You’ll never believe what happened early one morning when Socrates, Cephalus, Polemarchus,Thrasymachus and Bob sat arguing in a cold marble gazebo on the top of a mountain.

First a little back story. These five men are the Guardians of a sacred state. A state where all citizens were kind, loving and moral – in all their actions and all their words. The Guardians are charged with protecting the state and they do this by deciphering what should be accepted into the world and what should not.

That morning, exposed to the crisp morning air, the Guardians exchanged tales of piety and philosophies for their idyllic state. As they exchanged viewpoints on statehood, virtue and existence, they began to debate the power of literature.

Socrates explained, “stories are used to shape character and therefore it is best to be strict on what stories are allowed to be told in our perfect republic.”

“hear, hear, how true,” agreed Thrasymachus. “please, Socrates enlighten us more.”

“Stories which contain any immorality ‘must not be admitted into our state, whether they be allegorical or not’ (Plato 6)” continued Socrates…

“I disagree completely!” said Bob, “stories are educational and should be used to allow citizens to decipher between right and wrong.”

“No, no, no” Socrates replied, “we must be weary of corrupt language, because language begets actions.”

Bob shook his head, “oh, old Socrates you are talking nonsense again, let me show you…” at this moment Bob began to tell a tale of such ugliness and depravity that the words will not be repeated here. “You see old Soc, we are just fine.”

“AAh, take it back. That awful tale must never be repeated. Take it back I say!” shouted Cephalus.

As Cephalus spoke clouds began to form in the sky, they blackened the sun and the Guardians were confronted by a bitter emotionless rain.

“Alas, it is too late” wept Socrates, “for once a story is told it cannot be called back. Once told, it is loose in the world.”

I was very inspired by the second book of Plato’s Republic; so, I decided to use his characters, well… and Bob, in my story for how evil came into the world.  In the second book Socrates is examining literature and its utility. And while Plato may be a bit extreme in his idea that stories should never contain anything but positive and “moral” ideas, I do agree with him that stories are a fundamental aspect of education. Stories help us learn and understand experiences and views that we otherwise may never get to connect with.

However, stories can also be devastating and deconstructing. Stories can allow people to distort, to misunderstand and to hate one another. I think it is important to be aware of the stories you hear, as well as to observe storyteller. Examining the originator of a story allows you to determine how much power the story will have for you. For this reason, I wanted to experiment with telling my story through different mediums; in-person, on the phone, and over Skype. Each medium provides the listener with a different level of visual interpretation of my body language and expression.

The first thing I noticed was that I was much more enthusiastic telling the story in person. I was more engaged and could alter my telling of the story a bit more to suit the non-verbal reactions of my listener. Skype was similar to telling the story in person (more similar then it was to over the phone), but there was still a degree of distance and I was less motivated to be as passionate. Over the phone I found the story was hard for the listener to follow and it required me to repeat or retell it a bit. I was also much less engaged in the telling of the story.

I told the story multiple time in person as well and found that my story changed a little each time, usually in the dialogue (and the pronunciation of the names). I also noticed that I altered the pace and tone of my story based on the specific listener. While my story varied in timing and exactness of the dialogue, the order of my story stayed the same: guys on mountain > perfect world > power of literature > argument > evil story > cloud and rain > too late!

Works Cited

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

Plato. “Republic – Book II.” Ed. Dominic M. Lopes. Philosophy of Literature: Contemporary and Classic Readings. Ed. Eleen John. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004. 5-14. Print.

“When to Use Face to Face Meetings and When to Hold Virtual Meetings.” The Meeting King. Paracas Solutions, 9 Feb. 2012. Web.

Previous categorizing of literature and orality by some poststructuralists, and the Toronto School, has led to a single-sensory conception of media (Macneil), presenting ideas about the validity of literacy opposed to the tribal nature of orality. As Courtney Macneil states classifications, such as Ong’s, that suppose “orality exists either in isolation from literacy, or as subservient to it” disallows recognition of the interdependency between these two communicatory medias. The restrictedness of this type of thought does not acknowledge the complex and blurred relationship between orality and literature, which is only being heightened through the use of the www and digital media. Has Macneil stated, “the advent of contemporary internet culture has encouraged the recognition that oral and textual need not be viewed from a hierarchical perspective.”

The idea that orality and literacy are in hierarchical competition with one another is a fading notion as technological advances have led to an age of digital media that incorporates many forms of communication: textual, visual, oral and aural. Digtal media has challenged the existing, and more binary, perspectives of the relationship between orature and literature; in the world of digital media text may be evanescent (eg. snapchat) and orality may be permanent (eg. audio files). The digital age has encouraged a blurring between literacy and orality in many ways, such as enabling widespread self-publication and the use of hyperlinks.

There is a social media medium available to share any and all facets of one’s life, perspective and outlook, this technological availability has enabled widespread self-publication on a massive scale.  Where in the past people would share their daily lives (thoughts, achievements etc.) to one person or possibly a small group of people, social media outlets, such as facebook, have enabled individuals to share their stories with a mass audience. This ability to display one’s life simultaneously through oral, visual and textual medias has led to aspects of life which, perhaps previous to technology, would have been aural to become literature.  Another significant way self-publication has changed the examination of literacy and orality is through apps, such as twitter, which allow people to read stories from many different perspectives in bite size pieces and in real time; this style of information is much more similar to a story being orally told then a physical publication, yet it is written an technically literature. Much of what is available in text format through social media is not what one would consider “literature” when using the previous categorization of literature and orality.

Yet, perhaps the most interesting way that digital media has changed categorizations is through the use of hyperlinks. As discussed in the lesson this week there is a distinction between a listener and a reader. And that distinction allows that a listener often has far more power over a story than someone who is reading text. However, hyperlinks change the relationship between reader and text, because they provide the reader the opportunity to uncover more information and to supplement the ideas in the text in front of them. Through hyperlinks the reader gains more power over the story. This change in relationship between reader and text begins to blur that distinction between listener and reader, further muddying the division between literature and orality.

Works Cited
MacNeil, Courtney. “The Chicago School of Media Theory Theorizing Media since 2003.” The Chicago School of Media Theory RSS. Chicago University, n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2016.

Shade, L. R., and L. R. Shade. Social Media Society: My so-Called Social Media Life. 1 Vol. , 05/11/2015. Web.

Williams, James. “Introduction: What Is Poststructuralism?” Understanding Poststructuralism. Chesham, Bucks: Acumen Pub., 2005. 1-24. Print.