Where history failed, imagination stepped in

The excerpt of Ruth Sawyer’s book we read for class addresses the history of storytelling as well as the process and the art of the storyteller. The title of this post is a quotation from Sawyer about the invention and exaggeration that came to be a part of storytelling. I like how Sawyer points out that everyone tells stories throughout the day, but being able to tell stories is not the same as being a storyteller. She then goes on to claim a position for storytelling as part of the arts. Earlier in the text she notes, “The art of storytelling lies within the storyteller, to be searched for, drawn out, made to grow” (26). The art of storytelling requires: experience, building of background, creative imagination, and gift for selection (26). I found this excerpt to be an interesting read, and I hope I have time to finish reading the whole book. Sawyer’s work provides an excellent introduction to the art of storytelling and ignites interest—at least for me—in learning more about the subject.

 

Sawyer, Ruth. The Way of the Storyteller. New York: Penguin Books, 1942. 15-112.

More from Ong’s Orality and Literacy

“Writing Restructures Consciousness”

In this chapter, Ong discusses the paradoxical position of Learned Latin. Latin was a writing-based language (there were no purely oral users), yet Latin’s roots in classical rhetoric also kept it rooted in orality. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that rhetoric, though concerned with oral speech, is a product of writing (108). Ong also notes that Learned Latin was only present in an educational setting, thus “it had no direct connection with anyone’s unconscious of the sort that mother tongues, learned in infancy, always have (111). Ong credits this distance with making possible the abstract thinking necessary for the development of modern science (112).

Ong goes on to discuss the “tenaciousness of orality” vis-à-vis rhetoric. What this means is that orality continued to have a huge influence on writing up through the nineteenth century. As Ong comments, texts were intended to be read aloud. Some well-known authors, such as Charles Dickens, read aloud selections from their works. The practice of author readings still continues today, and some of these readings can be seen on BookTV.

“Print, Space, and Closure”

There is so much information in this chapter that I am just going to list what I found to be the most important/interesting points.

• “Print reinforces the sense of language as essentially textual” (128).
• With print, there was a sense of private ownership of words. Out of this sense of ownership, we see the gradual development of a resentment of plagiarism (129).
• Print allowed us to examine our own consciousness, to think of ourselves as selves (129).
• The finality of the printed work—the physical book—encourages us to think that the text itself is complete (130).

At the end of this chapter, Ong posits that the electronic age has brought about a secondary orality. He claims, “This new orality has striking resemblances to the old in its participatory mystique, its fostering of a communal sense, its concentration on the present moment, and even its use of formulas” (134). Yet, Ong also points out “it is essentially a more deliberate and self-conscious orality, based permanently on the use of writing and print” (134). Because of the profound influence writing and print have had on society and the human psyche, we can never return to that primary orality. Like Bourdieu explains, when the old is made new it is never exactly the same, but rather is modified by what has come since. However, new technologies have enabled us to create a sort of hybrid culture in which literacy and orality interact.

The Practical Impact of Writing

After reading Roger Chartier’s “The Practical Impact of Writing,” my first thought is that the title is misleading. I expected to read a discourse on chirographic culture and the importance of writing. Instead, Chartier is concerned with reading, specifically increased literacy, the availability of books, and the impact of silent reading. I also have issues with some of Chartier’s language in the section on geography and literacy. He refers to northern Europe as “culturally more advanced” than the rest of the continent (122). He also calls southern Europe “backward” (122). Lower literacy rates do not indicate the level of culture.

On a more positive note, I enjoyed Chartier’s discussion of animosity toward writing. He uses the example of Jack Cade’s rebellion in Shakespeare’s Henry VI, Part 2, to illustrate the reasons why some people rejected writing. Chartier also notes that there was hostility among the upper classes toward the proliferation of printed books. I absolutely agree with his assertion that the hostility stemed from the fact that those “who had hitherto enjoyed a monopoly of the production and discussion of knowledge” were reluctant to relinquish power (125).

In the section on silent reading, Chartier claims printing “should not be credited with intellectual and psychological changes that were really the result of a new method of reading” (126). His comment seems to be an argument against Elizabeth Eisenstein. In response to his comment, I think Eisenstein would argue that printing brought about the widespread practice of silent reading, and was, thus, responsible for intellectual and psychological changes.

There were two topics briefly discussed in Chartier’s work which I would like to explore further. First, his observation about the relationship between reading and religion in America was interesting. I would like to read more about how American culture came to be defined by familiarity with the Bible. Second, Chartier notes that “in the eighteenth century the iconography of reading is exclusively female and secular, whereas previously it had been almost entirely male and religious” (135). What exactly brought about the shift to reading as a “female” activity?

Note-taking and Memory

As noted in Blair’s article and the class discussion, there is some debate about the effect of note-taking on the memory. Some argue that note-taking functions to weaken the memory because writers substitute a written record for a firm memory. On the other hand, note-taking can free the energy of the mind previously spent on memorization thereby allowing time/capability for invention and discovery. If things are stored outside of the memory, then we are free to recall and play with memories. I tend to agree with the latter view on note-taking.

I learn best from writing. Of course, as I have learned from Ong, the role of writing in my learning process is due to the fact that I come from a highly literate, chirographic culture. I have to take notes to free up my mind to learn something new. I also like the way that notes allow me to revisit the past–not only to refresh my memory about what I learned or how I thought at the time, but also to reevaluate that knowledge with new eyes and fresh perspective.

Hopefully my last post on Bordieu

Whew! I finally managed to finished reading “The Field of Cultural Production.” Moreover, I think I get it. Bordieu’s discussion of the negative correlation between economic profit (popularity with readers) and symbolic profit (status within the field). I agree with Bourdieu that there are competing “principles of legitimacy.” Authors and artists are pulled between the expectations of their field–which value innovation and denigrate commercial success–and the expectations of their audience as well as the need to make a living. Bourdieu’s explanation of the way position-taking occurs and the effect of position-taking on the structure of the field was illuminating.

More thoughts on “text”

After today’s class discussion, it seems like my definition of text is incomplete. I defined text as anything which can be read, but I should clarify that the text must impart meaning. A text is not a random collection of symbols, but rather is a meaningful formulation/collection of symbols or words. Furthermore, while the text itself may be constant, the interpretation of the text changes. The changing interpretation is due to the influence of the foundation and perspective of each reader.

Bourdieu Revisited

I tried reading Bourdieu again. I still have not finished it, but at least I got past the first page this time. So far, he seems to be discussing “art for art’s sake” versus art for profit/power. I am not sure yet how this relates to print culture and society.

ETA:

Our brief discussion of Bordieu in today’s class helped me to focus on what I should be looking for when I read his work. The important questions Bordieu asks are:

• Who has the power to produce texts under certain circumstances?
• What socio-economic factors affect who gets heard?
• If one is able to produce text, will it be received as popular culture or literature?

Miscellanea

In one of our class meetings someone brought up fan fiction. Here is an interesting article about the practice of writing fan fiction.

Someone in class also mentioned the growing virtual property trend. Well, the murky legal situation has put a stop to virtual property auctions on eBay.

Ong’s Orality

So far, I really like Walter J. Ong’s Orality and Literacy. His style is very clear and readable. I also really like how Ong uses examples from non-Western as well as Western cultures to support his points.

Since a significant portion of class discussion has focused on the definition of text, I thought I would point out Ong’s explanation of the issue. According to Ong

‘Text’, from a root meaning ‘to weave’, is, in absolute terms, more compatible etymologically with oral utterance than is ‘literature,’ which refers to letters etymologically/(literae) of the alphabet. Oral discourse has commonly been thought of even in oral milieus as weaving or stitching…But in fact, when literates today use the term ‘text’ to refer to oral performance, they are thinking of it by analogy with writing. (13)

If we take Ong’s thoughts on text into account, then the expansion of the definition of text beyond the written and printed word may actually discount the value and uniqueness of oral discourse and other modes of expression. I actually agree with Ong’s assertion that literates cannot fully understand and examine oral culture because they are, in a sense, limited by their literacy.

This leads me to another of Ong’s points which I found particularly interesting. A substantial portion of chapters 2 and 3 are devoted to exploring the ways in which the ways of thinking in a primarily oral culture are different from the ways of thinking in a written/literate culture. I am not implying that oral culture is more primitive; rather, it is simply different from a culture shaped by writing. I found Ong’s discussion of situational versus abstract thinking particularly illuminating. Ong summarizes a study by A.R. Luria which examined illiterate and somewhat literate persons in Uzbekistan and Kirghizia (49-57). For me, Luria’s study was the proverbial lightbulb. It made everything that Ong was arguing make sense. I never knew that the way literate people think is not “natural”, but is shaped by the structures of logic found within writing.

I also like the way that Ong’s work redeems the term “illiterate.” In a highly literate society, “illiterate” takes on a negative connotation. However, as Ong notes, illiterate people are not less intelligent than literates; rather, those who are illiterate may simply be unfamiliar with writing and the ways of thinking that come with literacy.

Bourdieu

Wait…what?

I’m not sure if my problems with the text stem from the particular translation or if the problems are due to differing “habits of mind.”

I am going to blame my lingering cold for my inability to formulate a response to “The Field of Cultural Production.”