Question 1: In his article, “Godzilla vs. Post-Colonial,” King discusses Robinson’s collection of stories. King explains that while the stories are written in English, “the patterns, metaphors, structures as well as the themes and characters come primarily from oral literature.” More than this, Robinson, he says “develops what we might want to call an oral syntax that defeats reader’s efforts to read the stories silently to themselves, a syntax that encourages readers to read aloud” and in so doing, “recreating at once the storyteller and the performance” (186). 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 both King’s article and Robinson’s story.
I’ll begin this week with a quote from Thomas King’s “Godzilla vs. Post Colonial”, which asks readers to confront our relationships with the assumptions we make, and how they dictate our actions:
“Assumptions are a dangerous thing. They are especially dangerous when we do not even see that the premise from which we start a discussion is not the hard fact that we thought it was, but one of the fancies we churn out of our imaginations to help us get from the beginning of an idea to the end” (King 183).
To provide an example for his discussion of assumptions, King tells us the story of his short basketball career in which, due to his height, it was assumed that he would be a good player. Even when he wasn’t, this assumption still pushed him and his coach to believe in his potential ability. This example dissects the way in which humans who are used to tidy stories which make linear “sense” to them, based on their ideologies, will follow pathways of action based on assumptions of their outcome regardless of their consequences or signs which tell them to do otherwise. King’s discussion of assumptions made me think about the way which our choices are often based on imagined narratives. When we impose our ideas of narrative structure and logic onto our lives, and base our actions on assumptions that we hear and consume around us, we are often blinded to realities that lie outside of them.
This relates closely to King’s discussion of the different styles of storytelling and literature which exist in First Nations’ cultures. Kings work opens up a number of questions for me: If my mind is trained to follow certain pathways, do I allow these story lines to dictate how I understand the world around me? Can I combat this? Can I retrain my mind to follow new paths, and stop relying on the assumptions of my culture? How does this affect my ability to listen to and understand stories which do not reflect what I’ve come to expect of narratives?
King takes issue with the term “post-colonial”, challenging some of the assumptions which the use of this term makes:
Post-Colonial “assumes that the starting point for that discussion is the advent of Europeans in North America. At the same time, the term organizes the literature progressively suggesting that there is both progress and improvement . . . [and] also assumes that the struggle between guardian and ward is the catalyst for contemporary Native literature, providing those of us who write with method and topic. And, worst of all, the idea of post-colonial writing effectively cuts us off from our traditions, traditions that were in place before colonialism ever became a question, traditions which have come down to us through our cultures in spite of colonization, and it supposes that contemporary Native writing is largely a construct of oppression” (King 185).
King’s dissection of the term “post-colonial” reveals the way in which it frames Indigenous existence, and further their culture, art, and writing, through its relationship to colonialism and settler culture. This way of thinking devalues the past, present, and future of Indigenous work, not allowing it to stand independently. Because settlers will always, to some degree, be unable to separate themselves from settler ideologies, I think it’s important that Indigenous artists be able to define and categorize their work for themselves.
King proposes his own list of categories for First Nations literature, while acknowledging that it cannot attempt to encompass the work of all First Nations Artists: “I lean towards terms such as tribal, interfusional, polemical, and associational to describe the range of Native writing. I prefer these terms for a variety of reasons: they tend to be less centred and do not, within the terms themselves, privilege one culture over another; they avoid the sense of progress in which primitivism gives way to sophistication” (King 185).
The use of these terms combats a number of the problems with the term “post-colonial”, creating informative ways to categorize Indigenous work without framing it through a colonial lens. King’s terms place these artists instead within the ongoing traditions of their Indigenous cultures, as well as within a body of contemporary work which isn’t defined by a connection to colonialism.
I found that reading King’s “Godzilla vs. Post-Colonial” before approaching Harry Robinson’s “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King of England”, from his book Living by Stories: A Journey of Landscape and Memory, made me think critically about the way I was consuming and processing this work. I tried to approach Robinson’s story with an open mind and attempt to stop myself from jumping to conclusions and assumptions about the work. King classifies Robinson’s work as interfusional literature, which he describes as “that part of Native literature which is a blending of oral literature and written literature” (King 186). While reading and re-reading Robinson’s work, I noticed that it felt more natural reading it out loud. In fact, in my first read through, I started reading silently, and ended up reading out loud instead. Even while I was reading silently, I still felt that the work was being spoken, and that the writing felt more like the transcription of a spoken story. I think this effect is result of Robinson’s unique and intentional style which allows his work to exist both in writing and in spoken word.
Robinson thus blurs the imagined lines between orality and literature. I believe that any attempt to clearly divide the written and oral is a false dichotomy and another assumption which needs to be broken down. Further, I find Robinson’s “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King of England” to be a valuable tool for viewing the oral/written binary as constructed in a variety of ways:
- While reading Robinson’s story, it was impossible to detach it from a storyteller; I was unable to read it without imagining someone there telling the story to me. I believe this effect was achieved due to elements of syntax and style. Here are some of these stylistic choices I noticed:
- The work contains many short lines and widely varies the length of its sentences, which made the work seem conversational.
“They not satisfied.
They tighten ’em again and let ’em go.
Fly around the same way.
Three times” (Robinson 78). - The story’s repetition from line to line reminded me of a story being told orally, as the storyteller uses this repetition to emphasize important points in the story. This style choice strikes me as something uncommon in written stories.
“Can never be sold.
Can never be changed.
Can be trade.
That’s all.
Can be trade.
Can be surveyor, surveyor.
Can be trade,
but never can be sold” (Robinson 74).
- The work contains many short lines and widely varies the length of its sentences, which made the work seem conversational.
- Further, Robinson’s work creates a dynamic between storyteller and listener. The speaker is passing on a story which has been influenced by millennia of tradition and storytelling. Listeners feel that the storyteller is carrying forward an oral history to today’s audiences.
- Finally, Robinson’s work removes the disconnect felt when one simply reads a text and doesn’t feel the human and the history behind it. We feel not only a connection between storyteller and listener, but also between the past/tradition and our context today.
Because of these aspects of Robinson’s story, it embodies what King describes as interfusional literature, blending the oral and written. It deconstructs binaries of thought which depict the spoken and the written as separate instead of fluid. Seeing this dichotomy deconstructed, and thinking about Robinson and King’s words this week, I’ve realized how I process writing myself is influenced by my experience with spoken narratives, and that when I listen to a story spoken aloud, it is in many ways also textual, as I conceive of the words in writing in my mind. I’m curious if others have felt similarly, perhaps reading the words someone has spoken over in your mind, or reading a book and imagining the sound of the words, perhaps feeling compelled to speak them out loud. Let me know in the comments!
This assignment also made me consider my roll as a storyteller in my job as a nanny. The children I work with are too young to read themselves, so I read many storybooks to them. I also tell them stories about my own life, or make up bedtime stories for them, sourcing from other stories I’ve heard and fusing them with the children’s interests. When I was a child, I looked forward to being told stories every night before bed. Here’s a short article about the benefits of telling stories to kids. I would like to add that I believe storytelling without a source text is equally beneficial, and has some further advantages as well, as it allows for more interaction and thus allows stories to be created by both the teller and listener.
Work Cited
King, Thomas. “Godzilla vs. Post-Colonial.” Unhomely States: Theorizing English-Canadian Postcolonialism. Mississauga, ON: Broadview, 2004. 183- 190.
https://pennersf.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/godzilla-complete.pdf
Robinson, Harry. “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King of England.” Living by Stories: A Journey of Landscape and Memory, Talon Books, 2005, pp. 64–85.
https://www-deslibris-ca.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/ID/409398
Talonbooks. “Harry Robinson: Living by Stories A Journey of Landscape and Memory.” Talonbooks, 2005.
https://talonbooks.com/books/harry-robinson:-living-by-stories
“Three Benefits of Telling Stories to Children.” Schoolbag: The Education News Site, Ministry of Education, Singapore , 18 May 2018.
http://www.citationmachine.net/bibliographies/411079210?new=true
The CanLit Guides Editorial Team. “Orature and Literature.” CanLit Guides, The University of British Columbia, 22 Nov. 2013.
http://canlitguides.ca/canlit-guides-editorial-team/orature-and-literature/