At the beginning of this lesson I pointed to the idea that technological advances in communication tools have been part of the impetus to rethink the divisive and hierarchical categorizing of literature and orality, and suggested that this is happening for a number of reasons. I’d like you to consider two aspects of digital literature: 1) social media tools that enable widespread publication, without publishers, and 2) Hypertext, which is the name for the text that lies beyond the text you are reading, until you click. How do you think these capabilities might be impacting literature and story?
The binary model of looking at orality and literacy as somehow representing an evolutionary progression from the spoken word to the written word loses relevance in the context of digital literature where we are able to combine so many different forms of communication into one experience. As pointed out by Courtney MacNeil in “Orality”, “The advent of contemporary Internet culture has encouraged the recognition that oral and textual need not be viewed from a hierarchical perspective” (3). This old hierarchy that places literacy above orality based on the notion that orality is “undeveloped and primitive” and that literacy is “civilized” is rooted in racism and is in need of an overhaul. All that we are doing by thinking in this binary way is creating unnecessary categories for orality and literacy to exist where they are in competition with each other – each looking to devalue the other.
The modern truth however is much more blurred than this as the Internet has created a space where multiple mediums are able to combine to tell one or many stories at the same time. As such, we should be able rethink the way we understand the way we communicate and be comfortable with the changing tide of new media and how it relates to aural, textual and visual information exchange. The impact that these new technologies have on literature and story is complex and far-reaching.
Because we are able to use social media to publish our own work, and that we are able to fashion interactive digital creations that appeal to both the eye and the ear, we must also be mindful of the ways in which our experience is being altered. If we fail to acknowledge the author and the medium, then we are devaluing the process of storytelling and ignoring the history and traditions of orality and literacy at the same time. I think that it is very important to pay attention not only to the source of social media content, but also to the author’s purpose for presenting the information. We must constantly question the role of self publication and social media in telling stories in order to protect the art of writing and storytelling. While it is a wonderful thing that we can all publish our own stories through digital media, I think that we must diligently protect the art of communication by acknowledging the impact that our publications may have on the reader. If the author is choosing to alter the readers experience by adding a tool such as hyperlink, I think that it needs to be very purposeful. If a reader is being introduced to a new aural, textual, or visual experience, I think that they should also think about why that is.
The hyperlink, which serves to interactively connect the reader to additional material within the body of the publication is one of these tools that asks the reader to make a decision. Do they want to click on the link and experience something new, which may or may not (links that lead the reader to related stories) be directly connected to the publication? Do they want to wait until the end of the story to go back and revisit the link for additional information? Or do they choose to ignore the link altogether? All of these choices draw the reader into the story by creating a “choose your own adventure” type of environment; an environment that blends orailty and literacy while also changing the reader’s relationship to the story by offering interactive options.
Works Cited
“Choose Your Own Adventure”. cyoa. N.p. n.d. Web. 17 Jan. 2014
MacNeil, Courtney. Orality. The Chicago School of Media Theory. Uchicagoedublogs. 2007. Web. 19 Feb. 2013.
Paterson, Erika. “Lesson 1.2 Story & Literature.” University of British Columbia. UBC Blogs. 2014. Web. Web. 17.Jan. 2014.
Rice, Waubgeshig. “#20 Electric Powwow”. The Walrus. N.p. Dec. 2013. Web. 17. Jan. 2014.
Hi Paul,
I enjoyed reading your post. I also agree that social media blends oral, textual and visual story-telling together. I also enjoyed how you linked this with choice and how self-publication and the act of choosing to click on a link or not adds on to the experience of story-telling.
Your writing made me think about the way people type on social media/the Internet and how it has evolved, what stigmas are attached to certain ways of typing and how it relates all together. I remember when it was cool to tYPe lyke dis and in some platforms, it is still accepted. However, this type of writing has changed, from my own experience, into a negative connotation. People who still use this typespeak are considered, to relate to the primitive-civilized binary, “primitive” or uneducated. Then you have people who use “ungrammatical” typespeak ironically (no capitalization, shortening of words to single letters, and no punctuation). (These are from my own observations – you may or may not agree.) It is also how some people text message their friends or family or in informal situations.
I found your post very interesting and I especially liked the question you posed: we should definitely question the source as well as the author’s intent for their choice of story telling.
Hi Paul,
I’ll be completely honest; your post caught my eye immediately because I had the exact same CYOA book that you posted a picture of, and a wave of nostalgia just rushed over me.
Aside from that though, a quality you had in your post that really struck me when I re-read it for the second time was how you managed to actively integrated all the points you were making into your post; the podcast to demonstrate your point about orality vs literacy, and the two hyperlink examples with one that was adding to the conversation and the other that was simply additional info. The way it seemed to happen so naturally makes me wonder if it’s because that’s just how our generation have come to know what literacy is as a digital form looks and behaves like. I know many of us in this class were intrigued by this particular question regarding social media and hyperlinks and so I want to extend this question to you; do you think all this discussion about how new technologies affects literature is simply out of necessity and changing times, or is there a layer of introspective thought from us critics in there as well?
Thanks for a great post,
Edward.
Thanks for the response Paul. We definitely agree about the compatible and complementary nature of written and oral mediums.
The discussion of the oral-written dualism has made me think more generally about the tendency to form categories and to equate difference with opposition. I think humans are creatures of categorization in that we seem to have a predilection for grouping things based on certain features and then discussing those groups mainly in terms of the features defining them. This tendency is important, because it helps us capture differences that are crucial for appropriately directing and organizing our thoughts and action. However, because we create these categories of things that share similar elements, we inevitably contrast them with things that do not fit as well and are thus members of different groups; categorization is therefore inclusive and exclusive.
I think the exclusivity of categorization fosters competition and competition entails notions of superiority and inferiority. When we look at certain categories—typically those we belong to and those which encompass qualities that we value or practices that we follow—as contrasting with others, there seems to be an urge to think that ‘our’ categories are superior in some way to those of others. This is the case not only concerning forms of communication, but also political ideology and or even musical taste among other things, and it makes sense given that we often consider ourselves members of one group because we think it’s a better option than being members of a different group.
What often gets lost in this process, however, is the overlap. We group things together because they share certain features, but that doesn’t mean there is no commonality between them and members of other groups. When we speak of categories, we usually just speak of certain elements that its members share, but we could easily bring members from seemingly disparate groups together if we use a different basis for categorization. For example, a Christian and a Hindu may find themselves in different groups if they are formed based on religious beliefs, but the pair may also be grouped together based on sex, nationality, language beliefs about free trade, or a confluence thereof. I think a good way to think of this is by considering analogy, which is often used to highlight elements of similarity among cases that aren’t identical.
Like analogous cases, there are differences between the oral and written traditions, but there also key similarities. As Chamberlin highlights, each tradition has been invaluable in transmitting information that has significantly influenced EVERY culture, whether supposedly oral or written. Imparting wisdom and knowledge through story can be done orally or in writing; there isn’t a uniformly superior modality and they aren’t competing or even mutually exclusive as you note. In this way, the inclusive element of categorization can bring these traditions together as modes of story-telling, sources of insight, and ultimately crucial aspects of cultural change.
I think this is apposite to the points you make in your blog post. You mention that the “old hierarchy that places literacy above orality” is grounded in the view that the former is primitive and the latter is civilized. As Chamberlin suggests, in so-called oral cultures there is a sophistication to the oral tradition and an acuity of listening that develops through being immersed in this tradition. Those who see orality as limited fail to look beyond their own context and thus they don’t appreciate the complexity of this type of communication, making it much easier for them to label it as primitive. I think this is an important point, because while the differences and similarities between orality and literacy have been discussed, here we see how the same medium can take on different meanings and have different impacts, and ultimately what the hierarchal position you mentioned overlooks is that a strong analysis of these forms of communication must be contextualized.
-Spencer