Question #1
At different points in the book, King explores the difference in our perception to the written and the oral. With these two stories, he writes that “The Earth Diver” is told in a way that captures the spirit of oral communication, whereas the story of Genesis is told as it often is, as part of written communication. I think he sets up this dichotomy for the reader for a few reasons.
First, I think that the use of the “oral” style of storytelling is in line with the type he uses for his own narrative in his book. He begins every chapter with the “Turtle” story of where our world is. The story is virtually the same for every chapter; what’s different is the details surrounding the story (who’s telling it, who wants to know, etc.). This sets up his own style of storytelling. For instance, when he includes the anecdote about him and his son moving to Lethbridge and the storm they encountered along the way. Later, he recalls telling someone else about the same storm. Inside his written narrative King uses repetition as a technique that is commonly used in Oral communication. Surely he didn’t tell the story about the storm the same way both times. Does this mean either iteration is more correct than the other?
King’s use of the oral technique in retelling the Earth Diver Story not only uses the same oral techniques he uses with his own anecdotes within his narrative, but also extends the style of writing he uses in the book overall. This book has a very laissez-faire attitude when it comes to its voice, which makes it really appealing. I think if you’ve made it to this story in the book, you’ve been wooed enough by the book’s voice that the style of storytelling in the first creation story is attractive to the reader.
On the other hand, the genesis story is quite a departure from the voice that governs the first twenty pages or so of the book. It is dry, but if you’ve read the story before, it is exactly what you’ve come to expect it to be. I think this may be the heart of what King is challenging above the oral literature technique of a sometimes changing narrative. Ultimately, does an entertaining narrative make it any less “true”? What is it about our written stories that is is either entertaining or “informative”?
“Genesis Chapter 1.” GENESIS CHAPTER 1. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 June 2014. <http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-Chapter-1/>.
HI Patrick, thanks for these insights.
Your concluding point: I think this may be the heart of what King is challenging above the oral literature technique of a sometimes changing narrative. Ultimately, does an entertaining narrative make it any less “true”? What is it about our written stories that is is either entertaining or “informative”? — leaves me with a question. You seem to be making a connection between stories that ‘change’ as inherently more entertaining than the stories, such as Genesis, which do not change — and you suggest are inherently more informative. Which leads us right back to the dichotomy I am interesting in exploring. Why is King — who like Chamberlain, suggests that dichotomizing orality and textuality is a mistake, so obviously presenting us with this dichotomy? Just something for you to think about – perhaps see if you can find some other blogs that address the same question to engage with – if I find one and remember, I will alert you. Thank you and enjoy.
Hi Patrick,
I enjoyed reading your post, especially your last questions. In response to Dr. Paterson’s question about why King is presenting us with this dichotomy when he suggests that dichotomizing orality and textuality is a mistake-
It reminded me of this podcast I listened to a while back about the importance of storytelling in all disciplines, not only history. The argument is that by telling a story, you reach a much broader audience. So no matter the way in which you tell, or the topic of the story, regardless it will grab someone’s attention. I think the point is that the more people you can touch, the better off you are. Isn’t that why people do things to begin with? To make a connection with others?
Here’s the link if you’ve got time to check it out.
http://www.radiolab.org/story/91852-tell-me-a-story/
Edit: Comment posted before I was quite done!
—
I guess my final point is that sometimes you have to go against what you believe/what is expected of you in order to get the reaction you want. Sometimes it’s just easier to get your point across that way.
🙂