Author Archives: gretaanne92

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 ?

I do not come from a religious background, and therefore, I do not have a creation story that I am extremely familiar with. However, I was raised by western parents and my mother’s family was Catholic, so I am familiar with the general story of Genesis.

I have never been a fan of the story of Adam and Eve in the garden. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, as a women, I found the story to be quite offensive. Eve is the one who is ‘tempted’ by the servant. It is Eve who ‘tempts’ Adam. Although both Adam and Eve are punished, the story seems to place a far greater amount of blame on Eve than on Adam. Eve’s punishment, is, to me, the most offensive aspect of the story. She is punished by always having to experience pain in childbirth, and that is why, according to Genesis, all women must go through pain in labour. I am not trying to gloss over how painful childbirth is for all women, but I have a problem with thinking about it as a punishment for some sin that the first women committed. I think there are more positive ways to view childbirth.

Secondly, the story makes me uneasy because it condemns curiosity and disobedience. While sometimes curiosity can “kill the cat,” I object to the story because its message is that Adam and Eve should have been simple, obedient subjects to god and followed all of his rules. In my opinion, it is not necessarily a bad thing for people to question authority. If none of us did this, we could end up in a nightmarish world; such as in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Comparing The Earth Diver to Genesis

I really enjoyed King’s story of Charm in “The Earth Diver.” I am going to compare some similarities between this story and Genesis below:

• While Charm, like Eve, is curious, even nosey, the consequences of Charms curiosity are not nearly as dire as those of Eve. King does say that too much curiosity may not be a good thing, but Charm’s curiosity results in the creation of our beautiful world.

• Charm, like Eve, has a craving for a certain kind of food. Eve wants the apple, Charm wants the “red fern foot,” because she is pregnant. However, while Eve’s reaching for the apple causes the damnation of all humanity for all eternity, Charm’s digging for the red fern foot merely causes her to fall out of the other side of her world and land on Earth. Her craving essentially allows for the discovery of the our world, rather than for the appearance of all evil, as in genesis.

• King’s story does not seem to have a sexist element to it. The two twins that Charm gives birth to may, at first, seem to associate all that is good in the world to the right handed male Twin and all that is dark or complicated to the left handed female Twin. “The right handed Twin created roses. The left handed Twin put thorns on the stems” (King 20). However, King then tells us that “the right handed twin created women, the left handed twin created men” (King 20). Men, therefore, fall under the same category as darkness and thorns. However, it was the male twin that created light and roses. Essentially, King’s narrative does not attribute more good qualities to men or to women, things are balanced out. In addition, the left handed Twin does not come across as evil, she merely thinks that the world is “much more exciting” (King 19) when she messes it up a little bit.

• The main difference between the two stories, as King points out, is that in Genesis there is a “particular universe governed by a series of hierarchies—God, man, animals, plants—that celebrate law, order, and good government, while in the Native story, the universe is governed by a series of co-operations—Charm, the Twins, animals, humans—that celebrate equality and balance” (King 23).

King states that, “contained within creation stories are relationships that help to define the nature of the universe and how cultures understand the world in which they exist” ( King 10). I found it very interesting to study the Native creation story, because I enjoyed it so much more than that of Genesis. Even though I come from a western back ground, I sympathize and respect the Native ideals that “celebrate equality and balance” far more than the hierarchical and patriarchal law driven world view that pervades in Genesis. I enjoyed “The Earth Diver” so much that I am going to adopt it as my new favourite creation story.

WORKS CITED

“Adam and Eve.” Wikipedia. N.p, n.d. 5th April 2014.

GreatBritishTrailers. “Nineteen Eighty-Four Official Trailer.” Online video clip. Youtube. Youtube, 29th April 2012. Web. 4th April 2014.

King, Thomas. The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative. Peterbough: Anansi Press. 2003. Print.

I would like to begin with a summary of the events that take place within the pages that were assigned to me.

Summary
“Lionel had made only three mistakes in his entire life” and his first mistake was getting his tonsils out (King 30). These pages explain how Lionel, at the age of 8, was interested in getting his tonsils removed as an excuse to skip school. When he came down with a bad sore throat, Lionel was inclined to encourage the idea of having his tonsils removed. His mother takes him first to see Martha Old Crow, one of the local “doctors of choice” (King 31). However, Martha suggests that Lionel go see Dr. Loomis, the western doctor who came into town once a week, because no one had gone to see him last week. Dr. Loomis suggests that Lionel’s tonsils may need to be removed, while several people, including Charlie Looking Bear, watch. Charlie makes fun of the doctor. However, Lionel’s plan goes downhill when Dr. Loomis tells Lionel’s mother that Lionel could do the operation over the summer and therefore not have to miss any school. They take some time to consider, but as Lionel’s throat does not improve, he and his mother head to Calgary for the operation. Lionel is taken to the children’s hospital. His mother is staying at his aunt Jean’s house. A tall, blonde woman enters Lionel’s room, and asks if he is the lucky young man who is going to go on an airplane ride. Lionel, “liked playing these kinds of games” (King 34) and says yes. Lionel is flown out to Edmonton. Page 34 ends with Lionel being told that he is going to have a heart operation. Obviously there has been a terrible mistake.

Analysis
While several characters appear in this section, I am most interested in the critique that I believe that King is giving of the western medical profession. Therefore, I am going to focus my analysis on the doctors that appear in this section.

Dr. Loomis
• “Dr. Loomis was a skinny old man with a huge pile of white hair and eyes that looked as though they would pop out of his head. His tongue was inordinately long, and as he talked, he would run it around his face, catching the sides of his mouth and the bottom of his chin” (King 31).

• According to Flick, he is “an private joke” (Flick 146).

• When I googled Dr. Loomis, I found a number of hits relating to “Dr. Samuel Loomis” a character in the Halloween film series. I am not familiar with the series, but apparently Dr. Loomis is one of the primary protagonists who fights against serial killer Michael Myers.

• According to Wikipedia, Dr. Loomis’s name is a reference to the character Sam Loomis in the novel and film “Pyscho.” Sam Loomis was the boyfriend of Mary Crane, the young woman who has the misfortune, in the story, to stay at the Bates motel and subsequently be killed while in the shower. Sam Loomis helps to catch Mary’s killer, the ‘psycho’ Bates.

• When I googled “Loomis” the first thing that appeared was a link to Loomis Express a Canadian courier service. Just to double check that this connection was relevant, I checked how long Loomis Express has been in business for. According to their website, they have been around since 1905. The first thing I saw when I visited their homepage was a tagline that reads “Whatever your needs, Loomis delivers.” This struck me as extremely hilarious when considered in connection to what happens as a result of Dr. Loomis’s advice to go to Calgary and remove Lionel’s tonsils in King’s story, but somehow, oddly, it fit. Dr. Loomis is extremely sure of himself. He assures Lionel’s mother that her son is, “in the best of hands” and brags, “I studied in Toronto, you know” (King 31).

Martha Old Crow
• “A medicine woman, the “doctor of choice” for people on the Reserve. She also appears in King’s Medicine River” (Flick 146)

• The crow, in Native American tradition, is a spirit associated with magic and life mysteries. According to the “Spirit Animals and Animal Totems” website that I found, here are some of the meanings associated with crows:
-Life magic; mystery of creation
-Destiny, personal transformation, alchemy
-Intelligence
-Higher perspective
-Being fearless, audacious
-Flexibility, adaptability
-Trickster, manipulative, mischevious

• The allusions to magic and alchemy fit very well because we know that Martha is a medicine woman.

• Martha is not just a crow, she is an ‘old’ crow; and this suggests wisdom.

Jesse Many Guns
• The other “doctor of choice” (King 31).

• Perhaps an illusion to Jesse James
-Jesse James was an outlaw (1847-1882) and became a legendary symbol of defying authority in the wild west.
-The only connection that I can make here is that Jesse Many Guns’ name perhaps represents a disregard for western authority.

Critique of western medicine and westerners in general
The events that take place between p.31 and p.34 seem, to me, to be a critique of western medicine, and westerners in general. Dr. Loomis, a western outsider, is only given the opportunity to tend to Lionel because Martha Old Crow feels sorry for him. She suggest that Lionel go see him, because no one else has. “No one comes to see him last week. Maybe his feelings are hurt, that one” (King 31).

Here, we seem to have a modern account of a colonial event. A westerner enters the Native’s environment, thinks he knows better, tries to force his ways upon them and, ultimately, is made a fool of. Perhaps Dr. Loomis is not personally to responsible for the fiasco that takes place between pages 31 and 34, but everything that he represents, the degree from Toronto that he is so proud of, is undermined when the medical profession proceeds to make an unbelievable mess of what should have been a perfectly simple situation. It seems like most of the people in the Native community know better than to trust doctors like Loomis, for no one goes to see them, preferring Martha and Jesse, the “doctors of choice” (King 31). Norma criticizes Lionel’s mother for buying into western medicine. “Can’t believe my own sister let them do that to you. Got no more sense than a hubcap” (King 31).

WORKS CITED

“Bear Spirit Animal.” Spirit Animals & Totems. N.p., n.d. Web. 5th April 2014.

“Crow Spirit Animal.” Spirit Animals & Totems. N.p., n.d. Web. 5th April 2014.

“Jesse James.” Wikipedia. Wikipedia, n.d. Web 5th April 2014.

King, Thomas. Green Grass Running Water. Toronto: Harper Collins, 1993. Print.

Loomis Express. Loomis Express. Web. 4th April 2014.

“Sam Loomis.” Psycho Wikia. N.p, n.d. Web. 5th April, 2014.

Question #5

Robinson’s Influence on King

King uses a variety of narrative structures. He weaves between a style similar to Robinson, as in the scenes with Coyote. Dog/ God and the narrator and a more generic style, when discussing, Norma, Lionel and the other characters. The scenes involving Hawkeye, The Lone Ranger, Ishmael and Robinson Crusoe fall somewhere in between. They are real people, but they are also able to interact with Cayote. The narrative structure for these four characters seems to flit between realistic and unrealistic. The contrasting narrative styles; native versus more generically Caucasian, seem, to me, to reinforce the struggle between native and white people in Canada that is apparent throughout King’s story. As Professor Paterson stated in lesson 3:2, ” In many ways, Green Grass Running Water is a novel about different story-telling traditions, which in turn reflect different, and sometimes conflicting worldviews.”

The beginning of King’s novel is extremely similar to Robinson in style. In fact, given that both are discussing Coyote, I often forgot, when I first started the novel, that I was reading King and not Robinson. What I found to be the most similar at the beginning of King’s novel was his attempt to give his story the same ritualistic feel as Robinson’s by applying many of the same techniques that Robinson uses to encourage an oral understanding of the material.

For example, King, like Robinson, writes sentences that are, technically, grammatically incomplete. “So, that Coyote is dreaming and pretty soon, one of those dreams gets loose and runs around. Makes a lot of noise” (King 1). “Makes a lot of noise” requires the pronoun “it” at the beginning of the sentence in order for the sentence to be complete. Similarly, in Robinson, “And they wanted to get closer. They wanted to know what that was. Looks like a person” (Robinson 64). Again, “it” is required in order to complete the sentence “looks like a person.” The fragmented sentences make the stories less formal, and also allow for the easy movement between the past and present tenses. When the narrators, of either story, say “makes a lot of noise” or “looks like a person,” I envision the narrator saying these things from the centre of the action of the story. It is as if the narrator is now observing the scene and commenting that [it] “looks like a person.” The fact that these two fragments are not complete sentences does not matter because they are meant to be envisioned orally. We often speak in fragmented, incomplete sentences.

Once Green Grass and Running Water moves past the preface, King distinguishes himself from Robinson. I found King’s narrative voice for Lionel, Alberta Frank and the other characters to be more recognizable because it coincided with most of the literature I have been exposed to. For example, the scene between Lionel and Norma. “”Norma began pulling pieces of carpet out of her purse and placing them on her lap. She stuck the larger pieces on the dashboard. ‘I like the green, too’” (King 7). I personally found this to be a lot less confusing, perhaps because I am used to, and therefore more comfortable with, reading novels that follow this mold.

This does not mean that I do not like Robinson’s style, and the moments when King employs it. On the contrary, I found Robinson, and the sections of King’s novel that are similar to it, in varying degrees, to be a refreshing challenge. However, there were often moments that I had absolutely no idea of what was happening, and as a literature student hoping to achieve a mastery of the material, this made me uncomfortable.

Coyote and God: Some Similarities and Differences Between Robinson and King

God
In Robinson, God’s angel commands Coyote to make a deal with the King of England, and Coyote agrees. God has authority, he is not a laughable figure.
God gave Coyote the power to make the King believe there were lots of Indians with him, ready to attack England if the king did not agree to Coyote’s terms. “That’s the power that God give him to come to see the king. If there’s anything that happens like that, they can use his power because God want ‘em to, whatever Coyote says, it can be that way” (Robinson 72).

In King, God is immediately made fun of. Coyote jokes that God has everything backwards, and therefore is “Dog”. Flick points out that, God/ Dog is “a contrary, and a play on words and names. A dog (Canis familiaris) is, of course, a “lesser” form of coyote (Canislatranis)—and a god is a backward kind of dog. Or as Robin Ridington suggests, God is a contrary from a dog’s point of view” (Flick 143). In King’s story, God “turns out to be the loud-voiced God of the Old Testament” (Flick 143). The God in King is far less likeable and respectable than the God in Robinson.

Coyote
Coyote, in Robinson, is the hero of the story. In King, Coyote functions largely as a spectator to the action, rather than a partaker in it, although he does interact with the four native American elders. Coyote is not on speaking terms with any of the other characters in the novel, apart from the narrator, although Lionel does see him, a strange looking dancing dog.

For me, one result of these many differences in the representation of Coyote and God was that is that in King, I questioned, and scrutinized God/ Dog far more than I did in Robinson. In Robinson, God still seems to be an authority above Coyote, but in King, God/ Dog is below Coyote, for Coyote himself created him as a dream.

WORKS CITED

Flick, Jane. “Reading Notes for Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water.”Canadian Literature 161/162 (1999). Web. April 4th 2013.

King, Thomas. Green Grass Running Water. Toronto: Harper Collins, 1993. Print.

Paterson, Erika. ENGL 470A Canadian Studies: Canadian Literary Genres. University of British Columbia, 2013. Web. 4th April. 2014.

Robinson, Harry. “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King Of England.” Living by Stories: a Journey of Landscape and Memory. Ed. Wendy Wickwire. Vancouver: Talonbooks, 2005. 64-85.

Question #1

I began by reading the story to myself, and found this to be a very strange experience. I was in the library at the time, and it was a little bit embarrassing because I kept mumbling the words to myself. I did not even realize I was doing this at first, until a friend pointed it out to me. I then read the story to a friend, and this felt a lot more natural. For one thing, the story often begins sentences with the word “and.” While it is possible to do this in written speech, it is not very common and feels odd to read; as it is technically incorrect grammatically. Beginning sentences with the word “and” is far more natural and common when speaking orally; so what felt unnatural and often jerky to read to myself, flowed far better when I read the story out loud.

Another aspect that pushed the story towards an oral rather than written structure was the many sentences that seemed fragmented when simply read to oneself. For example “The boat supposed to go very fast. Special. And they want them to get closer” (Robinson 65). In a written story-telling tone, these words would probably be written as something more like, “the boat was supposed to go very fast. It was special.” However, that type of narrative voice distances the reader from the action of the story and is therefore less engaging than the one used by Robinson. Robinson’s voice makes it seem as though the ones telling and listening to the story are experiencing it as the story unfolds. This is furthered by the fact that although the story takes place in the past, the narrator often uses the present tense. This makes it more active and I felt like a performer when I read it out loud.

In addition, sentences such as “And the cook, they run and open the door. And they see this man. Jump. Kinda scared” (Robinson 68), when read to myself, felt fragmented and odd. They seemed, to me, to beg for some kind of facial or bodily gestures to emphasize meaning. The “jump” part feels like it needs to be said with an actual jump. Indeed, when I read the story out loud, I found myself making dramatic gestures when I read these parts, without planning to do so ahead of time.

Finally, the story contains a lot of repetition; “God sent the Angel to Coyote. Sent the Angel” (Robinson 66). This gives it a ritualistic quality. I found it somewhat uncomfortable to try and read these parts to myself, but when read aloud, they encourage the speaker and the listener to really participate in a kind of story-telling ritual.

WORKS CITED
Robinson, Harry. “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King Of England.” Living by Stories: a Journey of Landscape and Memory. Ed. Wendy Wickwire. Vancouver: Talonbooks, 2005. 64-85.

Question #1)

I believe that the way King tells his two creation stories is, in itself, representative of how these two stories are generally received in our society. I do not know very much about religion in Canada, but according to a 2001 census the majority of Canadians fall under some form of Christianity, followed by Muslim, Jewish, Buddist… and so on. Although many Canadians said they did not have any religious affiliation, that number was still a minority when considering the population as a whole. Of the religious portion of the population, the smallest number was given to a group entitled “other religions,” under which I am assuming the religions of First Nations peoples would fall.

Because, as seen from this data, most Canadians are Christian or belong to other large religions, it makes sense that the “Genesis” story would hold more weight to them than the “The Earth Diver.” Christianity has been so widely spread that most Canadians know at least some of its stories, even if they are not religious themselves. There is a great quote by Bart Simpson that I think sums this up really well. He says that “Christmas is a time when people of all religions come together to worship Jesus Christ.” I couldn’t find the clip for this online, but I think it’s kind of true. Christmas has become so commercial that its meaning if often forgotten.

I believe that King tells “The Earth Diver” story in a more story-like fashion and the “Genesis” story in a more authoritative voice because he is playing with the value that we place upon each story. One is simply a story because it belongs to a small religion (forgive my generalizations here). It is likely that most of King’s listeners had never heard “The Earth Diver” before, but everyone knows “Genesis”. What I find to be the most fascinating about the whole thing is that in acknowledging that “The Earth Diver” is simply a story and hence may be told in a less serious fashion, King simultaneously convinces his audience that “The Earth Diver” is the more likeable story. Because it is not taken so seriously, it has the freedom to be entertaining and funny. It is still possible to enjoy such a story. Genesis, at least the way King tells it, seems flat and boring by comparison. There is no joy in it, it has taken itself far too seriously and therefore has lost its magic as a story. Perhaps this is because King believes that we should strive for collaboration, as seen in “The Earth Diver” rather than the competition shown in “Genesis”.

Not necessarily a place
family
stories/ memories
culture
safety/ comfort
identity
community
kindred spirits
physical?
Spiritual
The past–> Our childhoods
Simple
“permanent and transitory” -via Duncan’s blog

The concept of ‘home’ is not a simple one, no matter where you are from. People who have lived in the same place for most of their lives have just as much difficulty explaining ‘home’ as do the children in my story. However, even though ‘home’ may not be easily defined in words, all of our stories seemed to provide a similar understanding of what ‘home’ is. It seems to be some sort of combination of the words I listed above, and perhaps other things as well. In the stories I read, it was usually a place that had an emotional, more than physical significance.

It was 2:30pm on a steamy Singapore winter’s day. The bell to return to class at some international school or another had rung, but no one was in any hurry to get back to class. It was the last day of school before the winter holidays, and the hallways smelled of excitement. One more period, everyone thought, and then we’re free.

Eventually, the students trickled into their classes. The frigid air conditioning in a certain Teacher’s classroom was welcomed after the sweaty heat outside.

“Okay,” the Teacher began once most of the students had finally taken a seat, “I know you’re all probably way too excited to get much work done today, so I figured we could spend this lesson doing some creative writing.”

There was a mumble of relief among the clammy students.

“Since everyone will be going back home for the winter holidays, I thought I’d give you all an opportunity to write me a story about your home.”

A small Chinese girl raised her hand, “what if you aren’t going home?”

Before the Teacher could reply, a large Swedish boy chimed in, “what do you mean by home?”

“Yeah,” said a girl who was so unique looking, it was difficult to say where she was from. “What if you have several homes?”

“Or none at all?” A boy in the back added.

The Teacher looked at the boy disbelievingly, “you must have a home.”

“No, I don’t believe I do,” he said stubbornly.

“Me neither,” A few other students whispered.

“Your home is where you come from,” the Teacher explained.

“Define ‘come from,’” an Indian boy called.

“Well, I mean the country where your parents are from.”

“What if your parents are from like five different places each?” A unique looking girl asked.

“Yeah. Or what if they left those places when they were really young, and you’ve never even been to them,” a redheaded Irish girl challenged.

“Now, listen,” the Teacher commanded exasperatedly, “I know it’s the last period before the winter break, but you aren’t going to get out of doing the assignment!”

“We’re not trying to get out of it,” the Chinese girl explained, “we just don’t know how.”

“It’s a very simple assignment!” The Teacher almost yelled, starting to get irritated. “Just write me a story about the place you call home.”

“But it’s not simple for us,” the Indian boy argued. “Some of us have never even been to the place our passports say we come from.”

“Some of us have like three passports,” said a darker skinned boy with unusually light eyes.

“Some of us have moved to a different ‘home’ every year since we were born,” said the Swedish boy.

“But there must be some place you feel most connected to,” the Teacher insisted.

“Nope,” said an African girl. “I get extremely stressed out whenever a form asks me to identify a ‘permanent address.’”

“Me too!” Yelled the Chinese girl, and several other students called out signs of agreement.

“Enough!” The Teacher called in exasperation, “Just… write me a story about the place where you feel the most at home.”

“Why does it have to be a place?” Asked an Iraqi boy. “Maybe it’s wherever our families happen to be.”

“Well, then write the story on where your family is right now.”

“That’s going to be very boring,” said an American boy, “since all of our families live here in Singapore.”

“Or what if you don’t have a family?” Asked an Australian girl.

“What did I do to deserve such a stressful last period?” The Teacher asked desperately.

“Well,” Said the unique looking girl, “your first mistake was to give us a shallow definition of ‘home’. How can you expect kids like us, who have been moving around since birth, if not before birth, through our parents, to have a physical place that we call home? Even if we do have a specific country that we claim to be tied to, most of us just say we are from that country when we are here in order to keep things simple, and then when we are there we say we are from here… but we don’t truly feel like either place is our home.”

“I like the idea that our home is wherever our family is,” a Mexican boy said.

“Or maybe home is wherever we feel like there are people like… us.” Suggested a Korean girl.

“So then in that case,” a Turkish boy said thoughtfully, “this school would probably be my home. It’s the only place where there are other people like me… people who know what it’s like not to have a home.”

There was a low murmur of assent.

“That’s depressing though,” an English girl said, “I mean I love you all, but I don’t want to write some cheesy story about how my school is my home.”

There was a much louder murmur of agreement.

“Maybe it’s not the school,” said the unique looking girl. “Maybe it’s each other. Maybe we are each other’s homes.”

“Or maybe we actually don’t have any homes at all,” insisted the Swedish boy.

“That sounds a little sad,” said the Indian boy, “maybe we could look at it a different way. Maybe we’re from everywhere.”

“No where… and everywhere,” the Chinese girl said thoughtfully.

“This is getting ridiculous!” The Teacher yelled over the students, “Just write me a story about your first pet, ok?”

There was a slight pause, then the American boy asked, “what if you’ve never had a pet?”

WORKS CITED

Gabrielle Aplin. “Gabrielle Aplin-Home.” Online video clip. Youtube. Youtube, 9th June, 2013. 30th Jan, 2014.

“26 Decisions That Are Incredibly Difficult For Third Culture Kids.” Buzzfeed. N.d. Web. 30th Jan 2014.

I have a great story to tell you

An even longer time ago than before once upon a time, everything was pleasant. The Sun was always shining, and it would even hide behind the clouds when the people and animals below seemed to be showing signs of sunburn. It did not want to hurt them. When the crops needed water, the Clouds would be sure to let rain fall only in the middle of the night, when everyone was sleeping, so as not to get anyone wet. Everyone was very considerate during this time.

The world was not entirely without disputes. Once the bats, cats, and other nocturnal animals, such as the limax maximus and the average caffeine addicted university student, got together and signed a petition complaining about the rain at night. Since they were always out at nighttime, many of them had fallen ill from the constant exposure to rain. And a cat with the common cold, is one cranky animal .

The Sun, Clouds, humans and animals felt horrible for having forgotten about the nocturnal beings. They apologized most sincerely and a compromise was made. It was decided that it would rain slightly more often in the day time than at night, but when it did rain during the day, the sun would still be shining, and the rain would be light and cool. And after the rain was over, rainbows would appear. This was how sun showers came into the world.

So, everything was all nice and comfortable for everyone. Yet there was one creature in all the land, water and sky that was not happy with the state of things as they were. This was an Octopus. No one knows the Octopus’s name, or whether it was male or female. All anyone knows is that the Octopus’s life was just as pleasant as everyone else’s.

The Octopus had realized what others in the old world had not; that the price of being perfect was to be boring. So the Octopus swam to a large rock somewhere near the shore of the land; a rock that all creatures of the earth, sky and land could see. On this rock he wrote, with his very own ink, a story.

The story was about many things, including things that had, thus far, not been conceived of in the then perfect world; evils. No one knows exactly what these evils were, because the ink on the rock has long since been washed away by the rain and sea. All that is known are the first words of the story “Once upon a time.” Although tales were told before this story, many regard it as the first story because it was the first of its kind that was actually engaging to listen to.

The story was so compelling that creatures came from all over the world to read it, and they retold it when they returned back to their homes. The people and animals were so impressed with the Octopus’s story that they urged the Octopus to write more, and the Octopus did so.

For a time the Octopus was happy, because life was no longer boring; excitement could be found in the stories. Although the stories contained evils, they were not evil in themselves. They were dynamic and dramatic. In contrast to the aspects of evil were tales of extraordinary goodness, goodness that could not exist, or at least, could not be appreciated, without evil to compare it to. Hence were born myths of undying loyalty, selflessness, family, friendship… and love.

But then something very strange started happening. Stories like the Octopus’s began cropping up all over the place. At first, the Octopus was overjoyed. The Octopus thought that other animals and people had taken up the art of story telling as well. Yet the Octopus soon discovered that many of these stories were not entirely fiction. The storytellers were not inventing these stories, they were recounting them; for many of the atrocious events that happened in these stories, had really happened.

The Octopus was horrified. Somehow the fiction of his stories had inspired facts. What was worse was that for every true story the Octopus heard about goodness; there seemed to be a hundred more that contained evil. “I have made a horrible mistake!” cried the Octopus, “I take them back! I call my stories back!”

But, of course, it was too late. For once a story is told, it cannot be called back. Once told, it is loose in the world.

OBSERVATIONS
While telling this story to my friends I noticed several things. Different people responded to it differently. Some people found it really funny, others absurd. This caused me to change the way I told the story depending upon who was listening to it. If my audience seemed to find certain aspects funny, I would play them up. If they were not responding to the story at all, I would rush it to the end. I thoroughly enjoyed telling the story in front of certain audiences; and found it painfully awkward in front of others.

WORKS CITED

King, Thomas. The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative. Toronto: House of Anansi Press Inc, 2003. Print.

1. Explain why the notion that cultures can be distinguished as either ”oral culture” or “written culture” (19) is a mistaken understanding as to how culture works, according to Chamberlin and your reading of Courtney MacNeil’s article “Orality”.

J. Edward Chamberlin discusses how societies that communicate mainly through speech and performance were and in many cases still are, classified as “oral cultures.” Such cultures are generally considered to be naïve and simple. By contrast, cultures that communicate in terms of the written word, classify themselves as “written cultures,” and consider themselves to be more “cultivated,” “complex” and superior. The argument goes that oral cultures are simply repeating formulaic notions and not capable of superior thought. Chamberlin explains that this notion causes those belonging to “written cultures” to feel superior to those of “oral cultures.” In Courtney MacNeil’s article “Orality” this way of thinking is further explained; “for the Toronto School, writing – alphabetic writing in particular – is the key to evolutionary progress: that is, that literacy is ‘absolutely necessary for the development not only of science but also of history, philosophy, explicative understanding of literature and of any art, and indeed for the explanation of language itself,’ [2] while orality is the marker of ‘tribal man’” (“Orality”). This “encourages people to treat other societies with a blend of condescension and contempt while celebrating the sophistication of their own” (Chamberlin 19).

Chamberlin argues that the very idea that there are such things as “oral cultures” and “written cultures” is incorrect. So- called “oral cultures” he argues, are actually very rich in literature “albeit non-symbolic and non-alphabetic… woven and beaded belts and blankets…masks” and so on. On the other hand, the institutions of our supposedly superior societies (schools, courts and churches, for example) “are in fact areas of strictly defined and highly formulized oral traditions” (Chamberlin 20). Ignorant and arrogant members of western society have in the past, and in many cases still do, dismiss oral forms of communication; “Western egocentrism encourages the notion of orality as a secondary (and inferior)” (“Orality”). What both Chamberlin and MacNeil argue is that firstly, our own cultures rely on oral forms of communication more than we may think, and secondly, orality should not be judged as inferior.

Just because a culture communicates and tells stories differently than we do, does not mean that such a culture should be deemed lesser in any way. In fact, through their different language and ways of communicating, these cultures may understand things that westerners do not. Instead of dismissing other cultures as “primitive” or “barbaric,” we should respect the value of their ways of knowing and doing things.

WORKS CITED

Chamberlin, Edward. If This is Your Land, Where are Your Stories? Finding Common Ground. AA. Knopf. Toronto. 2003. Print

MacNeil, Courtney. “Orality.” The Chicago School of Media Theory. Uchicagoedublogs. 2007. Web. 19 Feb. 2013.

Welcome to my first attempt at a blog. I consider myself somewhat technologically challenged, so it might take a little while for my blog to look as pretty as the rest of yours do.

My name is Greta and I am a 4th year English Literature major. I hate it when people ask me where I’m from, because I’m not really sure of the answer. On paper, I’m a Canadian citizen, but I spent nearly all of my life living abroad with my family in Singapore. When I first came to Vancouver nearly four years ago, I would tell people that I was Canadian, for the sake of simplicity. Unfortunately, the two-or-so minutes this saved me during introductions was not worth the instances in which I was quietly judged to be a bit of an idiot for not knowing the kind of things that a Canadian girl who grew up here should know. Or, for some of the interesting slang that I picked up in Singapore… And then there was the first time it snowed, and the only shoes I owned were a pair of flip flops. So, now I give people the longer answer.

Because I am a bit of a cultural concoction myself, I am very excited for the fact that this course will focus on both European and Indigenous perspectives and traditions in Canadian literature. I love learning about different cultures and really enjoy considering the same story, topic or event from a variety of view points. I hope that this course provides me with a richer understanding of Canadian indigenous people, and their perspectives on the history of this country.

In this course we will read several Canadian stories and articles. A primary focus will be the consideration of how racism has and continues to effect the content and readership of the Canadian literary canon. Social media will be utilized extensively in this course. We will be keeping of our own blogs, as well as reading and commenting on the instructor’s blog and the blogs of our peers. We shall also create an online Conference presentation. This project will allow us to consider ways in which it may be possible to influence the future of Canadian Literature. At the end of the term we will write a term paper in which we will synthesis much of what we will have learned in the course.

I am looking forward to working with all of you!

WORKS CITED:

Gung, Greg. “How to Speak Singlish.” Online video clip. Youtube. Youtube, 17th Jan 2013. Web. 8th Jan 2014.

Paterson, Erika. ENGL 470A Canadian Studies: Canadian Literary Genres. University of British Columbia, 2013. Web. 6 Jan. 2014.

“Tech Impaired Duck.” Quickmeme. N.d. Web. 7th Jan 2014.

YourSingapore. Singapore Tourism Board. Web. 8th Jan 2014.