Write a blog that hyper-links your research on the characters in GGRW according to the pages assigned to you. Be sure to make use of Jane Flick’s reference guide on your reading list.

My section is pages 331 – 339, but I have adjusted it to be 330-40 so that it is an entire section (working from the 2007 print, not the 1993). There are a lot of names covered, so I decided to comprise a list of all of them, and then write on the ones which are the main characters of this section. You’re going to have to be patient with me for this! *Ahem* Just kidding, lists are the fun part….?

——————————————————

Bill Bursum, The Indians, John Wayne, Richard Widmark, Lone Ranger, Ishmael, Robinson Crusoe, Lionel, Old Indians, Hawkeye, Eli, Charlie, Minnie, Coyote , Louie, Latisha, Ray, Al, the dead dog cafe, Cynthia, Sun Dance, Blossom, Harley, Latisha’s mother, Aunt Norma, Latisha’s ex-husband George, Latisha’s father, Four older women, Mrs. Potts, Latisha’s son Christian, Alberta.

Phew, okay now that that is done (it’s okay, you don’t have to tell me that you didn’t read that part) lets get on to the fun stuff!

In this part of King’s novel Green Grass Running Water, we are primarily between the Dead Dog Cafe and flash backs to Latisha and Georges honeymoon at Sun Dance (334-340). The main characters in this section are the names which I will be looking into!

Latisha: Name of African-American descent. Which is very interesting as Latisha is from the Blackfoot Tribe (131).

Louis, Ray, & Al: “Louis, Ray, Al, a pun on Louis Riel” (Flick 161).

Additionally, “Métis leader, founder of Manitoba, central figure in the Red River and North-West resistances (born 22 October 1844 in Saint-Boniface, Red River Settlement; died 16 November 1885 in Regina, SK)” (Canadian Encyclopedia)

Bill Bursum (or Billy): “King combines the names of two men famous for their hostility to Indians. Holm O. Bursum (1867-1953) was a senator from New Mexico who advocated the exploration and development of New Mexico’s mineral resources. With his eye on the map of New Mexico, he proposed the infamous Bursum Bill of 1921, which aimed to divest Pueblos of a large portion of their lands and to give land title and water rights to non-Indians… The Buffalo Bill part of the name refers to William R Cody (1846-1917), an exploiter of Indians for entertainment in BuffaloBill Cody’s Wild West Show” (Flick 148).

George: A very European name. Highlights George’s ‘whiteness’ in comparison to others in the story.

Dead Dog Cafe: “Part of the jokes about traditional Blackfoot cooking and tourists’ desire for the exotic…. Also refers to starving Indians having to eat their dogs. Possibly a play on Nietzsche’s assertion that ‘God is Dead‘ [RR]. Note that Thomas King’s Dead Dog Café Comedy Hour (CBC 1996-) is a ‘spinoff'”(Flick 149). 

Sun Dance: A religious festival lasting 4-8 days. 

Blossom: “The setting, a town in Alberta. Blossom is also featured in King’s One GoodStory,That One; see ‘How Corporal Colin Sterling Saved Blossom, Alberta, and Most of the Rest of the World.’… The name suggests natural beauty and regeneration, as well as the smallness of the town” (Flick 147).

What I found interesting about this assignment, is that names have meaning and King was very intentional about his. The tension between Latisha and George is not only in their relationship, but also in their names. When you say the two together, you can ‘feel’ as if they do not belong – emphasized by the troubles in their marriage.

The Dead Dog Cafe was also an engaging narrative choice. We not only have the religious component to it “God is Dead” but also the cultural reference to Indians (pardon my usage of the word) who were starving choosing to eat their dogs. Additionally, one wonders what sort of establishment it as the name makes it sound like it would not be an appealing place to eat, yet people seem to go there.

The Sun Dance festival was also an very telling place for King to choose Latisha and George to have their honeymoon. Not only does the reader experience the cultural differences between the couple, but also Georges lack of understanding/caring towards Latisha’s culture. All he wants to know is if the Teepee door locks so that they can have sex (King 337)- yet the Sun Dance festival is a religious one “dedicated to showing the continuity between life and death” and emphasizes an equality between all things natural (see Sun Dance hyperlink).

Finally, King’s play on names with Bill Bursum and Louis, Ray & Al demonstrates a respect for both the historic and oral traditions. With Bill Bursum’s name, one is required to look up its meaning, but with Louis, Ray and Al, all one has to do is say their names out loud to get it (and have attended your high school’s socials/history class during the Canadian portion)!

King’s novel Green Grass Running Water asks us to actively engage with the text – not just read through it. He blends together both the oral and written traditions, and has created an exciting story for us to work with.

Works Cited

“Buffalo Bill.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2015. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Bill>.

“BURSUM, Holm Olaf – Biographical Information.” BURSUM, Holm Olaf – Biographical Information. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2015. <http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=b001144>.

Cherry Blossom Trees. N.d. Images4.fanpop. Web. 15 Mar. 2015. <http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/19800000/Cherry-Blossom-Tree-trees-19838733-750-500.jpg>.

“God Is Dead, Nietzsche Is Dead” N.d. Flikr, n.p.

“Louis Riel.” The Canadian Encyclopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2015. <http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/louis-riel/>.

“Meaning, Origin and History of the Name Latisha.” Behind the Name. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2015. <http://www.behindthename.com/name/latisha>.

“Meaning, Origin and History of the Name George.” Behind the Name. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2015. <http://www.behindthename.com/name/george>.

“Places: Blossom, Alberta, Canada.” Blossom, Alberta, Canada. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2015. <https://www.librarything.com/place/Blossom,+Alberta,+Canada>.

“Sun Dance.” Sun Dance. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Mar. 2015. <http://www.crystalinks.com/sundance.html>.

“The Dead Dog Café Comedy Hour.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2015. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dead_Dog_Caf%C3%A9_Comedy_Hour>.

What are the major differences or similarities between the ethos of the creation story you are familiar with and the story King tells in “The Truth About Stories” ?

King tells two creation stories in The Truth About Stories, since his second story is the biblical version ( the story I am familiar with) I will focus on his first story – A nosy woman.

A Casual Paraphrase….

His story is about a woman called Charm who is very curious. As she goes about her day, she encounters things (toes, moose etc) and is told she shouldn’t be so curious. There is no apparent ‘consequence’ to her curiosity, until she meets badger who tells her to not dig too deep and to not blame him if she makes a mistake. Charm, of course, does dig too deep and falls through the sky. She lands in the ocean where she meets a bunch of animals who try and figure out what to do with her. She asked them if they can get her some mud, and so otter dives down to the bottom of the ocean and brings up some. Charm then creates land, and some animals live on it with her. She then births her twins, who go around the earth creating trees, mountains, water falls, valleys and, finally, humans.

Similarities and Differences between the Ethos of the Two Stories

So, the creation story that I grew up with and still hold to be true is the Christian story of Creation. I shall be comparing the story of Charm to it. I believe that the creation story is in fact of a Hebrew Poetry genre and so that opens up my analysis for some metaphorical and not strictly literal interpretation (this is a funny video that always comes to mind when I say literal or literally…). Although I do believe in a God who could easily create a world in 7 days, 1 hour, 1 sec (you catch my drift) I think that the authors of Genesis wanted us to experience the awe-some-ness of creation rather than the technicalities. 

What I found interesting about these two experiences of a creation narrative is how the story of Charm already has animals (who talk!!!!!) in existence before land and vegetation, whereas the Christian story is a play-by-play of how everything in this world builds on each other. When it comes to the experience with an animal before each character’s fall, we have a snake who tempts Eve and Adam and we have the badger who warns Charm.

When we compare the consequences we see that Charm literally falls, whereas Eve and Adam spiritually fall. Additionally,  Charm’s story continues with the creation of the earth coming from her fall, whereas Adam and Eve’s story ends and the biblical narrative of the redemption of humankind begins. Charms curiosity can be parallel to the tree in the garden, but instead of it being a rule and a sign of man’s freewill, animals just tell her that she shouldn’t be curious.

It is amazing how these two narratives, although quite different, share the similar principle that the rejection of the rules set out to make us thrive have consequences – big or small.

So reader, what do you think?

Works Cited

“Genesis 1 Is Hebrew Poetry.” YouTube. YouTube, 6 Dec. 2013. Web. 09 Mar. 2015. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnerB4Wwk_Y>.

“Key & Peele – You Can Do Anything.” YouTube. YouTube, 26 Sept. 2012. Web. 09 Mar. 2015. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlD9JYP8u5E>.

King, Thomas. The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative. Peterbough:Anansi Press. 2003. Print.

2) For this blog assignment, I would like you to research and summarize one of the state or governing activities, such as The Royal Proclamation 1763, the Indian Act 1876, Immigration Act 1910, or the Multiculturalism Act 1988 – you choose the legislation or policy or commission you find most interesting. Write a blog about your findings and in your conclusion comment on whether or not your findings support Coleman’s argument about the project of white civility.

Fore ward:

To begin: watch this video

Funny isn’t it? Some might say cute. Some a burst of nationalism.

However- is that what it is to be Canadian? Prancing around in Mounty outfits talking about maple syrup and beavers? We all know that that is just a play on our stereotypes… as we live in a multicultural society and therefore what is “Canadian” is completely up for grabs.

———————————–

 Multiculturalism Act of 1988

The Canadian Multiculturalism Act of 1988 was passed to protect and enable Canada’s broad spectrum of citizens and their respective cultures. The act is supposed to govern the government’s decisions as they navigate the laws of a country that is blessed to have a diverse group of human beings living it in. The laws stem from protecting the individual to mass rights, while enabling the social, economic, political and cultural rights/freedoms. They are an amazing set of laws that mean that our country can be a fruitful and educational place to live as we can experience so much of the world right here on our soil!

However, section D was the one that stood out to me:

“recognize the existence of communities whose members share a common origin and their historic contribution to Canadian society, and enhance their development” (Canadian Multicultural Act).

When I look at the relationship between the First Nations and the Canadian Government I see nothing but a broken system where both sides are not intentionally moving forward (yes, I know that most will disagree with me on this). However, and please excuse me while I rant, any relationship therapist will tell you that hanging on to past hurts does not promote health and healing. What happened to the Aboriginals of Canada was tragic, I cannot and will not deny that. But holding onto said past does not help either- Canadians should never forget, but we also have such potential to move forward and create a better country.

I would love to see a day where we as a COUNTRY full of LOTS of cultures can ALL move forward and develop this beautiful land that we ALL call home.

Okay, rant over – sorry if that was hard to get through and I do not blame you if you chose to skip over it all together.

Back to Section D – the part that stood out to me was the sentence “enhance their development”. I think it is pretty obvious that when we look at the Aboriginal Peoples today that there is some under lying issue-which no body can give me a straight/exact answer to – that is preventing their people/culture from developing. (If someone can educate me further on this, PLEASE respond in the comment box!!!!)

Coleman’s Argument:

A key line stood out to me regarding Coleman’s argument: “White Canadian culture is obsessed and organized by its obsession, with the problem of its own civility” (Coleman 5). When I look at the Multicultural Act, made by a white government, I can see how we like to categorize our country. We made a series of laws to demonstrate how we, a civilized and multicultural country, can have so many cultures as we created an ACT to govern them.

And yes, the act was made with the intention to protect – but are we now so obsessed with multiculturalism we no longer know what our culture actually is?

Works Cited

“Canadian Multiculturalism Act (R.S.C., 1985, C. 24 (4th Supp.)).” Legislative Services Branch. Government of Canada, n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2015. <http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C%2D18.7/page-1.html#h-3>.

Coleman, Daniel. White Civility: The Literary Project of English Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006.

Gunnarolla. “Canadian, Please | Gunnarolla & Julia Bentley.” YouTube. YouTube, 24 June 2009. Web. 26 Feb. 2015. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWQf13B8epw>.

Read “Coyote Makes a Deal with King of England”, in Living by Stories. Read it silently, read it out loud, read it to a friend, and have a friend read it to you. See if you can discover how this oral syntax works to shape meaning for the story by shaping your reading and listening of the story. Write a blog about this reading/listening experience that provides references to the story.

So, this question grabbed my attention immediately. As an English Literature student, I am forced *ahem* privileged to read thousands of pages in one year. However, so much of my reading experience is defined as simple, quick, and get the basic information, rather than ‘slowly work your way through and pay attention’. I might be throwing myself under the bus here… but hey, I was always told that honesty was a good thing! (Plus… I don’t think I’d ever get to go outside if I read 5 courses worth of material at a slow pace….. oye….)

There are some key differences is the oral versus optical versions in “Coyote Makes a Deal with King of England”. First and foremost though, please read through the few notes I made about each experience before getting to read my ‘big conclusion’. 

————————————————–

Silently

I read through the story fairly quickly – I suppose I am just used to seeing a text and powering through it to get the basic ‘gist’ of the plot and its’ points. I found the beginning was hard to understand, I did not really comprehend the chasing of the boat and the fog part until the Coyote went to England and explained to the King how his men have been coming onto his land. Then it clicked for me that this was a colonial tale.

The story really picked up pace and I found the voice of the narrative changed when we got to around 1850, and I enjoyed the rest of the narrative.

Out loud

Really hard to read, the sentence structure is awful and it you really get a sense of the broken english. (Felt like I sounded similar to this kid). When the Coyote gets to England, that starkly broken english feel changes. I experienced ‘better english sentences’, albeit they were not perfect. Then it switches back after they discuss the treaty.

It was really hard to read out loud – the words felt foreign and disconnected to the story. Probably how the Aboriginals feel in regards to the Canada’s story. That they are a part of a story that doesn’t reflect them, as it is heavily determined by the settlers.

To A Friend

My sister (yes, my sister is my friend- big sister isn’t so uncool I guess 😉 ) stared at me and laughed as I started to read. “What the heck is this” she commented. “Sarah, you gotta let me read this – it is just as hard for me to say the words in this order… feels like I am reading a foreign language!” I replied.

So, once we got going… it got a little bit better. I found that I had to read slower than when I was reading it out loud to myself, because I  r e a l l y  had to annunciate so that she could follow this confusing combination of english words. She stopped me a couple times to clarify – and finally we made it to the end. “What a weird story”  was her final comment. I told her that she had to read it back to me… “oh joy” she replied*.

*Just FYI, we are British and therefore heavily sarcastic… so don’t read her as a bratty young adult… she was very happy to do this for me*

Friend Reads to Me

I was shocked at how different this story seemed. By now I knew what was coming, but sitting there listening to Sarah read the story back to me in its’ awkward English was very strange. I felt like I had forgotten how to speak English, and that is why I was having such a hard time understanding her. The story sort of felt like how western culture impersonates the Indian accent. Where this clip of Jim Carrey telling the story is quite hilarious, the way that he phrases his sentences/ the order of his words reminds me of how this story is written. It is in English – but does not reflect our ‘proper’ style. However, I found that listening to the story was way way way more exciting than reading it myself… maybe I should invest in some audio books……..

————————————————–

The oral versus optical versions of this story demonstrate to me how differently we can experience history. When it is read aloud to us, we can sit back and let the story sweep us away into it’s depths. When we read it ourselves, we can get swept away, but more often than not (as I learned from this experience) we wind up focusing on the structure of the words and not their purpose. Rather than just letting the words tell me the story, I got caught up on where they were placed and missed out on bits of it.

Perhaps we can start to tell our own histories in an oral manner, instead of texting, face booking, emailing and blogging them all the time?

So, what do you think? Can you say your story out loud, and how differently would it be?

Works Cited:

Jim Carry – Canada. Perf. Jim Carry. Youtube, 20 Mar. 2008. Web. 11 Feb. 2015. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ic3xNfEP_o&spfreload=10>.

3 Year Old Reading Dr Seuss. Youtube, 12 Jan. 2011. Web. 11 Feb. 2015. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzIZ1415nuM&spfreload=10>.

So, why does King create dichotomies for us to examine these two creation stories? Why does he emphasize the believability of one story over the other — as he says, he purposefully tells us the “Genesis” story with an authoritative voice, and “The Earth Diver” story with a storyteller’s voice. Why does King give us this analysis that depends on pairing up oppositions into a tidy row of dichotomies (divisions)? What is he trying to show us?

King uses these dichotomies to demonstrate how western culture love their opposing forces: “Rich/poor, white/black, strong/weak, right/wrong, culture/nature, male/female, written/oral, civilized/barbaric, success/failure, individual/communal” and how “we trust easy oppositions. We are suspicious of complexities, distrustful of contradictions, fearful of enigmas” (King 308). King uses the opposition between “The Earth Diver” story and the Biblical “Creation” narrative to arguably demonstrate the superiority of the ‘white man’ versus the ‘native’. As he states in his book, Native people enjoyed laughing, so the comical components to their stories are enjoyed by them but they still understand the moral undertones; whereas the European listener only thinks of it as comedy but with no substance (King 277-286).

When I think of our comedy today though, there are enough comedians who point out the absurd actions in our world through humour – so what has changed in our cultural narrative that allows this? Is it because we have become increasingly secular and therefore humour in storytelling is now how we communicate rather than through the authoritative voice?

By creating this binary between the native narrative and the biblical, King causes a sense of opposition in the next -a kind of them or us. So, as believer living in Canada I am faced with this awkward dilemma of either condemning another culture’s creation narrative because I believe that mine is the right one, or accepting it at the expense of feeling that it weakens my own. I would argue however that King is calling his modern audience out on this sort of thinking. Not that I in any way believe that ‘everyone is right’, as I am convinced that that leaves too many loop holes and unanswered questions (in the same way that one can only know what is evil by knowing what is good). So, what is King getting at? I am not convinced that a re-hashing of arguments about creation narratives legitimacy is what King wants, but more how our assumptions and human desires to understand everything cause us to discredit other culture’s stories when we feel that they do not hold up to our ‘intellectual’ standards.

In would appear to me that King’s analysis also creates this opposition to educate us on what happens when different cultures blend. We can see from our history that the European culture took over the Native one, but look around us today – is the Native culture not making a come back, even if it is only a small one at the moment? For example, I attended Immaculate Conception down on Dunbar and 28th Avenue which had a large number of Musqueam children in its’ attendance. I remember that my school would hold a week long educational program once a year during which we would learn about their historical stories, methods of cooking and saving food, their music, and how they would sow and make baskets. I really enjoyed those times – especially Bannock Bread <3 (what I especially enjoyed about this video is how she makes the bread from memory, including measurements, and translates it into our measured and calculated western ways of cooking! Amazing! I would not know what 4 cups of flour would look like….). And from all the blending of cultures that Canada experiences, do we not now have more cultures with their own creation stories all claiming that theirs is the correct one?

Now, I realize I may have left my reader feeling rather cheated as I am not going to delve into the philosophical debate about religion and what is ‘truth’ or ‘right’ as that is not the question – if you have some strong feelings either way and would like to share them, I warmly invite your thoughts into my conversation! 

So… with all that chaos being said – what do you think King is trying to say with his binary-creating analysis of creation stories?

Works Cited:

How To Make Indian Bannock W/Gramma Glenda. Perf. Gramma Glenda. N.p., 12 Mar. 2013. Web. 5 Jan. 2015. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cpw7M6a38b8>.

King, Thomas. The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative. Peterbough:Anansi Press. 2003. Print.

Michael McIntyre – God Save the Queen. Perf. Michael McIntyre. N.p., 12 July 2013. Web. 5 Jan. 2015. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjkHpJuifg4&spfreload=10>.

After reading a few assignments from fellow classmates Charlotte, Devon, Jasmine, and Jessica I realized how privileged I was to be a literary witness to these women’s stories of their experience of home. Home is such a beautiful and sacred thing, but it also made me acutely aware that not everyone in this world has positive associations with home.

I found that the most common understanding of home was that it is a place within you that is built up of memories, scents, food, community, togetherness and not a literal structure. I found this amusing because my reaction to the last blog’s prompt was the same – home is inside of you.

The memories component stretch from stories of family vacations, to difference churches, to smells of home cooked meals, to smells of the air outside. It was so fascinating to see how much of our memory is compiled by all of our senses – touch, sight, sound, taste, smell – what amazing creatures humans are!

It really struck me how internal home was to people. It wasn’t just the place they live(d) in but a combination of everything associated with your physical home – the people, the stories you’ve shared turned into memories, the ‘one-ness’ of the home with family/loved ones.

This makes me consider every song that there is about home might further perpetuating the understanding that home = your house, when, after reading these blog posts, home is warmth of memories surrounding it. Below are some songs which reflect both the house as a home, and memories as a home. I find that they all install a sense of nostalgia and ‘better-ness’ about going back home – either we romanticize the past or we don’t realize how good we have it until we decide to leave ;)! Either way, they are great songs!

Tim McGraw – Meanwhile back at Mama’s 

Phillips Phillips – Home

Edward Shape & The Magnetic Zeros – Home 

Gabrielle Aplin – Home

The Lists:

Assumptions:

Home is where you live when it is actually the memories that construct your emotional connections to ‘home’. Therefore, you can take home with you anywhere because home is in you

Values:

Community, love, togetherness

Stories:

Family trips/vacations/time together

These common threads all have different examples per person but I think it is very beautiful how all these similar stories have different people, places, and time – it creates a bond between one another and at the same time, a great amount of difference.

So, maybe after all that… home is where the heart is?

Works Cited:

“Edward Sharpe & The Magnetic Zeros – Home [2009].” YouTube. YouTube, 19 Aug. 2009. Web. 04 Feb. 2015. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjFaenf1T-Y&spfreload=10>.

“Gabrielle Aplin – Home.” YouTube. YouTube, 9 June 2013. Web. 04 Feb. 2015. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mVbdjec0pA&spfreload=10>.

“Phillip Phillips – Home.” YouTube. YouTube, 2 Aug. 2014. Web. 04 Feb. 2015. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoRkntoHkIE&spfreload=10>.

“Tim McGraw – Meanwhile Back At Mama’s Ft. Faith Hill.” YouTube. YouTube, 26 June 2014. Web. 04 Feb. 2015. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or-Lam5tPHc&spfreload=10>.

Home: a combination of the physical, your emotions and your memories. A structure in your mind that stacks up as you grow older to create an image of what is ‘home’. It doesn’t matter how far away you travel, or if a developer knocks your house down. All experiences of ‘home-ness’ are just added to the mental building block – a structure that survives purely through memory, which no bulldozer can touch.

I can trace back my earliest memory of a house to when I was two and a half years old. I remember running from our front doorsteps to welcome my new baby sister. From there, I remember our next house where I saw that same baby take her first steps, where my sisters and I played with our barbie dolls, where we slid down the slide in our backyard and ran to the playground a couple blocks away.

Then we moved. So where was my home now?

The next house was in a military complex. It had a white door with a gold handle, and had a huge tree out front where we played 40-40 with the neighbourhood kids. I remember this one time my older sister climbed it and got stuck – she was always more daring than I. At the bottom of the yard, we had a swing set near this berry bush. If you squished the berries and put the juice on your skin, you could make look like you were bleeding. We used to prank our mum by coming up to her with ‘blood’ (aka: berry juiced) smeared on our forearms. Three years later, my dad left the army and we moved to Vancouver.

I cried when we left; the neighbourhood kids ran after our car. The idea of ‘home’ was becoming increasingly transitional for me.

A nine hour flight later, we landed in Vancouver, British Columbia. Our new home was on 28th and Dunbar – across from the elementary school my sister and I attended. It was incredibly convenient to have to simply walk across the road to school. The garden wasn’t big, so we used to walk to the playground to play after school hours. Six months later, we were asked to leave.

Bye bye house – off to the next ‘home’.

The place we were renting while my parents found something more permanent was a quaint little house in Kerrisdale. It had a huge plum tree in the back and a toy cart had been left in the garage by the owners for us to play with. We used to sit in it and let ourselves roll free down the sidewalk. Looking back, it is a miracle that none of us died…. those were the good ole’ days.

A couple months later, my parents found a place close by in Shaughnessy. We moved in to this big house with a monkey tree out front – the best direction tip you can give someone coming over to visit. We have lived here for 13 years now – this is where I have the most memories of home-life: lying on the trampoline till the wee hours of the morning, attempting to build a tree fort, breaking down a piece of the fence with a soccer ball, disney nights……

But it is just the last building block placed on my mental stack of ‘home’ – when I move out, the next place will become my literal home. But no one house will be the structure of my mental home.

My mental home is a stack of every single place I have lived in so far. All of these put together construct my understanding of home, as all of them contain memories of family, friends, food, laughter, parties, homework, fights, hugs, meals, sports, cooking, baking, chores, tea, birthdays, smiles, joy, and love. All of the physical structures of home are complimented by the emotions and memories that were created in it.

Home is a mental building block that I take with me every place I go, and add on to with each new chapter of my life.

So… what physical attributes, emotional connections and memories construct your mental home?

Works Cited:

A High-reach Excavator Is Used to Demolish This Tower Block. N.d. Wikipedia. Web. 29 Jan. 2015. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demolition#mediaviewer/File:Hydraulicke_demolicni_nuzky_na_podvozku_CAT_330.jpg>

“Google Maps.” Google Maps. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Jan. 2015. <https://www.google.ca/maps/@54.516059,-6.065704,3a,75y,288.64h,85.54t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sMmuhbW2-2kFFl5PITjGvrA!2e0>.

I have grown up simply enraptured by Disney fairytales… I can’t name many girls and boys who would say that they didn’t.

As I grew older, my love of fairy tales did not diminish and so here I am, an (almost) 22 year old young women acting as a Princess for a children’s Birthday Party Company here in Vancouver!

Because of my love for magic and imagination – I decided to write my story about how evil came into the world with a fairy tale feel to it.

By doing this, the reactions of my friends and family stemmed from “wow, that is a really sad ending! the poor seventh princess” to “I loved how the King reacted, demonstrating mercy instead of anger” to “that wasn’t the fairytale I was expecting”!

These comments demonstrated to me how the stories we tell – be it fantasy, thriller, horror, suspense, romantic, comedic, fairy tale etc. – are all a ‘stock’ way of communication, and yet they are so malleable to the speaker/authors requirements. This malleability means that there is great responsibility – similar to “with great power comes great responsibility” (Voltaire or Uncle Ben or Winston Churchill… whoever tickles your fancy), so it is also with the words we say. Even if our intentions are good – such as with the seventh princess – the words that we say always have either positive or negative consequences.

I hope that you enjoy my fairytale and a not so happy ending…

I have a great story to tell you.

It’s not too long, so don’t think it’s going to be one of those stories I usually tell that goes on and on until there is some useless conclusion. No, this story tells you something important. So listen, listen closely.

Once upon a time….

When you could look at the sky at night time and see millions of stars.

And when the wind rustled through the trees, you could hear their voices talking.

And when the water rumbled over rocks, you could feel the ground quiver.

When things mattered, when people, trees, plants, animals, the ocean.. when it all mattered.

During this time, there was a beautiful kingdom. In this kingdom there were seven princesses. Six of these princesses were all good in their own way, but there was one princess who could never get it right.

One day as the King looked out on the world he ruled, he saw how his people lacked presence. They all existed, and everything was right, but there was something better to be had. And so he declared that there would be a ball and that during this ball each of his daughters would be required to speak a gift and its’ story into the world.

As the news of this spread throughout the Kingdom, men, women and children prepared for this big night.

And the night finally came.

The Grand Hall was full of people, food, drink, flowers, candles, music and fellowship. It was the greatest of parties the kingdom had ever seen.

But too soon it was time for the Princesses to speak each of their gifts into the world.

The first stepped forward

My gift is the gift of love -may stories forever be told of hearts permanently intertwined by this powerful emotion.

The second stepped forward

My gift is the gift of peace – may stories of harmony between people, animals, and earth always be written into the history books.

The third stepped forward

My gift is the gift of joy – may stories of deep seeded contentment with life be told from the hearts of all.

The fourth stepped forward

My gift is the gift of courage – may stories of men and women remaining pure of heart in all of life’s journeys always be shared.

The fifth stepped forward

My gift is the gift of song – may the world be full of stories of sound that are nurturing to the soul.

The sixth stepped forward

My gift is the gift of plenty – may the earth be abundant and so thick of food that we feast for days, and great stories of ancient times be shared.

And then the seventh princess stepped forward.

My sisters gifts are all good, I do not know how to add to them other then to give the gift of knowledge. May man only know each one of these things by knowing what the opposite of it is. And so may stories of hatred, war, sadness, cowardice, silence and scarcity be weaved throughout history.

The Kingdom turned quiet at the princess’ proclamation.

“Take it back!” a voice cried, and in turn a chorus of voices erupted all yelling the same thing.

“Silence” said the King, “this is a tragic day for mankind indeed.” He walked towards his seventh daughter with tears in his eyes. He went to hold her in his arms but his daughter fell to her knees.

“My King” she cried, “please, let me take the gift back. I meant for it to be a good thing… but I see now the evil I have created.”

“Oh my child” the King said with a sad voice, “you cannot take your gift back. Your story has been spoken and now it is done.”

“For once a story is told, it cannot be called back” (King 123).

– The End –

Works Cited:

King, Thomas. The Truth about Stories: A Native Narrative. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota, 2005. Print.

Question Posed:

Explain why the notion that cultures can be distinguished as either “oral culture” or “written culture” (19) is a mistaken understanding as to how culture works, according to Chamberlin and your reading of Courtney MacNeil’s article “Orality.

‘Oral’ and ‘written’ are two examples of poor categorization in regards to culture, as this classification oversimplifies and ignores its own biases. In J. Edward Chamberlin’s novel If This is Your Land, Where are Your Stories? he states: “We are, all of us, much more involved in both oral and written traditions than we might think. And our stories and songs draw on the resources of both” (Chamberlin 20). Chamberlin demonstrates throughout chapter one that the over simplification of defining primitive cultures as ‘oral’ and modern, sophisticated, scientific cultures as ‘written’ “encourages people to treat other societies with a blend of condescension and contempt while celebrating the sophistication of their own” (Chamberlin 19). As explained by Chamberlin, the history of each respective group of people and is not determined by whether or not they literally wrote down their history (Chamberlin 20), but by the simple existence of said history. As Chamberlin is quoted in Courtney MacNeil’s article: “Speech and writing are so entangled with each other in our various forms and performance of language” (MacNeil). Therefore, the separation of the oral and the written creates a misunderstanding in every culture’s respective story.

“This is not to suggest, of course, that we relegate orality to a culturally-specific or regionalized realm. It is worth remembering that to this day, the majority of the world’s inhabitants use orality as their primary communicative medium” (MacNeil). Therefore, it would be wrong to say: ‘because a culture maintains its’ historic records by an ‘oral’ means, that it is less legitimate’. If we look at our primary mode of communication today, we still use speech—not writing—and yet we do not find our history with those around us ‘illegitimate’. “Ultimately, the divide between oral and written history is a misconception. Writing and orality do not exclude each other; rather they are complementary” (Hanson).

In regards to the Aboriginal peoples in Canada, undermining their oral traditions and claiming that because their stories are not written down that they have no legitimacy is a primitive understanding of culture. Aboriginals have just as much history as any other culture, they have just done their record keeping differently to the majority. Therefore in this course it is imperative to remember that ‘oral’ and ‘written’ are not binary to each other but that they are intertwined–even if our ancestors did not view it that way. If we comes at the texts in our Canadian Literature Studies arguing for the legitimacy of orality over written, we lose the stories of those whose cultures write them down. Therefore, we must keep an open and modern approach to documenting history, and notice the times in our past where this was not the case.

Bibliography:

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. Web. 19 Feb. 2013. https://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/mediatheory/keywords/orality/

Hanson, Erin. “Oral Traditions.” Oral Traditions. First Nations Studies Program UBC, n.d. Web. 14 Jan. 2015.  <http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/culture/oral-traditions.html>.

Walbert, Kathryn. “The Value of Oral History.” The Value of Oral History. UNC School of Education, n.d. Web. 14 Jan. 2015.<http://www.learnnc.org/lp/pages/762>.