Question 7
The increasing use of technological tools for communication is rapidly impacting our understanding and definition of literature and orality. While literature and orality may have been classically defined as different mediums of communication, with orality being “less than” literature (Toronto School of Media), the introduction of the www challenges this hierarchical definition. As Courtney MacNeil explains, in cyberspace – “the distinction between the two media becomes blurred.” With cyberspace, orality becomes permanent, something that can be listened to over and over, much like how literature can be re-read, and the two mediums become mixed.
Before the www, the ability to “re-read” orality was not possible. As Dr. Paterson points out in lesson 1:3, when you listen to a story in person, you can add to it, and the story evolves and changes, whereas when you read it, it is static, and stuck in time. However, with the introduction of the www, oral stories become just like literature – stuck in time and unchanging. I think this capability will greatly impact stories, decreasing the extent to which they change and evolve over time. Additionally, some stories are never meant to be written down or held in time, preserving the tradition of sharing knowledge orally, and by writing the story down, it is degraded.
Photo by Alex Sutcliffe
Another concern I have about the www is that it allows anyone to tell a story – without publication and without any fact-checking. This ability to publish anything and for it to spread quickly can rapidly change a story in such ways that the story is no longer being told in the way it was intended to be, often changing the meaning of the story. As Chamberlin explains on The Writer’s Cafe, we all hold the belief in story – we understand what is real and imaginary, and we believe and trust stories, and in this way, stories become a way of understanding each other. I worry that as stories become changed, and/or shared incorrectly, it is possible that we will begin to believe and trust in incorrect knowledge and meaning. Moreover, not all stories are meant to be shared by anyone – Erin Hanson explains that in Indigenous cultures, oral histories must be told accurately and by a designated person during a specific time or situation.
Another significant difference between digital and non-digital literature is the ability to include hypertext. Hypertext, which is the text included in what you are reading that leads you to another text, is frequently included in digital literature as a way to add information, to support the article’s views, or to refer to related articles. With hypertext being new to literature, it is challenging to predict what the consequences will be. It is possible that, if readers are not clicking on the links, hypertext may not have a strong impact, or that readers may miss key information. Moreover, hypertext may lead someone to learn wrong information if the hypertext included isn’t accurate (which is possible due to the lack of publishers on the www). Hypertext may also lead readers away from the story, therefore decreasing the impact of the story. However, it is also possible that hypertext is adding valuable and important information to literature and story, enhancing the reader’s experience.
Overall, the introduction of www is shaping, and will continue to shape, how literature and story are conveyed, who is able to write and share stories, and how readers understand literature and story (including how they interact with hypertext). It is important for all of us to remember, as historian Alessandro Portelli cautions, that recordings of oral narrative are not oral narratives and should not be seen as such.
Works Cited
“11 Things you should know about Aboriginal Oral Traditions.” Indigenous Corporate Training. Indigenous Corporate Training Inc, Nov. 2014. Web. 15 Jan. 2020. https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/11-things-you-should-know-about-aboriginal-oral-traditions
Chamberlin, Edward. “Interview with J. Edward Chamberlin”. Writer’s Café. Web. 15 Jan. 2020.
Hanson, Erin. “Oral Traditions.” Indigenous Foundations. First Nations Studies Program, n.d. Web. 15 Jan. 2020. https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/oral_traditions/
MacNeil, Courtney. “Orality.” The Chicago School of Media Theory. Uchicagoedublogs, 2007. Web. 15 Jan. 2020. http://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/mediatheory/keywords/orality/
Paterson, Erika. “Lesson 1.2 Story & Literature.” Canadian Literary Genres: Canadian Studies. WordPress, 2020. Web. 15 Jan. 2020. https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl372-99c-2019wc/unit-1/lesson-12/
Sutcliffe, Alex. Traditional First Nation Aboriginal Free Photo. N.d. Needpix.com. Web. Jan. 15 2020.
zhanna kutlimetova
January 19, 2020 — 5:00 pm
Hi Katarina,
I share your concern, that free publication of stories without publishers’ editing increases wide circulation of wrong information and twisted stories. On one side, we all hold the belief in story as per Chamberlin, on the other side we have to admit that today not everything published is trustworthy, especially with regards to online resources.
Social media tools have removed barriers between writers and readers, speakers and listeners, as well as some kind of filtering in the name of publishers. We can look at the publishers’ filtering function differently. Publishers reduce a number of “wrong” publications at certain degree, which is good. Publishers also decide which stories are worthy to be published, based on various criteria, including the commercial return, which is not always good.
So, there are always decisions and choices we have to take, including what stories to believe. It’s much better if we have such choices, rather than not. I think, social media tools provide better environment for “common ground”, where all voices can be heard, we just need to understand which voices are real.
Katarina Smith
January 20, 2020 — 1:07 pm
Hi Zhanna,
Thanks for your comment! I think you make a very good point that social media tools can allow stories that would not have been told before to be shared, which, as you articulate is great! Of course, we have to fact check better.
Since I know you read my first post, you might find it interesting to know that in many elementary school classrooms, teachers are teaching lessons/units on “Fake News” and what to believe and not believe on the internet. While I remember being taught similar in elementary school, there seems to be a stronger emphasis on it today, which hopefully will help students discern what is real and fake as they grow up.
Do you remember this funny commercial? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz1hXTZreBw This was my first introduction to “fake news” as a child.
Katarina
zhanna kutlimetova
January 24, 2020 — 11:21 pm
Hi Katarina,
That’s really funny. I think it’s great commercial to teach kids at a young age how to evaluate the stories they encounter. It’s first time I’ve seen this commercial, because my school did not teach us anything like media and news literacy. It wasn’t just common in Kazakhstan at the time when I grew up. I hope that it’s different now as it’s obvious that today it’s getting really crucial to help children to develop abstract skills like critical thinking, inquire information instead of simply consuming it as well as to verify information prior to sharing it.
Joanne
Katarina Smith
January 26, 2020 — 7:21 am
Hi Joanne!
Funnily enough, we saw this commercial on TV at home, I don’t think I ever saw it at school. So hopefully here, and in other countries, teachers are talking more about these topics today.
I know in the new BC curriculum a part of learning digital literacy is learning about cyber safety. With my work I’m also involved in a (very early stage) project around cyber safety and empowerment and helping to get kids to understand the WHY behind not sharing certain things, etc. To empower them to make safe and healthy choices.
Thanks!
JacobKosh
January 20, 2020 — 1:57 pm
Hi Katarina,
Very insightful blog post! It was hard to read without immediately thinking about the common rhetoric of “fake news” culture that has been strongly permeating our society for the last few years. Maybe we have put too much trust into the www, and that is why it’s hard for us to be faced with the invalidity of certain publications; we feel duped because we trust too much. But what does the www owe us to be factually accurate? Tabloid publications have been around for more than 100 years, so why are we so surprised when confronted with this sort of falsity on an even more accessible platform, a platform that is even more of a Wild West than printed press? Like the house hippo advertisement you referenced in your earlier comment (which came out in 1999!), we should be challenging, or fact checking, things we see online, or else simply consume them on more of an entertainment level.
The power of hyperlinking is also an interesting point to bring up. I’ll find myself on Wikipedia or Youtube for a specific purpose, then twenty minutes later end up on a page that has seemingly nothing to do with my original search result. And it tends to be mindless; I am clicking through hyperlinks because my mind is wandering to the next topic, away from my original purpose. But then I think, Maybe that is alright. Maybe what my mind near-subconsciously wanders to is more authentic to what I want to learn about after I’ve consumed whatever it is that I originally intended to consume. My original inquiry was a catalyst to learning something that I never intended to learn about (regardless of how much information I got out of the inquiry), and I think that’s fascinating.
Ultimately, I think we need to rely less on the www than we do. I think consuming its content with a keener mind is important, but putting the amount of trust we do into it can be anxiety-inducing and dangerous. It is a powerful tool for sharing information and creativity, and can be used by anyone; it is neutral, and becomes the intention of the user. Besides being taught how to identify “fake news” on an elementary level, do you have any thoughts on how we can teach society how to prudently use the www?
Katarina Smith
January 20, 2020 — 11:08 pm
Hi Jacob,
Thanks for your comment. You bring up an interesting point that I hadn’t thought about around tabloid publications – the www isn’t the only source of “fake news”. I totally know what you mean about hyperlinks (especially on youtube) – I actually wanted to comment on that in my post but it was getting quite long.
It’s a big question you’ve posed. Perhaps what you said about how the www is a neutral tool, and it is about the intention of the user is what we need our society to understand. Maybe, people would be more prudent if they imagined the person behind the writing. Here’s an example of what I mean: let’s say you are feeling very ill and your friend says “oh, I had those symptoms, I think you might have strep throat.” You would thank them for their help, but you would most likely go to a doctor to get this fact-checked (because doctors can assess you based on their knowledge). Whereas, sometimes, we might take what we see on the www as authoritative and true, even when we don’t know it is the “doctor” who wrote it and it could very well be your “friend”, who doesn’t have the same knowledge. With this example, I mean to illustrate that maybe we all need to step back and remember someone, or many people put this out there on the www, and we don’t know how much they know, what they checked, etc.
Thanks!
Katarina
maya sumel
January 20, 2020 — 8:28 pm
Hi Katrina!
I really enjoyed reading the way you compared written textual stories and oral stories, and how technology and the www is changing the way stories are being told. I do agree with you on the point that with technology and the www, anyone can tell a story without it being fact checked.
I do want to ask you though, as the world is changing, so are the tremendous possibilities of stories to be told and the immense communication that can be made from one continent to another. I also think that everyone has their own side to the story – as Chamberlin said in the last chapter of his book, there are ‘two truths’. I personally believe there are always 3 truths – one person’s side of the story, another person’s side of the story, and then the truth. Do you agree with that?
I also want to ask you – do you feel like the www and hypertext is ultimately beneficial, or do you prefer written stories that have been fact checked?
I am always intrigued to hear what people have to say about technology. With the way the world is going and moving at such a fast pace, I feel like everyone will be relying on technology ultimately in the end, and clear adaptations and changes must be made to clear the line between what is real and what is not.
Thanks! 🙂
Maya
Katarina Smith
January 21, 2020 — 8:39 pm
Hi Maya,
Thanks for your interesting questions. For your first question, I agree with you in that there are multiple stories depending on who is telling it (so I think more than two if more than two people are involved). I agree with you that there’s an objective truth, and often it isn’t told by anyone because we each have unique memories of events and stories we tell based on these memories.
For your second question, I think hypertext can add a large of additional information that you can’t get in a written piece of text. The lack of publishers makes it easier for everyone to share their stories, but also easier for misinformation to be spread, so it’s a bit of a double-edged sword.
Thanks for your questions and comment!
Katarina
jade greer
January 20, 2020 — 9:18 pm
Hi Katrina,
You summarize Chamberlin’s points regarding free publication very effectively. It is interesting to look at the politics of storytelling and who the stories are meant or not meant for. While it is great we have so much access to knowledge because of the internet, it is unfortunate that stories that are not meant to be shared are made public. What do you think us, digital as readers, can do to support this problem?
I’m also curious to the extent stories can be changed and meanings can be lost over time. Can you think of any examples of stories that have been negatively impacted by this overtime?
You bring up an important point that stories can be written and published by anyone and do not have to be fact-checked. In the United States, for example, there has been a huge issue with ‘fake news’. It seems as though what is true, such as climate change is questioned by people like Trump in the media while other matters, such as any story that pathologizes immigrants, are taken to be true. People often believe what they want to be true, and this can be extremely dangerous. In settler nations, it is easier for many to think about a growing economy because of a pipeline than to confront the horrific impacts on Indigenous communities and the environment that are associated with it.
While I think the internet is a great place for like-minded people to share stories, it is extremely important to be aware of where the story is coming from and if it is intended for the public or not.
Thanks for your sharing insightful post!
-Jade
Katarina Smith
January 21, 2020 — 8:46 pm
Hi Jade,
Thanks for your comment!
I think, as readers, we can make sure we look at who the author of stories are, and look for any information about these authors to do our best to assess if they have the right to share the story (it might be hard to tell of course, but it might help). Especially if there is no author, we might want to question this and even comment on the story if possible and ask about this.
I can’t think of any big stories, but I’m sure there are many. But, I can think of many personal times when I said something and it was twisted and turned and told to other people in a different way, twisting my story – which is something I’m sure many people can relate to. I think this can be upsetting for people, as what they said got twisted.
You bring up a good point – the internet can often group people into categories of link-minded (and often similar races, religions, etc.) people, which can be dangerous for spreading misinformation that large groups of people want to believe.
Thanks!
Katarina
ChinoAngeloRodriguez
January 21, 2020 — 11:16 pm
Hi Katarina,
I found your take on audio recordings of stories interesting because I myself had the same thought! It feels that we are conditioned to think that newer means better, especially with technological advances in recent years. While reading over Dr. Patterson’s material for this lesson, I immediately thought that digital storytelling would have a positive impact on story, especially with audio and video recordings — how could it not?.However, after some time I had the same thought about how recording a story likens it to a written version in that once it is recorded, it can longer evolve the way stories do each time they are told. I do think this has potential to hamper the evolution of oral stories, but I also think that the other advantages of digital storytelling will positively impact story much more so than audio recordings negatively impact it. Let me know what you think!
Also, I would argue that hyperlinks, even if they lead the reader away from the page, actually increase the impact of the story. Even if the reader is led away from the main story, they are able to explore a completely different page on the Internet, which itself may have other hyperlinks that lead them elsewhere. After the first click on hypertext, the choice is the reader’s whether to go down that rabbit hole or return to the article. I think that even if a reader decides to veer away from the primary article via a hyperlink, so long as they continue to explore the www in a way that they learn and they eventually return to the source of hypertext, then the hypertext has enhanced the reader’s experience of the story. Except in the cases you mentioned where the link attached to hypertext is not accurate or is not applicable to the content in the primary article, I feel that hypertext definitely enhances a reader’s experience, even if they stray further from the attached link.
Cheers,
Chino
Katarina Smith
January 22, 2020 — 9:07 am
Hi Chino,
Thanks for your comment. I agree with you – digital storytelling can have much more to it than just an audio file, it can have images, hypertext, video, comments/discussion, etc. This gives it greater power. But, I do still have my concerns around the story no longer being something that changes and evolves, so that’s still a disadvantage I see.
I agree with you about hyperlinks being positive if they lead someone away to learn more and they eventually go back, but I think often, they don’t go back to the original article. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it could mean that articles aren’t as likely to get completely read and therefore some stories don’t get to be shared in a complete form. What do you think?
Thanks!
Katarina
AlexandraSinclair
January 22, 2020 — 12:29 am
Hi Katarina!
I was really interested to hear you speak about your concern regarding the www allowing anyone to tell or contribute to a story, publicly. I found this very valid and it allowed me to view the platform through a more critical eye. I answered the same question for Assignment 1:3 and I wrote about how advantageous it is that people have access to a platform to publicly discuss controversial issues and share their personal insights.
I do think it provides a place for individuals who do not have the education or means to have their work published, but do have a story to tell. However, I can very much understand how bias and prominence of the unknown can create a dangerous situation where the possibility of false information being circulated. As you mentioned, this is particularly important when discussing cultural history such as that of Indigenous communities, as discussed by Erin Hanson.
This is an older article but I did find that it took an interesting approach to the topic of storytelling on the www: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-internet-is-killing-storytelling-cb8k55cscr6
I really enjoyed hearing your thoughts and reading your blog.
Katarina Smith
January 22, 2020 — 9:09 am
Hi Alexandra,
Thanks for your comment. It’s interesting to know you wrote about the opposite side of things in your blog – I absolutely agree with you that that part is a positive – there are many ways in which the www can have a positive and negative side to situations, which is, I think, why it’s important to question it and explore it.
Thanks for sharing the article, I’m not able to read the whole thing without subscribing, but the part I read was interesting.
Thanks again!
Katarina
BrendaDruhall
January 22, 2020 — 12:57 pm
Hi Katarina!
This post is so relevant to not only this class, but also our university experience as students. Finding genuine sources that give us actual scholarly facts, aren’t plagiarized or false, and are impartial, are all common problems that I know plague all of us as students.
An arguably larger problem is that these are things that we, as students, are forced to think about– however, many people who aren’t students *don’t* take these factors into account when sharing sources that they believe are academic. I loved your take on the fact that sometimes writing things down takes away from the story…but it also worries me that some day we might lose the story, or the thread of the story’s character? I suppose that’s potentially a bit of a simpleminded way of looking at this, as many stories are passed on (especially in indigenous communities) with extreme respect, thought, and care.
Excited to see more contributions from you!
Katarina Smith
January 23, 2020 — 6:29 pm
Hi Brenda,
Thanks for your comment! I think you raise an important point – we might be aware of these things, but this doesn’t mean the general public is.
To your question, I think it’s possible to lose any story – written story or oral, it just depends on who shares it when and with who. In oral cultures, there’s often a focus on ensuring your youth know the story, so they can keep it and pass it on as well. Of course, if it doesn’t get passed on, it gets forgotten. Similarly, though, stories can be posted online, but if they’ve never shared, they may get equally lost (even though they’re written down).
Thanks!
Katarina