primitive and savage. The show promotes a sense of national pride, while suggesting that the Americans have a right to cultivate and build a home on Indigenous land. The second figure that the character is modeled after is Holm O. Bursom, a New Mexican senator. The senator was in charge of drafting a bill that would settle a land dispute between the Pueblos and non-Native folk. The Bursom Bill allowed the state court to settle the disputes, which would have resulted in rulings in the favour of affluent white folk. When the Pueblos became aware of the Bill, they managed to defeat the bill by testifying before Congress of their rights to the land.

The combination of these two historical figures create a character who takes advantage of the Native community by employing someone they know in order to bring in business from the reserve. While Bill is taking advantage of Lionel’s place in the community, he has also set up the pretense that he is helping Lionel get back on his feet so he can afford to go to school. Bill suggests that Lionel and Charlie Looking Dog are interchangeable by telling Lionel that he just needs an ‘in’ to the reserve. In this way, Bill reduces Lionel down to his race while making such derogatory comments such as, “you guys get all that free money” and “[a]ll you guys are related” (80). While not blatantly harmful, the internalized superiority that Bill perpetuates towards the Native community stifles Lionel’s ability to grow and maintain a healthy relationship with his community.

Bill is eager to show off his television display to Minnie Jones, and decides that it is a “unifying metaphor” (128). It is significant that the television display is a map of Canada and the United States. The map is symbolic of a linear, Western logic, that has historically been used to oppress the rights of Native peoples. Minnie Jones asks Bill, “Do all the sets have to show the same movie?” (127). A movie is a constructed narrative, as is a map, as we have previously discussed. When Minnie asks this question, it is as if she is asking if there is room for more than one narrative.

But what about Machiavelli? The Prince, that Bursom keeps recommending, is one of Machiavelli’s best known pieces, and the use of the term ‘Machiavellian’ is attributed to this work. This points to the fact that Bill condones manipulative tactics in order to achieve success in his business. This detachment from moral standards is reflected by Buffalo Bill, Holm O. Bursom, and of the fictional Bill Bursom. Bill goes on to say that this kind of thinking is “outside the range of the Indian imagination” (129). However, I would argue that the existence of alternative narratives exist outside of the oppressive, European imagination.

Latisha’s narrative runs counter to that of Bursom Bill. Here, an Indigenous female  successfully runs a business based on co-operation as opposed to a European male running his business on exploitation. Though Latisha could have claimed the role of the “Native victim”, she has taken control of her life and has become a successful business owner. At the Dead Dog Café, Latisha tricks her (often European) visitors into thinking she is actually using dog meat in her food, explaining that it is a “treaty right” (132). Of this strategy, Kerstin Knopf writes that”by referring to (non-Native) written history, [Latisha] gives them the proof they want” (265). By appealing to the Western power structures, and using them to her favor, Latisha is challenging the assumed morality of legal documents. Thomas King says in an interview, “The joke is that Natives did not create that construct. That construct is created by whites and it was created as an oppressive thing. . .those designations were created for advantage and not for ours, and as soon as that advantage shifts then the construct itself needs to be revisited” (Andrews, 163).

Jane Flick suggests that Latisha’s Dead Dog Café may be “a play on Nietzsche’s assertion that “God is Dead” (22). Nietzsche’s statement was made to suggest that the Christian God could no longer serve as the credible source for moral principles and assumptions. Further, this was a rejection of an objective and universal moral law. Similarly, King challenges the biblical Christian stories and the notion of God by sharing alternate creation stories of First Woman and Coyote. In this way, both King and Nietzsche question the validity of an authoritative Christian morality.

Works Cited:

Andrews, Jennifer. “Border Trickery and Dog Bones: A Conversation with Thomas King.” Studies in Canadian Literature. June 1999. Web. 25 July 2016. https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/SCL/article/view/14248

Donaldson, Laura E. “Noah Meets Old Coyote, or Singing in the Rain: Intertextuality in Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water.” Studies in American Indian Literatures. 2.7.2 (1995): 27-43. JSTOR. Web. 25 July 2016. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20736846

Flick, Jane. “Reading Notes.” Green Grass, Running Water.Toronto: HarperCollins, 1994. Print.

“God is Dead.” Philosophy Index. Web. 25 July 2016. http://www.philosophy-index.com/nietzsche/god-is-dead/

Hallsall, Paul. “Nicolo Machiavelli (1469-1527): The Prince, 1513.” Medieval Sourcebook. Fordham University. July 1998. Web. 25 July 2016. https://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/machiavelli-prince.asp

Hyslop, Stephen G. “How the West was Spun- Buffalo Bill Cody’s Wild West Show.” HistoryNet. 8 May  2008. Web. 25 July 2016.

King, Thomas. Green Grass, Running Water. Toronto: HarperCollins, 2010. Print.

Knopf, Kerstin. Aboriginal Canada Revisited. University of Ottawa Press, 2008. Google Books. Web. 27 July 2016. https://books.google.ca/books?id=VmGuDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA265&lpg=PA265&dq=latisha+red+dog&source=bl&ots=HIKM2wUJ14&sig=ATh4w524Pio-6BlHRX-7XrEZoYY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj70I7Y5pTOAhVQ42MKHRCNBhsQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=latisha%20red%20dog&f=false

Martinez, Mathew, San Juan Pueblo. “All Indian Pueblo Council and the Bursom Bill.” New Mexico History. Web. 25 July 2016. http://newmexicohistory.org/people/all-indian-pueblo-council-and-the-bursum-bill

Wernitznig, Dagmar. Europe’s Indians, Indians in Europe: European Perceptions and Appropriations of Native American Cultures from Pocahontas to the Present. University Press of America (2007): 84-89. Google Books. Web. 27 July 2016.

3.2.4 “Identify and discuss two of King’s “acts of narrative decolonization”. Please read the following quote to assist you with your answer. “The lives of King’s characters are entangled in and informed by both the colonial legacy in the Americas and the narratives that enact and enable colonial domination. King begins to extricate his characters’ lives from the domination of the invader’s discourses by weaving their stories into both Native American oral traditions and into revisions of some of the most damaging narratives of domination and conquest: European American origin stories and national myths, canonical literary texts, and popular culture texts such as John Wayne films. These revisions are acts of narrative decolonization.”

Thomas King revises and subverts traditional Judeo-Christian narratives in order to challenge the readers’ assumptions and disrupt the hierarchy of Eurocentric narratives above others. In offering a narrative from the point of view of Indigenous characters, King exposes us to alternate forms of storytelling and the harm done by some of history’s canonical literature.

King retells the creation myth in the Garden of Eden beginning with First Woman falling from the sky. The collaborative effort in the way that First Woman creates the world with the help of the animals echoes the storytelling methods of the Indigenous communities. The creations stories offered by each of the Four Old Indians in the narrative speaks to the way that the narrative is influenced and changed by those who tell it and their experiences. The changing of narratives gestures to a collective and inclusive storytelling experience that differs from the rigidity of the Judeo-Christian creation story.

This retelling not only reveals that the creation story is Eurocentric, but also misogynistic and harmful towards the environment. In this narrative, First Woman chooses to leave the Garden of Eden because God is being unreasonable. She challenges his authority and openly defies his orders to stop eating. First Woman is given the autonomy and agency to do as she wishes, and avoids being demonized for encouraging the fall of man. By offering a different view of the creation story, King challenges the authority of the Christian faith.

John Wayne movies and many other Westerns portray Native Americans in one or two prototypes. They are often either portrayed as a helpful guide in navigating the wilderness in a subservient role to the white protagonist, or people to be conquered in order to gain rights to a land that is ‘rightfully’ theirs. The exploration and domination narrative that is so prevalent in settler and Western narratives promotes the claims toward a land that is in need of cultivation. By portraying the Native American population as primitive, the colonial narrative justifies their brutality by asserting authority. The Four Old Indians change the outcome of the John Wayne movies in order to assert their presence in a land that is their home, not succumbing to the claims of ownership by the European settlers.

James H. Cox argues that the Four Old Indians “[replot] doom as survival of, and resistance to, colonial violence and dominations” (220). In the climax in Green Grass, Running Water the Four Indians cause a breach in the dam, destroying the plans of corporate development and returning the land to its natural state. This is symbolic of the Indigenous people actively breaking through the societal confines, and reclaiming their position in the land and in the narrative space. The novel as a whole offers a narrative that opposes the simplification of Indigenous culture. The characters that King portray struggle with their identities, offering a much more complex portrait of the Native American people than the ones mainstream media so often confines them to. Through this, King inverts the hierarchical structure, and moves the issues faced by the Indigenous people to our central consciousness instead of keeping them as sideline characters in a narrative that is intent on trivializing their struggle.

Works Cited:

Cox, James H. ““All This Water Imagery Must Mean Something”: Thomas King’s Revisions of Narratives of Domination and Conquest in “Green Grass, Running Water””. American Indian Quarterly 24.2 (2000): 219-246. JSTOR. Web.

Flick, Jane. “Reading Notes for Thomas King’s Green Grass Running Water.” Canadian Literature (1999): 161-162. JSTOR. Web.

Smith, Nicole. “Paradise Lost by Milton: Satan, Heroism and Classical Definitions of the Epic Hero.” 7 Dec. 2011. Article Myriad. Web.

Witcombe, Christopher L.C.E. “Eve’s Identity”. Eve and the Identity of Women.2000. Web.

3.1.6

“In order for criticism to arise naturally from within our culture, discourse must serve the same function it has always served. In Euro-society, literary criticism heightens the competition between writers and limits entry of new writers to preserve the original canon. What will its function be in our societies?” (88)

In the following paragraphs in her essay, Maracle answers her question describing what she sees to be the function of literary criticism in Salish society. Summarize her answer and then make some comparisons between Maracle and Frye’s analysis of the role of myth in nation building.

Lee Maracle begins her essay by outlining the deficiencies of traditional literary criticism in assessing First Nations’ narratives. Maracle asserts that “Western literary criticism fails to make any kind of full, fair, or just sense of Indigenous work because its orientation…is to diminish Indigenity” (83). Traditional literary criticism is advanced by European literature and archetypes, which “appl[ies] pressure on non-European writers to apply themselves to mastering the canon and to abide by the Euro-traditional story” (83).  In this way, Canada maintains its position in “white-settler primacy” and values narratives that conform to this structure over those provided by the marginalized voices of the Indigenous community (83).

According to Maracle, theorists in the Indigenous communities apply analysis in connection to their society’s knowledge with consultation to the “original story base” (84). Criticism is done by individuals within the culture who understand its base (84). Maracle stresses that these criticisms cannot “be done by disconnected individuals who apply themselves to studying another society’s knowledge, foundations, history, and its definitions of the production of literary products” (84). In other words, Western theorists cannot use their terms to define and criticize literature produced from a system like their own. The current education system is based on colonial discourse and ‘post-colonial’ theory only serves to maintain European privilege. Further, it is possible for those who pursue studies in First Nations academically, to have examined all manners of text from several different Indigenous peoples without having encountered any forms of orature. In some cases, oratory constitutes the sacred texts of First Nations people (85).

Maracle differentiates story from oratory, stating that oratory carries knowledge, while story reshapes understanding (91).  Oratory transfers information and theories that can be developed into myth or stories. Gathering and examining in a group “is the appropriate process for Salish people to examine story, [as it helps encourage] discourse around healthy communal doubt” (86). In examining these knowledge bases and old stories, the people are able to extrapolate notions of nation, community, and humanity and assess their value for growth and transformation (85). From these old stories, come the creation of  a new series of myths that alter the direction of the narrative and clear old obstacles. In this way, the creations of myths is a constant re-evaluation and positioning of oneself in a greater narrative. In the Salish community, the myth-maker is responsible for the knowledge of history and original processes in the interest of the nation within the culture.

In The Bush Garden, Northrop Frye presents two aspects of nation-building in the concepts of identity and unity—identity derived from culture and imagination, and unity rooted in politics and an international perspective towards the nation (xxii). Frye describes Canada as an “obliterated environment. . .with its empty space, its largely unknown lakes. . . [and] its division of languages” (xxiii). Frye presents the physical landscape as an antagonistic force against the unity of the country, without acknowledgement of the people who have occupied, and have knowledge of, this land prior to colonization. From this metaphor, one can assert that it is impossible to create a unified identity when one does not include all of the land, and the voices of the people who occupy it. Though he looks to rejects the forces of colonialism on literature, Frye enforces the logic that it falls upon.

Frye refers to myth as the “integral meaning” (xxiii) in a literary work, something that informs, rather than dictates the work. The myth functions as a “structural principle” (xxiii) and Frye looks at it as something to be uncovered, rather than created. Frye looks towards the imagination and history to inform works of literature, rather than myths like the Salish people.

Works Cited:

“Canadian Wilderness.” gap360.com. Web.

Frye, Northrop. The Bush Garden: Essays on the Canadian Imagination. Concord: Anansi, 1995. Print.

Maracle, Lee. Across Cultures / Across Borders: Canadian Aboriginal and Native American Literatures. Ed. Paul DePasquale, Renate Eigenbrod, and Emma LaRocque. Broadview (2010). Google Books. Web. 5 July 2016.

2.6.1 “In his article, “Godzilla vs. Post-Colonial,” King discusses Robinson’s collection of stories. King explains that while the stories are written in English, “the patterns, metaphors, structures as well as the themes and characters come primarily from oral literature.” More than this, Robinson, he says “develops what we might want to call an oral syntax that defeats reader’s efforts to read the stories silently to themselves, a syntax that encourages readers to read aloud” and in so doing, “recreating at once the storyteller and the performance” (186). Read “Coyote Makes a Deal with King of England”, in Living by Stories. Read it silently, read it out loud, read it to a friend, and have a friend read it to you. See if you can discover how this oral syntax works to shape meaning for the story by shaping your reading and listening of the story. Write a blog about this reading/listening experience that provides references to the story.”

In King’s article, “Godzilla vs. Post-Colonial,” King argues that the term “post-colonial” is not a suitable basis of critical analysis for Native literature. The term “post-colonial” is ethnocentric and suggests that colonialism is a gravitational centre in which Native literature revolves (King 185). King offers several terms that are more appropriate when approaching Native literature, and allows for the existence of narrative that doesn’t fit conveniently into the Canadian canon.

Associational literature aims to describe a Native experience that does not conform to the nationalist narrative of glamorizing or victimizing Natives (187). King argues that this form “provides a limited and particular access to a Native world, allowing the reader to associate with that world without being encouraged to feel a part of it” (188-9). The reader, not encouraged to feel a part of it, is able to re-evaluate the implications of the narrative in relation to their society. This form of story-telling differs from traditional European literature, which aims to garner the reader’s emotional investment and submerses the reader in the narrative. I would argue that metaphorically, the narrative has a stake on the reader, and vice versa.

Though Harry Robinson’s “Coyote Makes a Deal with King of England” deals with contentious land ownership, it does not aim to prescribe a guilt, another quality often found in associational literature (King 189). Further, Robinson’s narrative does not favour the climaxes or resolutions valued in traditional European literature. Coyote’s story doesn’t end neatly with, “and that’s how the world came to be”, rather it lets the reader take from it what they will. The divergence from a closed narrative echoes the ongoing process of the dialogue of land ownership and allows for the dichotomies and contradictions to exist in a complex situation.

King refers to the stories in Harry Robinson’s Living By Stories as interfusional, meaning a blending of oral and written literatures (186). The way that the story is written is irregular to what one would normally read on the page—the sentences are broken down into smaller segments, almost like poetry. These segments make room for pausing, when telling the story orally, and the repetition of words like “And” at the beginning of the line add a rhythmic quality to the narrative and serve to build momentum.

Robinson uses repetition throughout the story to reinforce his points with listener. For example, when Coyote is negotiating with the King, he says, “But that’s going to be your word from now ‘til the end of the word. We’ll never fight. Once you say that, we’ll never fight.” (72; emphasis added). He repeats the King’s promise to him that they will not fight, because he is trying to make peace, he is emphasizing the gravity of this promise.

Another unconventional point in Robinson’s narrative, is that time doesn’t follow a logical sequential order. When describing the passing of the kings of England, Robinson simultaneously invokes the passing of time. “They don’t finish ‘em. For a long time, and he die. And another one. Still the same. The third king, they never. The old one, that’s the four” (76).

The written word is Robinson’s way of reaching out to a reader more familiar with this format, while Wickwire works not to compromise the narrative voice of Robinson’s storytelling—one that drew her to him in the first place. Certainly, in re-working a narrative, it loses its integrity, it changes form, it becomes something else and it begins to adhere to the logic or form of the colonial narrative format. Just as the King in Robinson’s story asked the Indians to learn to read his story, we, as new listeners and readers, must learn to listen to Native stories in the way they were told.

Works Cited

“Aboriginal Rights.” Indigenous Foundations: First Nations and Indigenous Studies, University of British Columbia, 2009. Web. 29 June 2016.

“Coyote Thinks He is Clever.” Claire Niebergall, “2011 YoungCuts Film Festival Selection: How the Coyote Got His Cunnning.” When We Were Marks, 2011. Web.

Ginsberg, Allen. “Howl, Parts I & II.” Howl and Other Poems. Academy of American Poets. Web. 29 June 2016.

King, Thomas. “Godzilla vs. Post-Colonial.” Unhomely States: Theorizing English-Canadian Postcolonialism. Peterbough, ON: Broadview, 2004. 183- 190. Web. 29 June 2016. https://pennersf.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/godzilla-complete.pdf

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

2.4.2 “In this lesson I say that our capacity for understanding or making meaningfulness from the first stories is seriously limited for numerous reasons and I briefly offer two reasons why this is so: 1) the social process of the telling is disconnected from the story and this creates obvious problems for ascribing meaningfulness, and 2) the extended time of criminal prohibitions against Indigenous peoples telling stories combined with the act of taking all the children between 5 – 15 away from their families and communities. In Wickwire’s introduction to Living Stories, find a third reason why, according to Robinson, our abilities to make meaning from first stories and encounters is so seriously limited. To be complete, your answer should begin with a brief discussion on the two reasons I present and then proceed to introduce and explain your third reason from Wickwire’s introduction.”

Reading through peoples’ collected stories around their sense of home, I was interested to learn where everyone had lived, and how they came to be connected to British Columbia. As someone who has always lived in Vancouver, I did not have the experience of moving somewhere completely new and having to start my life over again. Though everyone had very different stories to tell of the places that they have been, here are a few commonalities that I have found while reading through blogs:

Home is not always a place.
Often we connect the word ‘home’ to the space in which we reside, but I have encountered living spaces that were less than welcoming. Sometimes you find your home in a person or an activity, or a deep bond that you share with a geographical space.

The concept of home is associated with deep feelings of belonging.
Often this sense of belonging is influenced by the people in one’s community- found through respect, common interests, or shared experiences. I am reminded by the pride often associated with being connected to certain places, and the tendency to feel defensive when our neighbourhoods are criticized. I am interested to see how our emotional ties to Canada will factor into our discussion, but I welcome this challenge.

Thank you for sharing your stories.

Write a short story that describes your sense of home and the values and stories that you use to connect yourself to your home.

“But where are you really from?”

I am often approached with this question having previously answered “Where are you from?” with, “From here (Vancouver)” As if I answered the original question incorrectly. I am of Asian descent, but to say I am from anywhere other than here would be incorrect.

I travelled to China with my mother and sister when I was ten, and it was completely foreign to me. I was quickly overwhelmed by the humidity and the density of Hong Kong, and could not imagine living in rural China, with its abundance of mosquitoes and lack of toilets.

Growing up, I remember my mother telling me stories about growing up in a rural village in China. She told me of times when it rained, that the water would run so high that she could not make it to school. She told me about raising animals in her yard, and eating them for dinner on special occasions. She told me about moments she spent reading by lamplight, for lack of electricity. These are my mother’s stories.

She was introduced to my father, a first-generation Asian-Canadian, through a relative. They wrote each other letters with the help of various relatives who helped my father translate his words into Chinese, which he, to this day, is not fluent in. They fell in love, and my mother immigrated to Vancouver to start a new life, so the story goes. This is my parents’ story.

My father grew up in a Vancouver Special in East Van. My sister and I grew up in that same house with a traditionally Chinese mother and an Anglicized father. We grew up eating both lasagna and traditional Chinese meals for dinner, we watched Global News in the evening alongside TVB dramas and martial arts movies, and we went to Chinese school on the weekends but spent the summers at tennis camp or at Scouts. This is our family’s story.

In The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative, Thomas King says, “Everyone knew who Indians were. Everyone knew what they looked like. Even Indians. . . [But] I didn’t know how I wanted to represent Indians (53).” My relationship to race have been similar, and I am continuing to learn how to discuss my relationship to my race that do not isolate other experiences.

A few semesters ago in a literature class, my literature professor asked whether any of us could read a pre-translated version of a poem in Pound’s ‘Cantos’. I felt a dozen heads turn in my direction. I struggle with speaking and writing Chinese, and am often confronted by a certain shame by not meeting peoples’ expectations of my ability. For this reason, I felt particularly empathetic towards Francine Burning’s discussion around Tokenization.

“[I]t is crucial to acknowledge the ways in which color functions socially and it’s relationship to a person’s social position, and one way that it functions acutely is in a person’s experience of discrimination.”
– What I Learned In Class Today: Aboriginal Issues in the Classroom

I’ve been asked before whether I have encountered racism, and when I answer, “yes” sometimes people are shocked. It’s rare, but nothing quite beats the experience of hearing, “go back to where you came from.” These adverse experiences have contributed to a hesitation in acknowledging my racial background. In addition, it cannot be ignored that the Western narrative has been privileged in the media over those of minorities. I feel that it is important to remind ourselves that though each of our experiences are legitimate, we must consider how our individual backgrounds and identity colour our way of seeing.

I am still learning how best to identify with my background. In the past, my response to the “but where are you really from?”question was often met with indignation because it implied that I did not belong, and reminded me of the pains of ‘otherness’. I realized a few years ago that it is more of a linguistic fumbling than an attack on my racial background. Nowadays my answer is, “My mom is from China, and my dad was born here.” I understand that there are intersections in one’s relationship to home, and that it is a fluid concept- it is not wholly spacial or racial, or even singular. I am curious to see how with increasing globalization, travel, and media on the web, one’s experience with their notion of home will change.

Works Cited:

Burning, Francine. “Session 1: Francine Burning, 21 February 2007.” What I Learned In Class Today: Aboriginal Issues in the Classroom. Web. 06 June 2016.

Brown, Brené. “Brené Brown on Empathy.” The RSA, Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce. Web. 06 June 2016.

King, Thomas. The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative. Peterbough: Anansi Press. 2003. Print.

Every night, the village people gathered around the fire and told stories. Tales were told of the strange lands, of heroes and mythical creatures, or of everyday happenings—no tale was too small or too great for the gathering. This tradition bred many great story tellers, but one in particular could create whole universes with his words and hold the attention of even the most restless mind. Let’s call him Tom. At this time, Tom was writing a story that was quite different from those he usually told, and that made him nervous.

One particular night, a stranger joined the villagers around the fire and asked them to entertain him with tales. He promised a wonderful prize to the person who could tell the best story. At the end of the night, the stranger awarded Tom a small flask as his prize for the evening’s best tale. The stranger told the storyteller that the contents of the flask were made with the world’s finest ingredients, and that it would surely be the best thing that he had ever tasted.

Tom drank from the flask the next day, enjoying the taste of the concoction immensely.

“Today is going to be a great day,” he said.

What he didn’t know was that the stranger had accidentally given him a Truth Serum, which rendered everything Tom said true. And so, Tom had a great day.

Because things were going so smoothly that day, Tom decided that he would tell his new story at that night’s fire.

It was a story full of darkness, violence, and tragedy. His audience was rightfully fearful, but Tom had unwittingly released all of these awful elements unto the world. Little did he know, that once spoken aloud, the words would come true.

So beware, once a story is told, it can never be taken back.

(It also wouldn’t hurt to be wary of drinks given to you from strangers.)

* * *

Having written the story out first, it was interesting to see what alterations were made when telling the story. I found that the way I told the story was quite a bit more informal, and I definitely put emphasis in certain places of the story that don’t come across in print. My creative writing teacher emphasized the way one tells a story is just as important as the contents of the story.

Depending on where I was when I told the story, I added or took away details from the narrative. I told this story on two separate occasions, once when I was walking home with a friend and another when I was having drinks. It was late and dark when we were walking home and the story carried a more ominous tone. The second time I told the story, it was quite lighthearted and a bit goofy. I was interrupted a few times and asked questions to clarify certain parts of the story.

It’s an interesting concept that stories do not belong to the person who created them. Once put out into the world, people of all backgrounds will derive meaning from them regardless of the intent of the author. Stories have the ability to change people, and vice versa.

Works Cited

King, Thomas. The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative. Peterbough: Anansi Press. 2003. Print.

This American Life. “David Rakoff in “This American Life: The Invisible Made Visible”” NPR, National Public Radio. Web. 30 May 2016.

Zak, Paul J. “How Stories Change the Brain.” 17 Dec 2013. The Greater Good Science Center. University of California, Berkeley. Web. 30 May 2016.

1.2.7 “At the beginning of this lesson I pointed to the idea that technological advances in communication tools have been part of the impetus to rethink the divisive and hierarchical categorizing of literature and orality, and suggested that this is happening for a number of reasons.  I’d like you to consider two aspects of digital literature: 1) social media tools that enable widespread publication, without publishers, and 2) Hypertext, which is the name for the text that lies beyond the text you are reading, until you click. How do you think these capabilities might be impacting literature and story?”

I remember perusing encyclopedias and textbooks while doing research in my former years of education, but this has been happening less and less with the rise of reputable sources on the Internet. Digital literature has vastly changed the way I approach the consumption and creation of content, and I don’t think the impact and influence of the Web as a platform is considered enough.

History suggests that literacy was developed from orality and is therefore a superior mode of communication (Carlson 45). The written word enabled oral histories to be passed down and examined without a narrator. The written form exudes a sense of permanence that was not present with oral storytelling. Advances in technology enable the recording of oral storytelling methods, thus subverting the notion that written records are superior for their permanence. The Web is a space that both supports and inverts the notion of permanence. It is often said that once something exists on the Internet, it is really difficult to get it back. Because content is can be spread on such a large scale, often content or information cannot be taken back. However, content can often be edited and added to by different people outside of the creator’s intentions. In this sense, the content is subject to change, and possesses a fluid nature.

“[T]he computer does not initiate the dominance of one media form over another, but rather encourages their fusion within the pluralistic realm of the “global village.” -Courtney MacNeil

The Web exists as a platform that offers media more complex than the traditional dichotomy of the written and verbal word, transcending implied hierarchies to create a space where different media can co-exist. The seemingly unlimited space on the Web allow these forms to work with one another without being a threat to other’s existence. The Internet is a space of collaboration and community more akin to communal storytelling that the interaction of an individual with a piece of text. Many content creators encourage dialogue with their audience with the intention of building and maintaining a community.

Traditional publication relied on aspects such as writing ability, reputation, and industry connections. The ability to publish on the web has made public the writing of people who have not traditionally had access to these resources. The voices of the disadvantaged or minority groups can be accessed alongside those who have traditionally dominated the public domain. The freedom of publication transcends the hierarchy between people of different nationalities, affluence, age groups, and origins.

Orality has a connection to cultural knowledge and a collective memory that is similar to the way that hyperlinking connects texts to create communal knowledge. Hyperlinking gives the reader the freedom to explore related topics to encourage a broader reading, or providing additional information for more in-depth understanding. Electronic structures much less rigid in organization, and allow for multiple forms of organization depending on preference. Digital literature diminishes the sense of closure that arose from the invention of print (Bolter 79).

Additionally, the ability for the public to comment on articles in certain domains allows for a level of interactivity that was unavailable to traditional text-based literature. This allows for the writer to be challenged by the public, something more common in oral storytelling than in the written word. The increased interactivity of the online format encourages encourages reflection and discussion that might not be offered in traditional fields of study. It provides a safe place for marginalized voices to come forward and share their experiences. Further, the reader has more responsibility than ever to seek out these narratives because they are so readily available.

Works Cited:

Bolter, Jay David. Writing Space: The Computer, Hypertext and the History of Writing. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1991.

Carlson, Keith Thor. “Orality about Literacy: The ‘Black and White’ of Salish History.” Orality and Literacy: Reflections Across Disciplines. University of Toronto Press, 2011. 43-69. JSTOR. Web.

Datafloq. “Internet of Things.” Graphic. Web.

MacNeil, Courtney. “orality.” The Chicago School of Media Theory: University of Chicago, Winter 2007. Web. https://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/mediatheory/keywords/orality/

“Reconciliation. . . towards a new relationship.” Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Web.

Zipes, Jack. “The Cultural Evolution of Storytelling and Fairy Tales: Human Communication and Memetics.” The Irresistible Fairy Tale: The Cultural and Social History of a Genre. Princeton University Press, 2012. JSTOR. Web. press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9676.pdf

This is a blog created for ENGL470. The course looks to examine European and Indigenous narratives in Canadian literature, and how they contribute to the notion of identity.

My name is Julia Wong, and I am pursuing a BA at UBC with a major in English Literature and a minor in Visual Arts. When I am not holed up in one of Vancouver’s many cafes, one can assume that I am lost out in the BC wilderness.

As I begin to travel more, I am often confronted with the task of presenting my personal concept of the Canadian identity. This has proved difficult, as there seems to be a lack of a fixed definition of nationalism. However, the fluidity in our identity allows for a constant re-evaluation of what it means to be Canadian- one that allows for reflection and self-criticism.

Although I have taken a Canadian literature class in the past, I am sorry to say that my experience with Indigenous literature traditions are few and far between. Though this class has exposed me to the voices of Canadian authors, like the multi-disciplinary artist Douglas Coupland and the poet Eve Joseph, I am interested in examining the narratives we choose to canonize and of the voices of minorities that may not exist in mainstream media. I believe we have a responsibility towards an accurate representation of these narratives, especially with such a large collection of native art at the Museum of Anthropology on campus. I look forward to debunking stereotypes, examining power relations and notions of privilege, and gaining a more nuanced understanding of Canadian identity, beyond the safe and idyllic

This will be my first online course, and I am interested to see how the web serves and influences the way information is delivered and consumed. I hope that this task of weekly blogging helps my writing become increasingly refined and specific. As Canadian poet Anne Carson says on writing, “every accuracy has to be invented”.

-j

Works Cited

Anderson, Sam. “The Inscrutable Brilliance of Anne Carson” The New York Times Magazine. 14 Mar. 2013. Web. 15 May 2016.

Coupland, Douglas. “What is the Future of Art?” Artsy. 1 Mar. 2016. Web. 15 May 2016.

Nguyen, Danton. “Untitled”, 2015. 30 Apr. 2015. Web. 15 May 2016.

Tregebov, Rhea. “Review: The Secret Signature of Things” The Globe and Mail. 20 Sept. 2010. Web. 15 May 2016.