In his analysis of creation stories King employs a number of dichotomies. King emphasizes the dichotomies between the story of Charm and the Christian biblical creation story in order to emphasize the danger of either/or modes of thinking. If one is to ascribe fully to one creation story as truth, than other stories must be dismissed as untrue. Yet in King’s retelling of the creation stories, the juxtaposition serves to emphasize the commonalities of the two stories, rather than prove one as fallacy. It is King’s storytelling that undermines the similarities of the stories and imposes difference.
King uses creation stories because they feature “relationships that help to define the nature of the universe and how cultures understand the world in which they exist” (King 10). Certainly, there are similarities between the two stories. The earth starts out as water. Humans are introduced into a world that has already hosted animals. Yet in his presentation of the stories, King also sets a trap. King sets “the trap that categories always lay for us…[dichotomies] have become hard-wired into our consciousness…but the choice between them…is a foolish choice between false alternatives” (Chamberlain 24).
King plays to a number of assumptions historically implemented in the misleading categorization of stories. Firstly, the story of Charm opens “back at the beginning of imagination” (King 10). In contrast, the story of God creating the world occurs “in the beginning” (21). In his organization of the stories King has already lent more credence to the Christian creation story by omitting any reference to imagination. If one is to believe the biblical creation story as fact, it wouldn’t do to acknowledge that at some point, the story sprung from imagination. King sets up his reader to make the “false choice between reality and the imagination” when truly both stories “locate us in between…[and neither is solely imagination or reality but rather] ‘both/and’ rather than ‘either/or'”(Chamberlain 126-127). He also designates the Charm story as exotic. The word exotic suggests that something is different, different from what we are used to.
Furthermore, King’s storytelling mode changes the way the stories come across. Throughout the story of Charm he apologizes for the story. He emphasizes how unbelievable it is “given the fact that we live in a predominantly scientific, capitalistic, Judeo-Christian world governed by physical laws, economic imperatives, and spiritual precepts” (King 12). And yet in comparison to the candid, communicative telling of Charm, the biblical creation story King’s recounting of the biblical creation story is unyielding. King’s storytelling voice between the stories insists on ‘truths,’ the quality of one story over the other, and yet his assertions seem misinformed. After recounting the story of Charm, King introduces the Christian creation story by remarking on “the beauty of the language” and that “the story…captures the imagination” (21). The reader has just read an engaging, accessible story and in comparison, the biblical creation story seems lackluster. The beauty of the language King comments on is not visible nor does it seem to allow for any imaginative variation.
King thereby positions the reader to listen and personally evaluate rather than to exact judgement and strict categorization. King’s categorizing through the narration is ineffectual and therefore the reader/listener must listen with an open mind rather than accept the strictures placed on the stories by an outside authority. By setting himself up as an unreliable narrator, in effect, King comments on the danger of seeing in dichotomies. The reader must look to and embrace the complexities rather than limiting a story to a specific category. Like Wickwire found in his experience with Harry Robinson, setting aside stories that appear to be anomalies can be a dangerous, externally-imposed categorization (22). While historically, western culture has used categorization to clarify, King therefore exposes that rather than clarifying, categorization limits and even erases important cultural truths.
———————————————————————————————————-
This unit reminded me of this video. Someone had posted it on Facebook awhile ago and I had watched it then. In the discussion of contact stories, I was reminded of the video. The video is of Jean Pierre Dutilleux, a Belgian filmmaker, encountering a Papua New Guinea tribe. The assertion of the video is that the Toulambi people had never seen a “white man” before this. From what I’ve read up on it, much of the video may be ‘performance’ or ‘acted’. I think the video is problematic in a number of ways. It makes me a bit uncomfortable so I was hesitant to post it. Yet I also thought, what does the video say about contact stories and our fascination with them? What is being suggested by the video and why would someone go to such great lengths to ‘falsely document’ such a moment? Does the video corroborate what Lutz says about contact stories being a form of performance for all parties involved? Does the video exoticize the people in its portrayal? How are things portrayed and what does the film medium contribute/alter in its portrayal. If the video is, indeed, fake then it says a lot about expectations of content in contact stories. If it isn’t fake, is it insensitive to capture people on film without their express consent. If you’d like to read up on sources who contest the accuracy of the video there is a thorough examination here and a forum of evidence here.
Works Cited
Chamberlin, J. Edward. If This is Your Land, Where Are Your Stories? Finding Common Ground. Toronto: Vintage Canada, 2004. Print.
Dutilleux, Jean Pierre. “Filmography.” Jean Pierre Dutilleux. Jean Pierre Dutilleux, 22 Jun. 2013. Web. 7 Feb. 2014.
“Is the ‘Tribe Meets White Man for the First Time’ Video Fake?” Skeptics Stack Exchange. Skeptics Stack Exchange, 24 Jun. 2011. Web. 7 Feb 2014.
King, Thomas. The Truth About Stories. Toronto: House of Anansi Press Inc, 2003. Print.
Kranz, Peter. “Toulambi 1976 contact: fact or fable.” Keith Jackson & Friends: PNG Attitude. PNG Attitude. 11 Jul. 2011. Web. 7 Feb. 2014.
Lan, Kevin. “Isolated Tribe Man Meets Modern Tribe Man For the First Time – Original Footage Full.” Online Video Clip. Youtube, 18 Jul. 2011. Web. 7 Feb. 2014.
Robinson, Harry. Living By Stories: A Journey of Landscape and Memory. Ed. Wendy Wickwire. Vancouver: Talonbooks, 2005. Print.
The Big Myth. Distant Train, 2007. Web. 7 Feb. 2014.
Great post! It was a pleasure to read.
I really enjoyed your example of the Jean Pierre Dutilleux clip for opening a dialogue on first contact experiences and what they say about us.
I think our fascination with first contact moments is that they are extremely exciting encounters that are fraught with uncertainty and unknown danger. First contacts are binary: we either meet a stranger or we do not. There is peace or there is violence. Understanding or incomprehension. It’s a rush.
Meeting anyone from the skytrain to a mountain pass without an introduction or a mediator to span the gap is can be an intense experience. This is accentuated when different languages and cultures are involved and the likelihood for miscommunication. First contacts and exhilarating. I think our fascination with them (and with videos posted above) plays to each of our personally fears and insecurities any potentially dangerous situation.
On a more metaphysical note, do you think that categorization has any place in cultural truths? I think that we can agree that categorizations are weak in an ethereal setting, but are used and applied in the world we work and live in. The same applies to truth, it is more conceptual than realized. Take flatland* as an example of when you change perspective you change what is true.
I am, and I feel other may be as well, struggling with the dialogue on categorization or binary opposition as a concept in this course. I feel it is limiting to consider categorization as a “negative” when it does have functional role in the world. Categories are dangerous only so long as we do not pause and reflect that binary opposition exists only when contextualized by spectrum. Black and white are ideas, only greys are real.
*Flatland was written (by Edwin Abbott Abbott) in the 1800s as a story to explain multidimensionality to a lay audience.
Thanks, Duncan. I agree that categorization does have a role (many roles) in society.
I am not the first to make reference to these works, but I have been studying Foucault’s “What is An Author?” and Barthes’ “The Death of the Author” in another course. Both of the articles treat the issue of the author role and all that it implies. They demonstrate the danger in categorizing to limit. People are often unaware of the limits imposed by categorization and, as you said so well, black and white thinking occurs. Truth can be found in the interstices, as you said, the grey areas. I’m sure we can all empathize with the assertion that things are rarely as clear cut as “good” and “bad.” I think perhaps categorization is therefore best used in a broad sense. Yet for the purposes of the analysis of storytelling “everything is to be disentangled, nothing deciphered: the structure can be followed…but…the space of writing is to be ranged over, not pierced” (Barthes 147).
Works Cited
Barthes, Roland. “The Death of the Author.” 1968. PDF File.
Hi Lauren!
I really liked reading your post because I answered the same question and reading your interpretation of King’s use of dichotomies expanded the way I viewed the question and forced me to look at dichotomies in a variety of ways. I argued that King emphasized how dichotomies reveal the impossibility of claiming one creation story as the sole-truth. You made a really nice point of continuation of this idea when you said this:
“Yet in King’s retelling of the creation stories, the juxtaposition serves to emphasize the commonalities of the two stories, rather than prove one as fallacy.”
I totally agree now that King subtly hints at the similarities between the two stories rather than setting them up as polar opposites. He seems to be suggesting a happy medium is possible between the two. You seem to have an eye for detail when you connected the water and animal elements of the story, good catch!
I also completely agree with this statement: “The reader has just read an engaging, accessible story [Speaking of the first creation story about Charm] and in comparison, the biblical creation story seems lackluster. The beauty of the language King comments on is not visible nor does it seem to allow for any imaginative variation.” I wonder if King describes the biblical story as imaginative and beautiful because he really does believe these things or whether he sets up the tale this way in order to challenge us as readers to interpret the story in our own unique way without the presumptions or critiques of a third party. In other words, if he hadn’t said the story we were about to read was beautiful maybe we would have been able to recognize the beauty in the story in our own readings, and not be searching for what is labelled beautiful by someone else. Just a thought! Thank you as always for your interesting and engaging posts 🙂
🙂