For this week’s post, I decided to respond to the following prompt:
First stories tell us how the world was created. In The Truth about Stories, King tells us two creation stories … [and] provides us with a neat analysis of how each story reflects a distinct worldview … The differences all seem to come down to co-operation or competition — a nice clean-cut satisfying dichotomy. However, a choice must be made: you can only believe ONE of the stories is the true story of creation – right? That’s the thing about creation stories; only one can be sacred and the others are just stories. Strangely, this analysis reflects the kind of binary thinking that Chamberlin, and so many others, including King himself, would caution us to stop and examine. So, why does King create dichotomies for us to examine these two creation stories? Why does he emphasize the believability of one story over the other — as he says, he purposefully tells us the “Genesis” story with an authoritative voice, and “The Earth Diver” story with a storyteller’s voice. Why does King give us this analysis that depends on pairing up oppositions into a tidy row of dichotomies? What is he trying to show us? (Paterson, question 1)
“The truth about stories is that that’s all we are” (2) states storyteller and author Thomas King near the beginning of each lecture, or chapter, in his 2003 Massey lectures and book The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative. Telling two different creation stories, he draws comparisons between them, while proposing that “[i]f we believe one story to be sacred, we must see the other as secular” (King 25). By doing so, he to also seems to create dichotomies between the perspective suggested in both stories, such as cooperation and competition, and creates a choice to decide which story to “keep.” However, King and other authors, such as J. Edward Chamberlin, suggest that creating these dichotomies can be dangerous as they can encourage one to choose between “false alternatives” (Chamberlin 24). Still, by creating these comparisons, King also implies some similarities between these creation stories, creates an alternative story to what is often found in mainstream Canadian society, and helps to draw attention to the power of stories.
To expand, both stories present a different perspective on the origin of people and the world as we know it — and both have elements that are more “mythical” seeming, inviting the audience to “believe it and not” (Chamberlin 160), regardless of how “authoritative” the story’s words might sound. Beyond this, stories, such as these, underlie and influence much of society, including what is often perceived to be fact and truth and share this commonality as well. Yet, when one looks at these stories more closely, they are just that: stories — and stories, no matter the topic, still need the imagination and belief to be brought into the world.
However, as King suggests, these creation stories still have numerous differences if looked at from a storyteller’s perspective (23), including that one of them is better known and, as a narrative, underlies a broader part of Canadian society (including laws, economics, and media), whether or not people are conscious of it. By contrasting these stories, one could say that King isn’t creating a choice so much as exposing an alternative narrative to those often found in mainstream society. King provides the opportunity to see that there is an alternative way, or an alternative story, of understanding how people have come to be in the world, and how people can continue to “fit” into its larger picture.
In this sense, stories can affect the way we interact with and perceive the world. As suggested by King (in the context of sharing a number of family stories with his audience), “I tell the stories not to play on your sympathies but to suggest how stories can control our lives, for there is a part of me that has never been able to move past these stories, a part of me that will be chained to these stories as long as I live” (emphasis added) (9). In a similar way, one could say that, whether or not one “believes” in them, the stories that are shared with us, especially those reenforced through society, are still are chained to us and affect who we are and our perspectives on the world.
More explicitly, King ponders the powerful impact that stories can have on people, and prompts his audience to do the same, by asking: “[d]id you ever wonder how it is we imagine the world in the way we do, how it is we imagine ourselves, if not through our stories … For these are our stories, the cornerstones of our culture” (95). By reflecting on and comparing the two creation stories, King creates this opportunity for his audience to see similarities between different stories, see an alternative story to the one often told, and recognize the power that stories can have on society, especially by altering the way people imagine the world around them. In this way, while stories, such as the two shared by King, are often referred to as “creation stories” in the sense that they express how the world began and/or how people came to live in a place, one could argue that they are still “creating stories” and contributing to creating cultures, including “Canadian culture.”
A representation of a few different forms of story that can affect one’s perception and understanding of society and, in this case, law.
In fact, perhaps the most important part of the ideas that King highlights through the contrast of these two creation stories is to remember that “[t]he truth about stories is that that’s all we are” (King 2) and, for this reason, the stories we tell ourselves, and that we allow to become a part of us, are especially important. In other words, “‘we live by stories, we also live in them. One way or another we are living the stories planted in us early or along the way, or we are also living the stories we planted — knowingly or unknowingly — in ourselves … If we change the stries we live by, quite possibly we change our lives’” (Ben Okri qtd. in King 153).
—
Works Cited
Chamberlin, J. Edward. If This is Your Land, Where are Your Stories?: Finding Common Ground. Vintage Canada Ed., Vintage Canada, 2004.
Gow, Kailin. “How Fiction Impacts Fact: The Social Impact Of Books.” Fast Company, 12 July 2012, https://www.fastcompany.com/1842370/how-fiction-impacts-fact-social-impact-books. Accessed 10 Oct. 2016.
King, Thomas. The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative. House of Anansi Press Inc., 2003.
Monet, Don. The Law vs. Ayook: Written vs. Oral History. Monet and Skanu’u, 1992. A Map that Roared and an Original Atlas: Canada, Cartography, and the Narration of Nation, by Matthew Sparke, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, p. 473.
Paterson, Erika. “Lesson 2.2.” ENGL 470A Canadian Studies: Canadian Literary Genres Sept 2016, https://blogs.ubc.ca/courseblogsis_ubc_engl_470a_99c_2014wc_44216-sis_ubc_engl_470a_99c_2014wc_44216_2517104_1/unit-2/lesson-2-2/. Accessed 29 Sept. 2016.
“You’ll Never Believe What Happened is Always a Great Way to Start.” The 2003 CBC Massey Lectures, “The Truth about Stories: A Native Narrative,“ CBC/Radio Canada, http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-2003-cbc-massey-lectures-the-truth-about-stories-a-native-narrative-1.2946870. Accessed 7 Oct. 2016.
Hi Kaylie!
I really enjoyed reading your post regarding King. I do agree with your understanding that King’s approach is making his reader/listener examine the commonalities between the two stories.
I was wondering how you reconcile your last point – that stories are all we are – with King’s thesis on the function of stories? To expand, I am wondering if you think the power and purpose is in the storyteller – not the actual story – as the story is fluid, and changeable at the teller’s request. Is the message and aim of the storyteller more ‘telling’ than the actual story?
Hi Tillie,
Thanks for your comment! I’m glad to hear you enjoyed reading my post 🙂
In response to your question, I think the power of stories is a combination of the teller and the story itself. In other words, I think it is challenging to separate a story from its context (e.g. the audience, the writer/teller) and, similarly the quote by Okri at the end of my post, the stories we tell, and that can become a part of us, have their power both in the way one tells it and the story itself (e.g. the same scenario can be portrayed in very different ways depending on how one tells it). Beyond that, your question makes me wonder: would there be a story without someone to tell, or write, or participate in it?
Thanks again for the comment and thought-provoking question!
— Kaylie
Hi Kaylie,
I enjoyed reading your response to the same question that I elaborated on. Your arguments seem to resonate with mine in many ways. For example, we both seem to agree that both creation stories are ONLY stories with “mythical elements” or artifice involved; and they are both utilised as cultural devices to pass on cultural distinctive values. I have found your statement that connects “creation stories” with “creating stories” or even creating cultures particularly powerful! It sums up not only the nature of stories but the impacts that creation stories could have on not only how societies work through e.g. laws, economics and media, but how individuals’ worldviews take shape. In this sense, which story or the underlying values one goes for is critical. However, the tricky thing about the creation stories seems to be that the idea of “choices” or “options” will not be accepted particularly in the “Christian monologue”, as opposed to King’s effort of offering “an alternative narrative to those often found in mainstream society”. In such a “either/or” case, in what way do you think an individual like you who grows up in a society embedded in Christian ideologies can deal with the inherent conflicts between the varieties of creation stories or cultural beliefs? Can this kind of individuals “logically” believe in the “truth”, as a typical Christian idea or Western cultural value, of the Indigenous stories? Can it happen for a Christian to embrace both the Christian and Indigenous stories and values?
Regards,
Patrick
Hi Patrick,
Thank you so much for your comment! You’ve presented some really thought-provoking reflections and I’ve enjoyed considering them (while taking my time with a reply :p ).
In response to your questions, first, I don’t think there is one way to deal with conflicts arising between differences in the variations of creations stories or culture beliefs. However, I do think that curiosity, an open mind, and gratitude for new learning are perspectives that I can bring to these potentially challenging concepts or “conflicts.” In addition, I think that ongoing reflection and understanding of where one is coming from (locating oneself socially) can also be helpful as it allows one to find and understand some of the underlying biases, perspectives, and values that underlie much of Canada’s (largely colonial, neoliberal, capitalistic) society, and that might, to a degree, underlie one’s own encounters and perspectives as well.
Second, I agree that logic and truth, in the way it’s often presented, is generally associated as a Western cultural value. In terms of how that relates to the Indigenous stories we’ve listened to/read, like we both mentioned in our reflections, the Indigenous and Western stories are both stories and they rely on a kind of understanding that seems to need a different kind of “logic” and “truth” than what I often encounter being presented as “logical” or “truthful.” Perhaps the prominence of numerous European and/or Christian values and systems in Canadian society make it easier to contextualize and understand the impacts of certain stories (e.g. the Christian one), but I think both of these stories are meant to be understood in a story realm; in other words, I’m not sure if they’re meant to be taken as logical or truthful (in the typical Western sense) as stories in and of themselves (although the values and perspectives they suggest can have larger impacts).
Finally, while I can’t speak from a religious background, my initial response would be that I think yes, both stories and values can be embraced by people, if they choose to; however, new stories, that find common ground and establish connection points between the different stories, might be helpful in navigating the possible contrasts between the potentially different ideas in various stories. (Maybe this idea of creating these common story connection points will be something our class will “discuss” further in the coming weeks.)
On another related note, this conversation and blog prompt reminded me of a project I did on deconstruction theory (as it applies to literature) last year. That theory presents an opportunity to move beyond binaries and look for the many different interpretations that something can have — it might be interesting to look into as/if we continue our class discussion of “dichotomies.”
Anyhow, I hope this answers your questions; thanks again for your comment! 🙂
— Kaylie
P.S. I also finally elaborated on my earlier reply to the questions you posed in response to my “Just Like Magic” post. Thanks for your patience! 🙂
I also answered the same question, and I like your idea that King is presenting an alternative to the creation story that already permeates everyday life. He does seem to put a lot more effort into the story of the Earth Diver and just spouts the story most people already know (Genesis) in the way people are used to hearing. I read it as King contrasting different stories to emphasize the values found in the different cultures, but I think this presentation of an alternative is also at play here, forcing the reader to confront the fact that stories affect every aspect of their lives and sometimes (if not often) those stories that they take for granted have an equally reasonable alternative story that usually goes overlooked.
If we combine our two readings, then King is presenting an alternative narrative to show the reader that the stories they rely on to understand their world reflect the values that they or the culture they subscribe to hold sacred. However, he does create a dichotomy in doing so, and it’s dichotomies that create the damaging “us vs them” dynamic. Perhaps he establishes this dichotomy to emphasize the overpowering quality that some stories have, or rather that some people give it.
Thanks for your post!
Madelaine
Hi Madelaine,
Thank you for your comment! I like the idea of combining our two responses; it seems like a neat perspective would result from it! Also, I agree with you that yes, the way King frames the two stories seems to make a dichotomy, which can often lead to damaging results. Beyond this, while thinking of your comment and blog post, I also started to think more about how King’s dichotomy could partly be created to highlight the dichotomies inherent in some parts of the stories he presents (e.g. “good” vs. “evil”) and the potential problems that these dichotomies can make, especially when they are not always clear distinctions between the two “sides” being compared.
Anyhow, thanks again for the comment and for your synthesis of our two posts! 🙂
— Kaylie
Hi Kaylie,
I have really enjoyed your posts and was wondering if you have found a group to work with for the online conference? We are needing to put groups together by tomorrow, so please let me know if you are interested. If so, also let me know which other peers you would like to reach out to (we need 4 members). As for work habits, I am organized and like to hand things in on time, so if this interests you, that would be great.
-Jenny Bachynski
Hi Jenny,
I know we spoke briefly over Facebook, but I just wanted to thank you again for your kind comment and offer! I look forward to seeing our groups’ conference websites 🙂
All the best with everything,
— Kaylie