3:5 – Creation Stories and Ethos
by VictoriaWoo
Question 3
What are the major differences or similarities between the ethos of the creation story or stories you are familiar with and the story King tells in The Truth About Stories ?
Growing up, I wasn’t knowledgeable about any one creation story in particular; perhaps I can partly attribute this to not being raised religiously, since most religions do contain some kind of narrative about the beginning of the world/mankind. Like many others, though, I did know bits and pieces of the biblical Genesis creation story (it’s hard not to living in the Western world).
Regardless of which specific creation story one is familiar with, to really understand the story one must carefully consider its ethos, “the characteristic spirit… as manifested in its beliefs and aspirations” (dictionary.com). In this blog post, I will attempt to compare the differences and similarities between the ethos of the bible’s Genesis creation story and the story King tells in The Truth About Stories.
To begin with, there are some general similarities and differences between these two stories which, in turn, inform the ethos of either one. Perhaps the most obvious similarity is that both Genesis and King’s story depend on interactions between humans and animals. In the bible, Eve interacts solely with the serpent (Satan), while in King’s creation story, Charm interacts with many different animals. A notable difference between the two stories, though, is the implications of these interactions between human and animal— specifically, between woman and animal. In Genesis, the interaction between Eve and the serpent quite clearly has negative implications; her curiosity (and subsequent temptation) to eat from the tree of knowledge leads to the destruction of the world God has created. In King’s story, however, Charm’s curiosity or her “nosiness” (first exemplified when she wonders why she has five toes), eventually leads to her and the many animals’ joint creation of the world. While both Eve and Charm do have agency and do derive some kind of power from said agency, only Eve’s is portrayed in a negative light— one can ultimately see how there is misogyny rooted in Genesis.
Both Genesis and King’s story also highlight potential differences between Western and Indigenous thought. For example, in King’s story, we can clearly see how interconnected and shared the creation process is; the world is created and livened via the dedicated teamwork of Charm, her twins, and all the animals combined. As King eloquently puts it, the universe in his story “is governed by a series of co-operations” (23). The story of Genesis, in contrast, consists of a solitary creation effort— God creates the entire world himself and only relies on Adam and Eve to propagate it further. This is not to suggest that Western thought lacks complexity, though; rather, this simply suggests that the nature of Indigenous thought is very much holistic and harmonious. In reading King’s other book, Green Grass Running Water, one can also sense this type of harmony and interconnection, particularly through the metaphor of the Medicine Wheel.
Although attending a Western university means that I have studied the likes of Genesis in works such as Paradise Lost, I find great value and appreciation in being exposed to the Indigenous storytelling approach that can be seen in both The Truth About Stories and Green Grass Running Water. Rather than “believ[ing] one story to be sacred… [and] see[ing] the other as secular,” perhaps we should all instead be receptive to the unique teachings that each story may have to offer (King, 25).
Works Cited
“Ethos.” Dictionary. LLC. N.d. Web. 19 Jul. 2016.
“Genesis 1-3:24 – New International Version.” Bible Gateway. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Jul. 2016.
King, Thomas. The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative. Toronto: House of Anansi Press, 2003. Print.
“Medicine Ways: Traditional Healers and Healing.” Native Peoples Concepts of Health and Illness. N.d. Web. 19 Jul. 2016.
Hi Victoria!
I enjoyed your blog post – thanks for the interesting thoughts! It is so intriguing to think about how these differing origin stories can have such commonalities, even with their vastly varied meanings and interpretations. I find it particularly interesting how misogynistic the book of Genesis (and all the teachings of Christianity for that matter!) are. Think about this too – the Christian God (always portrayed as male) apparently created the entire universe. I find it ironic that a male figure it presumed to have created the universe, including the earth and all of its creatures…when we all know who the life-givers in almost the entire animal kingdom are (i.e. females). This is especially terrifying when we consider how many people are influenced by these writings, and take them for granted as a somehow “objective” (as in, written by God through people) and guiding truth. You end with King’s important point, though, that it is worthwhile to try to be receptive to the many stories; whether or not you take them as truth, or fiction, they can still teach you something and help you understand the world.
Hi Charlotte 🙂
Thanks for your comment! It is definitely ironic (not to mention inconsistent) that the bible and much of Christianity portrays males as the sole creators. You mention that many people treat these writings as objective and guiding truths, though I think this inconsistency (and others) are telling of how truly unreliable these narratives are.
Hi Victoria,
After reading your response to Natasha’s blog, I was interested to see how you handled this question.
I like the idea that instead of following one story, people could take all stories as true. I can see this being easier for someone who has not grown up with a particular creation story. I also believe this can allow the stories to interact with one another, kind of how we are doing with our blog discussions.
I enjoyed that you pointed out the interaction with animals. A huge part of both creation stories is nature as that is what is first being created.
Thank you for your thoughts!
~Stef~
Hi Stefanie 🙂
Thanks for your comment, I’m glad you could agree with some of my thoughts.
Belief in only one creation story certainly limits one’s ability to find the truth that exists in every story. I agree with your suggestion that belief in all stories allows for dialogue and interaction of stories; this dialogue is also beneficial in that it has the power to broaden worldviews and increase tolerance to different ideas.