Question 6:

Lee Maracle writes:

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, in her article “Toward a national Literature: A Body of Writing,” discusses the function of literary criticism within her Salish community. She defines it as a “process of gathering together to find what is new and being born, to learn as an ensemble, to discover as a group” to begin taking apart the story (Maracle 85). The act of literary criticism is a communal experience of shaping the myth together to allow space for each member to confront their understanding and grow from it. Salish people tell stories through understanding the story, then inserting the self and the community within the context of the story, and followed by seeing the commonality that the story shares with the people. After it has been taken apart and put back together, the Salish will “assess its value to continued growth and transformation of the community and the nation” because every single story shared within their community is a piece of their history and beliefs (Maracle 85).

The criticism of stories for the Salish is about self-reflection and personal development concerning the community because each individual has a duty to the community and, by connection, a responsibility to the continual telling of stories. The Salish welcome new stories from old stories because it is changing to fit the passage of time. The new ones are more fitting as guiding principles for the community because the new stories are attuned to new ways of life. This is a stark contrast from the European tendency to exclude and limit the creation of new stories while striving to protect and covet old stories with outdated beliefs. Salish myths give space for the community to grow with time while Europeans are obsessed with nostalgia and a glorified past – the latter is an idea explored by Northrop Frye

Northrop Frye, in “Conclusion to a Literary History of Canada,” explores the struggles of Canadian identity and nation-building as a result of the lack of myth. Frye explains the lack of renowned Canadian Literature and attributes it to the lack of connection that Canadian Literature has to place. The writing from Canada does not connect readers but instead shares a generic Western experience that is not specific to Canada; as such, the literature cannot develop the Canadian identity. Myths are a literary tradition of place that “become structural principles of storytelling, its mythical concepts, sun-gods and the like, become habits of metaphorical thought,” which provide a basis for the creation of original stories (Frye 234). Canada lacks that. Canadian history is not rooted in the place of Canada but rather in the experiences endured on Canadian soil like colonialism, confederation, or the immigration of people. Nothing is connecting Canada to its creation because those are stories known only to the Natives. These stories have been destroyed by the murder and assimilation of Native peoples. Most countries have national myths, but Canada will probably never will. Canadian writers today write from a place of experience or emotion connected to a history of the books they have read. These pasts are linked to Europe; thus, the stories from Canada are mostly monotonous do not define Canada.

Maracles highlights the importance of myth in her culture and, thus, as a part of her identity. The Salish stories simultaneously build up her community and her sense of self. The stories connect her to her people, to the land, and her nation, which helps create her identity. Frye, on the other hand, emphasizes the fact that the lack of myth in Canada makes it hard to create that link to place and self. Canada cannot define itself without correlation to other countries because Canada does not have an original myth. Without the myth, Canadians cannot feel connected to Canada in the fundamental ways that the natives do to the land. Both Maracles and Frye emphasize similar arguments – myth is crucial to nation-building because each myth lays a concrete foundation for a people to connect to in building their community; without the myths, there is nothing substantial and thus, no specific identity.

Works Cited:

Carlson, Kathryne Blaze. “How Canadian identity has changed and what it means for our future,” National Post. 28, Dec. 2012, https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/year-in-ideas-how-canadian-identity-has-changed-and-what-it-means-for-our-future.

Frye, Northrop. “Conclusion to a Literary History of Canada,” The Bush Garden; Essays on the Canadian Imagination. Toronto: Anansi, 2011. pp. 215-253.

Maracle, Lee. “Toward a National Literature: A Body of Writing.” Across Cultures, Across Borders Canadian Aboriginal and Native American Literatures by Paul Warren Depasquale, Renate Eigenbrod, Emma Larocque (z-lib.org), Broadview, 2010. Print.

Madsen, Linn Sollied. “The power of myths,” sciencenorway. 28, Aug. 2012, https://partner.sciencenorway.no/forskningno-myths-and-mythology-national-identity/the-power-of-myths/1375998.

Rivera, Hermes. “Flag of Canada.” Unsplash. 26, Jun. 2018. https://unsplash.com/photos/ahHn48-zKWo.