Before humans there were animals, and they lived together in harmony. Birds, rabbits, cats, dogs, bears, wolves, and creatures of all kinds shared fields, forests, rivers, lakes and food, of which there was an abundance. For many years these animals lived as equals and all was well.

One day, as Rabbit was grazing in the meadow with the other animals, he looked up and saw Hawk soaring through the sky. Hawk landed gracefully in the middle of the meadow and was immediately surrounded by the other animals, who peppered him with questions about his journey. The animals delighted in Hawk’s stories, where he would tell of his travels over lush landscapes, deep valleys and oceans blue. Hawk had the gift of flight, and he could go where no rabbit could. As Hawk told his story, Rabbit began to feel the stirrings of jealousy in his heart.

Rabbit turned to Mouse and said softly, “That Hawk…Are you sure you trust him?”

“Why, whatever do you mean Rabbit?” said Mouse.

“You’ve seen how quickly Hawk spills from the sky to snatch his prey. And look at those talons! So sharp they are. He could snatch you right up before you even saw him coming.”

“Oh, Rabbit…” said Mouse. “He wouldn’t!” Mouse began to shiver.

Seeing the effect he had had on the mouse, with growing bitterness Rabbit began to tell his wicked tale to anyone who would listen. Soon rumours began to spread that Hawk had caught and killed a frog. No, it was a spider. No, a mouse! Soon the animals shifted from admiring Hawk’s pointed beak and knifelike talons to being afraid of them.

As fear spread among the animals, hatred grew. Mice became afraid of Cat’s claws and fangs, and so they hid from her. Wolves grew threatened of Buffalo’s size and strength, and so they became enemies. Animals would tell their children tales about the animals of whom they should be afraid. Gone were the days of harmony, which gave way to Predator and Prey. Soon, raccoons killed hawks, hawks killed snakes, snakes killed mice and so on. This is how evil came into the world.

Rabbit was filled with regret over the stories he had told. But once you tell a story, you cannot take it back.

When I told this story out loud, I obviously forgot a few minor details. I didn’t tell it exactly as it was written, and my tone was conversational with plenty of um’s and ah’s. The people I told my story to focused on details that I didn’t think about when I was writing and telling the story. They thought the story was about jealousy and spreading rumours. I was also asked why I “blamed the animals” for bringing evil into the world and not humans. I think telling a story out loud really illustrated for me how much listeners have the power to respond to, change, and interpret an oral story.

I loved Thomas King’s take on storytelling- stories can be dangerous, and they can be powerful. Stories matter, and they should be treated with care.

Works Cited

The dictionary definition of orality used by Courtney MacNeil, which described orality as “the quality of being oral or orally communicated” (par.1) demonstrates our misguided understanding of the term. To view orality simply as a “means through which we exchange information” (MacNeil, par.1) suggests that orality is both separate from and unequal to literacy.

When I think about the conversations I have with friends, slam poetry readings, lyrics, speeches by politicians, plays, news casts, etc., I see how orality is used to make meaning of what it means to be here, to be Canadian. These are some of the ways that we tell our stories, and as Dr. Paterson mentions in lesson 1:2, it is where we find intersections between literature and story, reality and imagination. How is this oral culture different from the oral traditions of other cultures?

I think back to my first blog post about how Canada’s colonial history and narratives impact our stories and world view. Our culture’s history of colonization has also impacted our assumptions about orality, and we view the oral tradition through a colonial/western lense. We hold the belief that oral cultures are one with nature (Chamberlin, p.19) but we associate a primitivism and simplicity with this oneness and equate it to being simple-minded, unintelligent, and non-complex, unlike so-called literate cultures (Chamberlin, p.19). It’s an insulting and patronizing view, certainly, as it trivializes the oral tradition and establishes literacy as civilized and intelligent, and thus dominant over orality. We have decided that literacy is culturally superior to orality and that text trumps storytelling, without paying attention to how literature and story intersect.

MacNeil quotes Walter J. Ong, who says that literacy is “absolutely necessary for the development of not only science but also of history, philosophy…” (MacNeil, par.2). But oral culture can be scientific, and historical (The wreck of the Franklin expedition? Exactly where Inuit always said it was, and this knowledge was passed down through the oral tradition). Creation stories are philosophical, as they attempt to explain who we are and why we are here. When we question what we think we know about oral traditions vs literature, we find that our understanding of orality is based on western superiority.

Ultimately, however, orality is not the true opposite of literacy. As Chamberlin explains, cultural artifacts “[function] in all the ways written texts do for European societies” (p.20), a “ceremony” that “could give meaning and value to our lives, and to the land” (p.90). In this way, orality performs the same function as the written word.

The internet disproves the idea that there is a firm distinction between an oral culture and a written culture. The durability of text, or the evanescence of orality (MacNeil, par.8) is disrupted when we delete a text or an email, or through disappearing hyperlinks and web pages, the sharing of podcasts and the viewing of Youtube videos, etc. Internet culture has encouraged the recognition that orality and literacy need not be viewed from a hierarchical perspective (MacNeil, par.8), which is illustrated by the fact that we share audio clips as readily as blog posts on the web.

No culture is merely an oral culture or a written culture. Orality and literacy interact and intersect in complex ways.

What do you think of Chamberlin and MacNeil’s view on orality? Especially in the context of the web?

Works Cited

Chamberlin, Edward. “If This Is Your Land, Where Are Your Stories? Finding Common Ground”. AA. Knopf. Toronto. 2003. Print.

Courtney MacNeil, “Orality”. The Chicago School of Media Theory. Uchicagoedublogs. 2007. We. 19 Feb. 2013.

LaFrance, Adrienne. “Raiders of the Lost Web.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 14 Oct. 2015. Web. 18 Sept. 2016.

News, CBC. “Franklin Find Proves ‘Inuit Oral History Is Strong:’ Louie Kamookak.” CBCnews. CBC/Radio Canada, 10 Sept. 2014. Web. 18 Sept. 2016.

Hello to my fellow ENGL 470 students. My name is Marissa, and I study english literature and international relations at UBC Vancouver. I’m currently living on campus (the photo you see is my average view on the way to class) and I’m excited to take my first online English course with all of you.

I am taking this course because I am interested in Canadian identity and how we as Canadians perceive ourselves, especially through our literary canon. I am intrigued by how we tell our stories and the effect these stories have on our cultural identity. As someone whose knowledge of Canadian literature begins and ends with Margaret Atwood (who herself has thought about and written about what constitutes Canadian literature), I am glad to see a focus on the often untold or ignored perspectives of First Nations people and look forward to examining how our history of colonization and cultural genocide affects the Canadian literature canon. I want to gain a deeper understanding of Canadian literature and all its quirks, its historical context, and its relationship with First Nations people and literature.

This is a very interesting thesis that analyses how the Canadian colonization of First Nations people has affected their representation in Canadian literature. Much of Canadian aboriginal writing is a reaction to colonization, and since we are so defined by our relationship as colonizer and colonized, that relationship inevitably exists in the Canadian literature canon as well.

Some of the questions that I hope can be answered in the course:

What makes Canadian literature Canadian?

What currently constitutes the Canadian literature canon? How did it get that way? How will it change in the future? Could we and should we change the canon and how it is defined?

How has Canadian colonization of First Nations people affected Canadian literature?

I look forward to our discussions.

Works Cited

Cathart, Caryn. “The Top 10 Lines from Margaret Atwood’s “Survival”.” House of Anansi Press. 6 Aug. 2015. Web. 12 Sept. 2016.

LaRocque, Emma. Native Writers Resisting Colonizing Practices In Canadian Historiography And Literature. Thesis. University of Manitoba, 1999. Winnipeg: U of Manitoba, 1999. Print.