I’m writing this blog in response to question 6, which asks, “In the following paragraphs in her essay, Maracle answers her question describing what she sees to be the function of literary criticism in Salish society. Summarize her answer and then make some comparisons between Maracle and Frye’s analysis of the role of myth in nation building.”
In order for criticism to arise naturally from within our culture, discourse must serve the same function it has always served. In Euro-society, literary criticism heightens the competition between writers and limits entry of new writers to preserve the original canon. What will its function be in our societies? (Maracle, 88)
First off, I wanted to express that I was definitely excited to see this question on Lee Maracle, since I’ve mentioned her work previously in my other blogs.
What struck me from the lecture was the quotation, “Unless we write from within the culture and from our original knowledge, we cannot grow culturally, and the current problems of social anomie will continue unabated (Maracle, 82).” This really resonated from me and I took it to heart, as I’ve read a novel of hers that depicts a heroine that have drifted from her culture and community. From just this sentence alone however, does not give a full scope of what she sees to be the function of literary criticism in Salish culture. From the section “What Does All This Have to Do with Literature?” Maracle comments on the fact that while she has respect for the scholars they learn and their literary standpoint will come from a “Euro-culture, Euro-systems (88)” framework. From this we can imagine that the scope of the understanding from only this framework is limited upon Western traditions. Continuing on, Maracle remarks that in order to have a “broad and solid foundation” of one’s own society, that person can then go on to develop, advance, and augment upon that foundation. Maracle says that such analysis can not be done by “those who merely live within the culture either. It can only be done by those who live within the culture and who have studied the base…(84)”.
What I took from Maracle on the idea of myth in nation-building the myth-maker and the nation come together to expand upon each other through original processes and original stories (85). Maracle also talks about the transformation of the myth, how “the process of gather together to find what is new and being born (85).” As Maracle continues on with the importance of understand the heart of the Salish people’s stories, it also seems as though transformation of those stories/myths are not only welcomed but necessary. Her answer simply is that we do need to examine the “old story” first but then be able to transform it as to apply to the nation as it transforms. It seems as though the intent and the root of the myth is what the nation will build upon, that’s the part that will transcend through contemporary context. Looking back to my previous post, I feel like I might’ve had the wrong impression of Salish stories as “absolute truths” but eventually got to a similar conclusion on storytelling in the comments.
In comparison, I don’t find that Frye’s ideas to be that opposing as both authors seem to stress on the idea of transformation. I feel as though Frye is suggesting that myth impacts the way literature is written and thus through literature is what has molded into this idea of the “Canadian imagination”. I do find it rather tough to be comparing the two, especially after Maracle commented on the limitations of a singular viewpoint framework. Given what we know about Frye, it feels like there’s a distance between what Frye might depict as Canadian literature and what Maracle views. That being said, I feel like the two both touch upon the strength that stories/storytelling have on a nation as a whole. Though this are just my initial feelings! I do think that there’s room for interpretation on both sides!
Thank you for reading!
Works Cited:
Frye, Northrop. The Bush Garden; Essays on the Canadian Imagination. 2011 Toronto: Anansi. Print.
Maracle, Lee. “Toward a National Literature: A Body of Writing.” Across Cultures, Across Borders Canadian Aboriginal and Native American Literatures by Paul Warren Depasquale, Renate Eigenbrod, Emma Larocque (z-lib.org), Broadview, 2010. Print.
Georgia
February 29, 2020 — 4:20 pm
Hello,
I enjoyed reading your thoughts in this blog post!
Storytelling and myth-building are so interesting. It’s amazing how stories evolve and change over time, and how this process is somewhat inevitable. Meaning is always shifting.
This is true, of course, not only in Indigenous literature. Over generations, many stories and old truths (or untruths) become mythologized. For better, or for worse.
This is also true of History. Our idea of History is made up of many truths and lies that have been woven together from the dominant perspective to produce a wholly believed myth. This blog post is on the subject, and you may find it interesting: https://pastexplore.wordpress.com/2014/03/06/on-de-mythologizing-history/
Stories evolve, naturally. But stories are also re-written, or hidden, or moulded. Mythologizing the past is evidence of this, and should definitely be considered.
LisaHou
March 3, 2020 — 3:00 pm
Hi Georgia!
Thanks for your comment! I read the link you sent! This line, “At the same time, however, they express discomfort over any analysis of United States history that might disrupt their own nationalist sentiments and subjective concept of American identity,” really stood out to me. I wonder if this mythologizing of the past will ever change. I think about 50 years from now, if our current news and climate can be viewed and rewritten from a different approach. I want to think that given the reach that peoples’ voices can get, that there will be a big disparity of how we view this today versus in 50 years.
Thank you!
Lisa
aran chang
February 29, 2020 — 5:17 pm
Hi Lisa!
I’ve had a pleasure reading your past few blogs and I believe our ideas would work well together int he final research project. I am currently in a team with Joanne, and I would like to humbly invite you to the group.
We look forward to your response and I hope to hear back from you soon. If you would prefer to contact me via email, please reach out to aranc.english@gmail.com.
As an additional note, I have also reached out to Sydney as well, if she would like to join our group research.
Thank you
Best regards,
Aran Chang
LisaHou
March 3, 2020 — 2:52 pm
Hi Aran,
Thanks for reaching out! Will reach out via other form!
Lisa
EmilyHomuth
March 3, 2020 — 7:44 pm
Hi Lisa,
You make some really great points!
I wanted to ask you a question about your comparison of Frye and Maracle because I came to a very different conclusion. It seems to me that Frye’s ideas about literature are in direct conflict with the literature that Maracle is envisioning. Frye says that an authors writing “can take shape only from what [they have] read, not from what [they have] experienced” (234). The forms Frye refers to are created from European and American literary cannon. The forms are informed by myth, as you mention above, but the forms are eurocentric. In essence, Frye argues that a person’s experience can only be used to inspire a story but the story itself must be structured in a pre existing form considered to be good literature. Do you think that the literature Maracle envisions can be informed by Frye’s literary forms? Or is my reading of Frye too harsh?
Thanks again,
Emily
Frye, Northrop. “The Bush Garden: Essays on the Canadian Imagination” House of Anansi, 1971.
Lisa Hou
March 9, 2020 — 10:04 am
Hi Emily!
I too, perhaps agree that Frye might have a very limited scope for his analysis of myths. I feel as though Fyre and Maracle coule very much have a different impression on how that myth correlates and is translated to nationalism. I do however feel as though both get a general sense that myth has a direct relationship with building Canadian literature and nation. I think with that first quote, it might show Fyre’s limitations on this. To be honest, I’m not sure how to interpret “a person’s experience can only be used to inspire a story but the story itself must be structured in a pre existing form considered to be good literature.” I can see how this might have multiple interpretations though!
Thank you!
maya sumel
March 8, 2020 — 8:52 pm
HI Lisa! Thanks so much for your blog post. I really enjoyed reading it, and liked when you quoted what resonated most with you from Maracle: “Unless we write from within the culture and from our original knowledge, we cannot grow culturally, and the current problems of social anomie will continue unabated (Maracle, 82).”
I have a question for you; do you feel now after reading your comments and other people’s blog posts on this topic that you see more of a difference between Frye and Maracle’s ideas on nation building?
Also, do you agree more with Maracle or Frye?
Thanks!
Maya
Lisa Hou
March 9, 2020 — 10:14 am
Hi Maya!
I almost feel like I shouldn’t say this, but I feel as though even before reading I already had a really strong bias for Maracle. I really enjoy her work, so I think most of her writing resonate strongly with me. I don’t really think I feel swayed at all from that quote from Maracle. In fact, I more so am a little wary of the correlation or difference between Maracle’s and Frye’s ideas. I feel like there were some things in both of their work that could potentially be open for interpretation, so I definitely don’t want to think as if I’ve fully encompassed everything!
Thanks!