Question 1:

In “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King of England”, Harry Robinson uses a variety of literary techniques to mimic oral literature.

Reading the story silently in my head was difficult. Unlike other academic texts, where syntax assists the fluidity of the language, Robinson chooses an arrangement that makes me double-guess my reading. Grammar errors, incomplete sentences, a limited vocabulary, and repeated phrases, are the initial issues I pick up in my internal reading as an academic. The short, choppy sentences adds emphasis and emotion to the story, and also creates most of my problems as I read in my head. These sentences are clearly meant to be read in an oral fashion. After reading the story out loud, I immediately noticed the difference with the presentation of the story. The sentence structure forces me to slow down, pause after each period, and put more emphasis on certain words. He selectively chooses where to incorporate grammar mistakes. He shows this kind of placement when he says “They never think about it. They never thought to report that stranger” (Robinson 69). Here, Robinson purposefully uses “think” in its incorrect form in the first sentence, and correctly uses the right tense, “thought”, in the sentence immediately following. He goes back and forth with correct and incorrect grammar; this quality of writing breaks down the narrow-minded reader who follows strict guidelines, and requires an open-minded reading – similar to the imaginative state of mind necessary to fully indulge in an oral telling of a story.

This type of story reminds me of Di Brandt’s poem “but what do you think my father says“. Unfortunately, I am unable to find a web version of the whole poem, but I have linked you to a criticism of her work. In this poem, Brandt removes all punctuation, allowing the reader free reign on interpreting sentences as they see fit. This kind of writing, like Robinson’s, forces the reader to slow down and verbally read in order to grasp the full meaning of the piece. The meanings in Brandt’s poem differ based on the way it is punctuated, and which words you choose to emphasize. This changes interpretations – like how interpretations are changed based on silent and oral readings.

Robinson uses informal language to create a storytelling effect. He uses words like “’em” (Robinson 67), and phrases like “you write it down just the points, like” (Robinson 73), showing the casual tone of the story.  It was necessary for me to read out loud to appreciate Robinson’s syntax choices to recreate oral literature. The language is casual, and similar to the words used in day-to-day conversation. While I initially judged the narrow range of vocabulary, I realized in my reading out loud that it was done purposefully to initiate a conversational atmosphere and oral quality.

I read the story to my mother. Seeing as this was the third time engaging with the story, and I knew what to expect through this text, and I did not encounter the problems I initially had. I noticed that the speed of my presentation got progressively slower through each exercise. My silent reading was quick and analytical, with the exception of re-reading troubled phrases; reading out loud was significantly slower, and involved much more of the qualities King hoped to embed with this verbal telling; reading out loud to my mother was slightly slower, most of that caused by overemphasizing certain words and taking longer pauses between sentences. This shows how my increased familiarity with the story (as well as an oral presentation verses silent reader) creates a real-life story atmosphere.

Robinson imitates storytelling through the presenter in many ways, one of which is through engaging with the audience. He asks questions, like “Who? What is it?” (Robinson 65) and “Do you know what the Angel was? Do you know?” (66).  These questions are directed towards the listener, and is a method used to increase the interaction between presenter and receiver. The overuse of casual language is a quality of storytelling; for example, Robinson uses the word “so” on every page. While “so” implies an air of informality through an internal reading, it shows a storytelling quality recognized through an oral version, as if the story is merely continuing on and on. The sentence “Shouldn’t be that way” (Robinson 70) particularly stood out when I read it out loud to my mother. The lack of “it” at the beginning of the sentence is a conversational cue to show emotion and passion – something that I missed in my first two readings of the story. Like real story telling, where you do not have a piece of paper with the words written neatly down upon it, I also noticed myself looking up and making more eye contact with my mother. Familiarity plays a big role in this; as in real storytelling, stories are tweaked through each regurgitation.

Overall, I found this exercise enlightening. Robinson’s usage of syntax forces the reader to appreciate the different effect reading in your head makes to reading out loud. At the end, I tried reading the story in my head one last time, and found myself mumbling the words verbally regardless.

References:

“Nationality and Belonging in Mennonite Women’s Writing: Di Brandt’s Poetry and Criticism.” Academia.edu. Web. 14 Apr. 2014. <http://www.academia.edu/4248193/_Nationality_and_Belonging_in_Mennonite_Womens_Writing_Di_Brandts_Poetry_and_Criticism._>.

Robinson, Harry. “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King Of England.” Living by Stories: a Journey of Landscape and Memory. Ed. Wendy Wickwire. Vancouver: Talonbooks, 2005. 64-85.