reading response

Finally finished all of the reading. Whew! I finished up with the Ong, since I was waiting for my copy to arrive by mail, and I wish now that I had read it first, since it provides a nice foundation for the other readings. Oh well, bygones. Even though I was reading it quickly up against a deadline, Orality and Literacy had the most impact for me, of all of the readings. I liked the style and organization of the reading, but more than that, I thought the points Ong made were fascinating and insightful. I loved his analogy of describing the concept of oral literature is like describing a horse as a wheel-less car. I also really liked the idea of the written word as cultural residue, gradually building up and lasting from generation to generation. The terminology is an interesting problem, though, since the concept of “oral literature” is a bit of an oxymoron. I have also heard oral works referred to as texts, with the entomological justification of “weavings”. For me, though regardless of the original derivation, the term “text” connotates the written word even more than the term “literature”. “Voicings” is a fun alternative. But I digress.
The descriptions of the oral tradition, and its significant differences from typographical culture, were quite illuminating. For me, it brought the works of Chaucer and other medieval writers to mind. In studying these works in the past, I was always surprised to discover how derivative they were. Almost none of the basic stories in Canterbury Tales are actually Chaucer’s original creations, but new tellings of older narratives. When I learned this, it seemed so alien to my thinking of literature as telling a unique and original story. I was surprised to discover that it was the original story that was the alien idea in Chaucer’s time, when the true art was reworking existing tales. After reading Ong, this makes more sense. The oral idea of originality as not so much “the introduction of new material but fitting the traditional materials effectively into each individual, unique situation and/or audience” (Ong, 59) is clearly still at play in this time, though it is mutating already.
I also found the description of the essential differences between sight and sound interesting…reminded me of Joyce’s Stephen Deadalus and his “ineluctable modality of the visible”. Overall, the Ong really resonated with me…it made sense, and brought a lot of interesting points across.
The short Plato excerpt was interesting, as well. Phaedrus is such a yes man. :-) It is rather disconcerting to think of writing as merely the illusory appearance of wisdom, though. Are literate people really difficult to get along with, having the mere appearance of wisdom, but no actual knowledge? It is certainly true that we, as a culture, have completely put our trust in writing, which has manifested itself in good and bad ways. The idea of writing “introduc(ing) forgetfulness into the soul of those who learn it”(Norton, 79) is so ominous and sad, somehow. It makes me want to abandon writing entirely, and live a purely oral existence in order to repair my soul…well, not entirely, but at least for tonight. And with that, I shall sign off. See you all in class in a few hours…


Jen