The New North

Your task is to take the story about how evil comes into the world, from King’s text, and change it to tell it. First, learn the story by heart, and then tell the story to your friends and family. When you are finished, post a blog with your version of the story and some commentary on what you discovered. If you want, you can post a video of you telling the story, in place of text.

I decided to retell my version and try to keep it as close to the original as possible, as a type of “telephone game” experiment. My hopes were to see the subtle changes I made to the story through misremembering and put oral tradition into practice. Here is the version I told to my girlfriend Shannon and my friend Jack:

So did you know that there wasn’t always evil in the world? It came here one day. It was a long time ago when the world didn’t really look like it does now. You probably heard that man brought evil into the world, or God, or something like that. But it was actually witches.

A big group of them gathered, from all over the world, and held a competition. The competition was to see who could tell the scariest story or make the scariest potion. There were some good ones that everyone was entertained by and they were all having a good time. Finally, after almost everyone had had a turn, a witch that no one recognized came forward from the shadows. She told a story that made everyone fall silent and listen with awe and intent. It was the most terrifying thing they had ever heard. She spoke of murder and vengeance and said words they had never heard but instantly knew.

When she was done, there was no applause or cheering but only silence. Solemnly, the other witches agreed that she had won the prize. They told her that she had done a good job, too good some said. But they said that they didn’t want the story anymore. They asked her to take it back but she couldn’t. Now that the story had been told there was no way it could be untold. And that is how evil entered the world.

Shannon:

You want my reaction? Well how did that witch find out about evil? Was it Satan? Was she a demon witch? Kind of like a metaphor for the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Once you lose innocence you can’t get it back. It’s gonezo. Really, to call something evil is trivial. We just attach moral sentiment to it.

Jack:

Man, fuck that witch. Why didn’t anybody stop her? At least if someone stopped her halfway through there would only be half the amount of evil in the world. Like, maybe we’d still have murder but rape wouldn’t be a thing. Or maybe we’d still have betrayal but no one would ever step on a Lego. I’d be okay with that trade-off.

In review, this exercise revealed a lot more than I thought. Going back and reading the story again, I see that there is a lot of missed and some things that I even changed. Hearing Shannon’s reaction’s showed an initially Christian-centric viewpoint and understanding of the story but evolved into something more human. Jack was hilarious and hit on some interesting points that certainly provoke thought.

At the heart of the intersection between story and literature we will easily find the meeting of native and newcomer, and as Chamberlin says, “I keep returning to the experience of aboriginal peoples because it seems to me to provide a lesson for us all. And for all its [Canada] much-vaunted reputation as an international mediator and peacemaker, it is in this story of natives and newcomers that Canada really has something to offer the world” (228).  And, then he goes on to propose: “Why not change underlying title back to aboriginal title?” (229). Explain how Chamberlin justifies this proposal.

Chamberlin’s stories are seemingly endless. The creativity with which he approaches ideas previously unquestioned results in perspectives and understandings otherwise left misunderstood or worse, not contemplated or considered at all. The importance is on not only the stories he writes and their validity, but all stories. The truth of the stories, as he asserts multiple times throughout the novel, is two-fold. It is both real and not real. The stories happened and they didn’t. This understanding is what allows Chamberlin to provoke the argument of changing “underlying title back to aboriginal title.” It is this shift in perspective on which the argument stands.

Canadian understanding of claim and title is based largely upon definitive legislation that leaves no room for the interpretation of stories. Sure, it’s a good thing to be definitive in terms of “equal treatment before and under the law, and equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination” but the legality leaves out a component of understanding and rather proposes one of entitlement (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms).

Chamberlin makes his case simple, he wishes “to give the reader a sense of how important it is to come together in a new understanding of power and the paradox of stories” (239). He warns that the Them and Us mentality is inevitable but that, rather than a choice between one or the other, we should take the stance that, like the validity and truth of stories, coexistence is possible. The physical common ground we share can be more beneficial if understanding is met on both sides of the story. Changing underlying title back to aboriginal title allows the first peoples to keep what is important to them while not sacrificing what is important to the settlers. It is a win-win situation and the only price to pay is the smallest amount of humility and understanding. Not a bad ROI if you ask me.

Works Cited

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 2, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11. Web.

Chamberlin, J. Edward. If This Is Your Land, Where Are Your Stories?: Finding Common Ground. Toronto: A.A. Knopf Canada, 2003. Print.