This blog post is in response to the question, “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?”
To answer this, I spent a great deal of time studying the Genesis story from the Bible (New International Version, Gen. 1-3) as well as the sky woman story that Thomas King tells in his Massey lecture series (King 10-20), and this is what I found:
Differences
In the sky woman story, humour is important; a woman can be independent; community includes both human and non-human creatures who can make decisions together; all creatures are creative, but humans are creators; humans do not need others of their kind; magic exists and is connected to singing and dancing; there seems to be a limited amount of space on earth; and humans can have as part of their nature a leaning towards disorder and chaos.
In the Genesis story, there is no magic per se, but physical actions and spoken words are extremely powerful. There is a supreme and single (although triune and personal) deity who functions as lawmaker, provider, creator, and orderer; the earth, albeit at the direction of the deity, brings forth much of creation from itself; humans need each other for companionship; love relationships, in particular, are necessary; disharmony and inequality come about between man and woman because of disobedience to God; death becomes a reality, although it is not one to begin with; toil as necessary and discomfort with the self (shame) arise out of disobeying God; humans are god-like and made to be benevolent rulers of creation; and it is communicated that creatures who do evil ought not to live forever (because evil is just that bad).
Another interesting element which I want to point out is that, while the Genesis story is generally seen as being highly gendered, it is different from the sky woman story in that it does not necessarily begin with a person of any distinct sex. The Hebrew word “Adam” is the word for all of humanity, and some people believe it is possible if not probable that the Adam of the Genesis story contained both sexes until God divided them into two persons so that they could have companionship (Gates 1-4). In this interpretation woman does not come second, but is a part of the original singular person.
Similarities
In both stories, human curiosity can lead to big changes in the world; human actions can shape its nature, and people have the capacity to be troublemakers; different beings are shown to have differing abilities; fertility is considered good and foundational; pleasure is also good; the earth provides resources, including food, for the creatures depicted as sentient; pairs are very important and are usually, although not always, complementary (examples from the two stories being twins, men and women, dark and light, two types of food-bearing plants, and good and evil); sentient creatures do not consume one another, and nothing is originally intended to die; every being has free will; creation is essentially good, full of trust and harmony; and evil is not a part of the original picture.
Works Cited
Gates, Jennifer. Gender and Ontology in Genesis 2. Academia.edu. Academia, n.d. Web. 8 Mar. 2015 <http://www.academia.edu/7965864/Gender_and_Ontology_in_Genesis_2_3>
King, Thomas. The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative. Toronto: House of Anansi, 2003. Google Books. Web. 8 Mar. 2015 <http://books.google.ca/books?id=yyt5lyvBr18C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false>
New International Version. Colorado Springs: Biblica, 2011. BibleGateway.com. Web. 8 Mar. 2015 <https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1+-+3&version=NIV>
Lauren,
I was hoping to get your insight on the manner of gender in both creation stories. I agree with your statement that the Genesis story is highly gendered, and before tonight I would have disagreed with your claim about King’s creation story not being gendered. When I first read King’s creation story, I immediately made comparisons between Charm and Eve. I felt that Charm and Eve were both female characters that contributed to the upstart of the world. I was under the impression that gender had a huge impact in these creation stories because when I think of creation, I think of life. I thank my mother for giving me life and bringing me into this world, and I thought it was only fitting that these two creation stories have important characters gendered as women.
After I read your blog this morning, I wanted to attempt to understand the perspective from which you are coming from. So, I erased the pre-conceived notions of King’s story I had in my mind, and I re-read it from a fresh perspective. Now I am inclined to think that gender has no relevance on the story. The quote that jumped out to me and made me stop reading so I could gather myself is after King introduces Charm: “Don’t worry. We can change it later on if we want” (12). The word change jumped out of the page at me. What does King mean when he says “we can change it later on if we want”. I think he means we, as in the listener, can change any aspect of the story. Do you think gender is important in these creation stories?
I used to think it was an integral part of the story, but after navigating through so many different ideas in this course, i no longer due. I don’t think any part of a story is critical anymore. Different versions are created (as you point out in your blog), and as stories get passed down, they don’t stay the same. I’ll end my comment (I apologize for the essay and rambling, I’m sorry!) with my favorite quote that I have encountered in our readings thus far: “For once a story is told, it cannot be called back. Once told, it is loose in the world” (King 10).
Regards,
Rajin Sidhu
Hi Rajin!
Thanks for your comment! But I didn’t actually say that the Genesis story is highly gendered, or that King’s story is not. I think you may have misunderstood the final paragraph in my “Differences” section. Re-read that paragraph, and perhaps take a look at the first four pages of the essay that I linked to, and you might find the answers to some of the questions that you had for me.
In regards to whether or not I think that gender is important in these creation stories overall, I would have to say that yes, it is. I don’t think that when King says that we can change Charm’s name if we want to he is also saying that no aspect of a story is critical. Remember that, in The Truth About Stories, he begins each lecture by saying:
“There is a story I know. It’s about the earth and how it floats in space on the back of a turtle. I’ve heard this story many times, and each time someone tells the story, it changes. Sometimes the change is simply in the voice of the storyteller. Sometimes the change is in the details. Sometimes in the order of events. Other times it’s the dialogue or the response of the audience. But in all the tellings of all the tellers, the world never leaves the turtle’s back. And the turtle never swims away.” (King 1)
With this in mind, I think that the female genders of Eve and Charm are elements that would not be and have not been changed in the re tellings of these stories, as, like you mentioned, it is women who give birth and thus assure the continuance of life in a way that men do not. The significance of the subject of birth in each story resonates strongly, so I don’t think that either tale would be the same without these female characters.
Works Cited
King, Thomas. The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative. Toronto: House of Anansi, 2003. Google Books. Web. 12 Mar. 2015
Hi, Lauren
I’m sorry for my mistake! I should have alluded to your sentence where you state that the “Genesis story is generally seen as being highly gendered”. That is what started the thought process through my head and I should have made myself more clear rather than attributing that sentence as your own opinion.
The Thomas King passage you quoted in your reply is one of my favorite passages that i have encountered in the literature of this course, and I am still grappling with different ideas about what it means to me in the context of these stories. I think the stories do change, but the meaning does not. If Charm were a male character, would it have had the same meaning? That is the question that I am struggling to answer.
Thank you so much for your response,
Regards,
Rajin Sidhu
Hey Rajin!
Thanks for your reply to my reply! 🙂 No worries about the misunderstanding, either. These things happen! And although I have formed my own opinion as to whether the meaning of Charm’s story would change if she were made male, I totally respect that you are still grappling with the question personally. We all have to sort these things out for ourselves.
Cheers!
Lauren
Hi Lauren!
Firstly, this may seem insignificant, but I really appreciate the way you put forth your answer in a simple and straight-forward structure. As a person who isn’t very familiar with the Genesis Story, your method was extremely helpful. Thanks for that!
Something I found interesting about your findings was the distinction whereby “community”, in the King Creation Story “includes both human and non-human creatures who can make decisions together.” This interdependent relationship obviously differs from the hierarchical order in biblical texts which, if I understand it correctly, places humans in an order under God, and above non-human animals. Is that right?
In colonial depictions of non-whites as “animalistic” and “wild” in nature, I wonder if these understandings may have been convoluted to contribute not only to the destruction of the land under the guise of “progression,” but also to the racialized mistreatment of First Nations people based on their supposed status as “less human.” I in no way am meaning to say that this behaviour is supported by the bible, but I definitely believe there is a history of people contorting the holy word to justify their behaviour. What do you think?
Hi Ali!
Thanks for letting me know that the way I structured my post was helpful to you. I really appreciate that! It helps me to plan how to structure similar posts in the future.
In response to your question, I think that you are right that the Biblical hierarchy of man over non-human animals (which was not intended to provide for mistreatment, but unfortunately ended up preceding it) formed a part of the distorted reasoning that was used to justify subjugating indigenous people. As a Christian, this is something that makes me very angry, and I think it is similar to the cases of extremist Muslims twisting Islamic scriptures to justify the killings of others – which is equally as upsetting to peaceful Muslims who want to see their scriptures lived as they are meant to be.
As for the destruction of the land under the guise of “progression,” yes, I can see this being another distortion of Biblical principles. In Genesis, the garden was given to humanity to be worked and taken care of, but the words used in God’s instructions implied loving preservation, not the stripping of its natural wealth (Cron 81). Unfortunately, greed has frequently won out throughout history with regards to land use.
Works Cited
Cron, Ian Morgan. Chasing Francis: A Pilgrim’s Tale. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013. Print.