For Assignment 3:2, I’ve decided to write about Question 6.  The question refers to a section of Lee Maracle’s text that says “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 my answer, I will be summarizing her answer to her own question as well as comparing Lee Maracle and Frye’s analysis of the role of myth in nation building. 

Summarizing Maracle’s Answer

To Maracle, discourse creates a constructive environment for herself and those in her Salish community to accept weakness and grow from it, developing new strength along the way.  Literary criticism is crucial in creating long lasting transformation myths. In Salish Society, when there is a new theory, idea, or story born, it is important for writers to come together to learn and adapt to it together.  There is a process that takes place particularly in evaluating an older story and the reason for this is “first to understand it; second to see oneself in the story; and then to see the nation, community, and our common humanity”(85). This process allows the Salish to pull parts of the story that they believe in and alter them to align with the modern day world of literature and storytelling. For Maracle and her nation, stories “point [them] all in the direction of the good life” (85). The continuation of stories from generation to generation helps people learn from their mistakes. It is every member of Sto:lo’s responsibility to go out into the world, take chances, and create stories of their own to avoid repeating history and getting stuck in a loop.

 Maracle speaks of the myth maker in a variety of contexts, referring to the nation becoming the “recognition body and this is the basis for interaction with the myth-maker, which can invoke the process for story creation from within the culture” (85).  From this, I take that the myth maker is viewed by Maracle as the nation that contributes to their story.  She speaks defensively about how she does “not consider” the fact that the Salish are an oratorical society. Additionally, defensively states that she also does not “believe that [her] stories are illegitimate little bastards because they follow the responsibilities, principles, and objectives of oratory and oral myth-making from a Sto:lo perspective. This was interesting to me because as I was reading and learning about Sto:lo’s literary criticism and creation of stories, this thought of undermining or belittling the process never occured to me. I believe it to be rather impressive and beautiful.  

Maracle & Frye Comparison

Frye focuses on cultural nationalism. While openly validating white privilege, Frye simultaneously disagrees with some British ideas and views them as colonial. Maracle views the Salish’s role of literary criticism as a way to not only create new stories for their nation but also to situate itself as a separate nation from Europeans.  Frye views nationalism as “the obvious and unquenchable desire of the Canadian cultural public to identity itself through its literature” (Frye, 218). Today, we speak both about nationalism and mythology but not yet how they tie together. Literature is “conscious mythology: as society develops its mythical stories become structured principles of storytelling” (Frye, 234) and therefore, nationalism roots back to the mythology of a nation, relying on myths to carry the cultural and national identity forward.

Both Frye and Maracle, although viewing themselves from different nations, recognize the importance of nationality and believe in national approaches. Maracle finds empowerment for the Salish people in creating their own nation through mythology and by creating their own history. Frye and Maracle see through the same lens from this perspective, intersecting theories of nationality. Thank you so much for taking the time to read my blog and my thoughts.

Alex 🙂 

Sources

Frye, Northrop. The Bush Garden: Essays on the Canadian Imagination. Introduction by Linda Hutcheon. Concord, ON: House of Anansi Press, 1995. Print.

Maracle, Lee. “Toward a National Literature: ‘A Body of Writing.’” Across Cultures, Across Borders: Canadian Aboriginal and Native American Literature. Ed. Paul DePasquale, Renate Eigenbrod, and Emma LaRoque. Toronto, ON: Broadview Press, 2010. 77-96. Print.

Dolan, E. (2020, February 11). Online dating: how markets and demographics differ – GlobalWebIndex. Retrieved from https://blog.globalwebindex.com/chart-of-the-week/differences-among-online-daters/

About Stó:lō service agency. (n.d.). Retrieved April 17, 2020, from https://www.stolonation.bc.ca/index.php?pageId=18