Question 3:
What are the major differences or similarities between the ethos of the creation story you are familiar with, and the story King tells in The Truth About Stories?
——————————————
My parents raised me in a Christian household; up until I started highschool, we went the church every Sunday, and I attended Sunday School for an hour once a week after the service. My parents are – what I would call – mildly religious. They did not pray before meals or follow the “rules of the bible” (cursing, tattoos, alcohol, etc), but they were clear on expressing their beliefs: they believed in God, and if you lived an honest life, they would be rewarded with admittance to heaven. Other than being forced to sit through church and memorize a weekly passage of the bible for Sunday School, my parents never pushed me towards a life of religion. Once I began highschool and had Sunday morning hockey practices to attend, my family stopped going to church all together. Towards the end of highschool, I began to verbally question religion and its effects to my mother. I explained to her my conflicting views: was the story of Genesis realistic? Why do we have religion in our world at all, when conflicting spiritual beliefs leads to many global issues, including death and destruction? Her response was that being Christian was a state of mind – she does not need to pray in church once a week to reaffirm her faith; instead, she trusts her beliefs, and tries to be the best person she can be in the eyes of God, which ultimately leaves with less stress and peace of mind.
After a lengthy rambling, I get to my point: I am still struggling with my personal beliefs, and I do not have a creation story that I am passionate about. I wouldn’t go as far to say I am a true atheist, because some part of me believes that we all have destinies, and that a higher power guides us there. I could sway more towards the agonistic approach, questioning the validity of God’s existence based on lack of living individual knowledge. For the sake of this assignment, I will focus on the story of Genesis with Adam and Eve, and compare it to King’s version of The Earth Diver. Both creations stories are essentially the same in that they introduce human beings to the world, but different because of the implications each story suggests.
“Curio[sity]” (King 10) plays a different role with Eve than it does with Charm. In Genesis, Satan encourages Eve’s initial curiosity with the apple for a harmful purpose; his deceit is stemmed by Eve’s vulnerability and her lack of self-reliance. The fall of man is given a negative connotation, and the existence of human beings and the pain and chaos we endure can be traced back to Eve and the consequences of her curiosity. Charm, on the other hand, is warned by the birds to “[not] be too curious” (King 11), but proceeds with her initial thoughts regardless of others opinions. Charm “falls” out of the sky, like Adam and Eve’s “fall” from grace, but Charm is not punished for her curiosity. The tone of the event remains neutral – neither positive nor negative – and Charm’s perception on life is not to make up for her mistake, like Adam and Eve, but to build on the situation. The feminist in me appreciates Charm’s independence. When the badger tells her to be mindful of how deep she digs, she responds with “mind your own business” (King 13). Both stories show different ideologies and values: Genesis appoints blame and demands repentance, whereas The Earth Diver emphasizes acceptance and harmony.
Genesis and The Earth Diver show contrasting perspectives on gender equality and feminism. In traditional aboriginal cultures, women are considered “the givers of life”, and are highly respected by their communities. King’s story, which follows this Aboriginal mindset, shows no evidence of sexist inequality. The handedness of the twins – right creating woman, and left creating man – show stereotypical male and female qualities. Adam and Eve have clear rankings; Adam is more superior because he is a man, and Eve is made out of Adam’s rib, therefore inferior. While The Earth Diver designates stereotypical qualities to the right handed twin (woman) and the left handed twin (man), it is not used to divide them, but to complement one another. Straight rivers are made flowing in both directions, but altered to be crooked with a continuous one-direction flow; forests are organized, then randomly placed for diversity; thorns are added to roses; summer and winter; sun and shadow (King 19, 20). The Earth Diver is a feminist creation story; it shows balance and cohesion, and takes integrates both gender qualities to create “one beautiful world” (King 20).
I find the presentation of The Earth Diver much more appealing than that of Genesis. King introduces Charm in an imaginative, impartial light, whereas Genesis seems more narrow minded and statement-orientated. Perhaps my own bias is shining through, as I had no previous opinion of Charm’s tale, and a contradicting opinion of Adam and Eve’s. I have found a couple different presentations of the story of Genesis that take on a more creative delivery. They are very short, simple, and streamlined, saying almost identical information, but I find this visual/verbal display more appealing (what a coincidence… I take more interest in ORAL STORYTELLING… oh orality!). You can find links to these videos here and here.
Overall, I am still uncertain of my spiritual beliefs. That being said, The Earth Diver is an creative alternative to Genesis, and my new go-to creation story.
Works Cited
“Bible Story Series: Genesis The Creation of World.” YouTube. YouTube, 13 Aug. 2010. Web. 15 Apr. 2014. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLHB_hNk42g>.
Courtney MacNeil, “Orality.” The Chicago School of Media Theory. Uchicagoedublogs. 2007. Web. 19 Feb. 2013.
“The Creation Story.” YouTube. YouTube, 13 Oct. 2009. Web. 15 Apr. 2014. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVUBg7___w4>
King, Thomas. The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative. Peterbough: Anansi Press. 2003. Print.