Dog Sledding Excursion

Okay. I am recording now. So the I’ve decided to go with narration, because it seemed to me the easiest way to readily fill five minutes. So, I’m going to talk about a an excursion I took with my partner when we did an Alaska cruise. A few years back. So on this cruise. We were going from Vancouver to Anchorage. And then from there on up to Denali National Park, and so on the way we stopped at Juneau, which is the state capital of Alaska. And in Juneau, we have an option to take a, a helicopter trip to the top of a glacier nearby, the city and and on the top of that glacier there’s a dog sledding camp where dog mushing teams for the Iditarod competition dogs have competition. Spend the summers preparing before their, their race. So, visitors can come up and meet the dogs and the other trainers and they take you around the glacier, and it’s good fun, it’s it’s uh it’s something totally different. So we, we decided to do that so we took the helicopter right up to the top of the glacier which is very cool. You get a terrific view of the islands all along the coast, they stretch all the way up to Alaska, on the west side and then you can see the mountains on the east. So you get to the top of the glacier and they set down. The first thing you do is you meet the, the owner trainers. And they, they set you up on a sled and they take off. And these dogs just take you all around the top of the glacier. And they are loving it. They like nothing better than to run their hearts out and, and of course it’s great fun for us too because you know the dogs are so enthusiastic. And you can hear the, strangely enough, they never do actually say mush. That’s not a word that they use. I can’t remember now the word they do use, but there is a special word but it’s not much to encourage the dogs to go faster. But anyway, after you’re done your dog sledding trip. They stop and they go in a kind of a circle and you come back to the camp. And then you can go and meet the dogs so they take you to the, to the kennel. And you, you can meet the dogs and you can pet them. You can have your picture taken with them. And, and that’s, they’re really cute, of course, and they like this as well because they like the attention. And when you’re all finished. And you’ve got your souvenirs and whatever else you want. Then, then you take the helicopter back down to the down to Juneau, and you board the cruise ship, and you’re basically finished your excursion. So I really do recommend this. It was I think probably the the very best excursion we took on that tour, except maybe the helicopter trip to Denali itself. It was just something you never get to do in real life like you never get to meet, you know, sled dogs. I guess you have to be kind of enthused by that but you know I read Robert Service. When I was younger, and I will always was kind of fascinated by the Yukon and the north and and being able to, to kind of be part of that even as just a tourist was was really enjoyable. So, I do recommend that. Okay, that’s the end of my narration. I hope you enjoyed it. Thanks.

How does the text deviate from conventions of written English?

Oral story-telling has a fluid form and concerns itself less with adhering to proper rules of grammar and syntax. As a result, sentences tend to be shorter and there is reliance on simple co-ordinating conjunctions like and, but, so, or, and so on. It lends itself to oral communication because stories have a beginning, middle and end and this gives a natural structure to the narration which is important because, being spontaneous, there was no time to plan. Also, I used two techniques that are unneeded in writing, the use of filler words and the use of repetition, which gave me time to decide on how to move forward, what to say and how to say it.

What is “wrong” in the text? What is “right”

Whats “wrong”? The narration gives the story in its essentials and with some feeling but it doesn’t really do justice to the excursion. It’s important to note that, if I were to find myself telling the story again and again, I would probably find ways to improve the telling of it with each iteration. Further, If I lived in a primary oral culture and if the story had some particular function, if it reminded my listeners of an important event in our lives for example, than I would work to make the story memorable and vivid with all the appropriate rhetorical devices, something I had neither the time nor skill to do here.

What’s “right”? There are parts of the narration that seem to work because they feel conversational and therefore “relaxed”. The listener can imagine themselves being in the place and time along with the speaker because the first person singular has this intimate quality. However, it wouldn’t be as common to write from that perspective. Another feature of first person narrative is that is the listener is more likely to feel they are getting the “straight goods”, which is one of the main problems with social media, the justified suspicion that you are getting a curated reality.

What are the most common “mistakes” in the text and why do you consider them “mistakes”?

Describing something as a mistake assumes something has fallen short of evaluative criteria. I find it hard to answer this because I’m not sure what the “correct” version should look like. An unedited material artefact derived from a communication in secondary orality clearly suffers through its transmutations. As a language technology, I suspect a transcription of an oral narration delivers the worst of both worlds in that it lacks not only the polish and rigour of writing but also the immediacy and freshness of speech. In this kind of text, the function of words, as a semiotic system of symbols and mediating tools is blunted, being neither one nor the other it seems to have the defects of both and the advantages of neither.

What if you had “scripted” the story? What difference might that have made?

The story would certainly have been more informative and coherent. I would have included what I though were relevant bits of information that had been forgotten and arranged the sequence of events more logically. I would have had time to search my memory and identify pertinent and revealing details and incidents that would effectively evoke the setting and events rather than just whatever I could manage to remember. The vocabulary would have been chosen with more care, and in addition, I would have make sure the grammar was correct and the sentences crafted with an eye to their balance and harmony.

In what ways does oral storytelling differ from written storytelling?

The narration of a story differs from a written version of the same in several ways; however, it’s important to distinguish between a rehearsed story that’s been told (and possibly heard) many times and something being offered extemporaneously. If the story has cultural significance the distinction is even more important.

First, produced without forethought, an oral story telling might take digressions, fail to clarify incidents, and contain redundancies and irrelevant material. The story will never be the same twice so it will lack the consistency and constancy of writing and it will not have the same durability over time.

Second, a writer can create an authoritative text, that is, a version of story that is fixed and definitive; whereas, story-telling makes the listener as important as the speaker. In Phaedrus, the breach between writer and reader is identified as one of the key defects of writing by precluding dialogue through which real communication takes place. By contrast, like a jazz artist, every oral performance is an improvisation depending on the mood of the audience, the mood and intent of the speaker, the venue, the time of day, and so on. This makes the audience and overall context part of the endeavour in a way that goes beyond what a writer can expect. In oral story-telling, the speaker is personally engaged with the audience and can adjust the telling in whatever way is wanted for whatever outcome. As a result, the story can be made perfectly fit for purpose.

Third, what oral story-telling lacks in precision and clarity it gains through the warmth and colour of the human voice. The speaker can use voice modulation to convey interest, emotion and attitude without having to rely on vocabulary. This implies that there will be less uncommon vocabulary, in part because it won’t be needed for the reason just given, but also because the listeners have to get the message right now. There’s no opportunity to google a word or phrase they don’t know. However, it will never be the same twice, that is, it will not be consistent and will not be durable.

Although oral and written communication are two forms of language technology, Haas reminds us that the oral is foundational and the written unimaginable without it. Having said this, writing activates the potential for abstract thought, analysis, and critical thinking in a way that would be impossible for preliterate oral culture and these qualities inform the impact of story-telling in each mode.