|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 11, 2011 1:29:09 GMT -5
Oral stories are kind of like audio books, except they went straight to audio without being released in print. (kind of like movies straight to DVD) And what's so bad about the white people writing those stories down? If the natives of whatever country did not believe in writing down their stories, why is it a bad thing for another culture to write it down? For one thing, it was probably done by anthropologists or historians who wanted to preserve the culture, not make the natives feel inferior because they don't write. Another thing is that a lot of those stories would have been lost if they weren't written down. Which is how they become literature. There's nothing wrong with writing them down. It's the attitude I take offense with, for a bunch of white people to say a culture has only gained literature through said white people. It co-op's culture. I'm sorry, but that sounds downright racist. It's not just the culture that gains that literature, it's everyone who ends up reading those stories. Some "white" people may say what you just did, but it's not entirely wrong either. If their stories weren't written down by whomever, people would say they had a great oral tradition. They wouldn't say they had a great oral literature. |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 11, 2011 2:12:58 GMT -5
There's nothing wrong with writing them down. It's the attitude I take offense with, for a bunch of white people to say a culture has only gained literature through said white people. It co-op's culture. I'm sorry, but that sounds downright racist. It's not just the culture that gains that literature, it's everyone who ends up reading those stories. Some "white" people may say what you just did, but it's not entirely wrong either. If their stories weren't written down by whomever, people would say they had a great oral tradition. They wouldn't say they had a great oral literature. Who's been in control of what defines literature though? Up until relatively recently (40 years), it's been western white men. For a long time, the canon was nearly exclusively made up of works from a white, western, male culture. That's racist. It was justified with the concept that reason/knowledge is defined in part by written language. Now that we know better, we should be trying to tear those barriers down, not reaffirm them. |
|
|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 11, 2011 10:48:10 GMT -5
You're right, but progress has been made, now we have writers like Sherman Alexei and Toni Morrison and Langston Hughes. I know it can't possibly make up for the centuries of neglect, but we can't call something literature just so someone doesn't feel left out. It doesn't do justice to anyone, especially the neglected party.
Sure it could be a sub-branch of literature. But oral tradition is just that, oral tradition.
edit// I realized that what I'm saying may be misconstrued as me saying they're not good enough, what I mean is that they deserve their own attention. Their own spotlight.
|
|
andy
Young Armadillo
Posts: 80
|
Post by andy on Jun 12, 2011 16:26:53 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but that sounds downright racist. It's not just the culture that gains that literature, it's everyone who ends up reading those stories. Some "white" people may say what you just did, but it's not entirely wrong either. If their stories weren't written down by whomever, people would say they had a great oral tradition. They wouldn't say they had a great oral literature. Who's been in control of what defines literature though? Up until relatively recently (40 years), it's been western white men. For a long time, the canon was nearly exclusively made up of works from a white, western, male culture. That's racist. It was justified with the concept that reason/knowledge is defined in part by written language. Now that we know better, we should be trying to tear those barriers down, not reaffirm them. Very few non-westerners were actually that bothered by the white western male's culture until recently. They did care about whether or not the white western male butchers them, but culturally, white male values were irrelevant to them because they didn't regard white male culture as culturally relevant and didn't try to integrate themselves in western culture (so the fact that the western canon doesn't include them didn't bother them because they didn't read the western canon, they read their own canons which illustrated their own values). Non-westerners didn't need white culture to tell them that culture and literature exist, they had already known it for many, many centuries. The western canon was only revised recently because until recently the western world really was predominantly white. It's absurd to say that people living in Europe in the 18th century were racist because they didn't value Japanese or African writers when the said Japanese and African writers didn't value European writers either and neither had much of an opportunity to read each other. Only recently western culture has managed to impose its values on everyone and claim a universality and a kind of pretense of 'natural-ness' (westerness is man's natural state) which allows it to include (what used to be) non-western literary works in the western canon. |
|
Dobby
Young Armadillo
Posts: 80
|
Post by Dobby on Jun 12, 2011 16:32:27 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but that sounds downright racist. It's not just the culture that gains that literature, it's everyone who ends up reading those stories. Some "white" people may say what you just did, but it's not entirely wrong either. If their stories weren't written down by whomever, people would say they had a great oral tradition. They wouldn't say they had a great oral literature. Who's been in control of what defines literature though? Up until relatively recently (40 years), it's been western white men. For a long time, the canon was nearly exclusively made up of works from a white, western, male culture. That's racist. It was justified with the concept that reason/knowledge is defined in part by written language. Now that we know better, we should be trying to tear those barriers down, not reaffirm them. I'd just like to point out that we are discussing this on an English major forum. I'm not saying that everyone here is an English speaking native, but I'm sure many of us are. I think the reason most "literature", and especially well known "literature" tends to be from the Western Culture because English is a Western Language. Perhaps if we were all Majoring in Chinese, or some other language like that, our opinion would be different. I'd also like to point out that while a lot of novels I could consider to be literature are written by men, there are some written by women - Mary Shelley, Jane Austen the Brontë sisters, J.K. Rowling, Harper Lee, Margaret Mitchell, Laura Ingalls Wilder, Yoko Kawashima Watkins, Agatha Christie, Emily Dickenson, etc. There are many more, but I won't continue listing. |
|
|
|
Post by afontofnothing on Jun 12, 2011 23:56:42 GMT -5
I think that literature covers all genres, regardless of whether people like it or not. Both a classic and a stupid kid's book about cheerleaders are literature. I'm not saying that the latter is good literature, but it is literature nonetheless. Literature is defined as the entire body of writings of a specific language, period and/or people. So, yes, Twilight is literature of the 21st century (although it pains me to say it).
|
|
|
|
Post by cyanea on Jun 13, 2011 0:05:52 GMT -5
So, yes, Twilight is literature of the 21st century (although it pains me to say it). But we can pretend together that it's not, right? Right? |
|
|
|
Post by andreaisabbbw on Jun 13, 2011 0:23:02 GMT -5
I feel like I've stepped into a discussion of post-colonial criticism.
I agree with afontofnothing that all books are literature to some extent. In the 21st century's defense, it also gave us books like Yann Martel's Life of Pi and Mitch Albom's The Five People You Meet in Heaven.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dodger Thirteen on Jun 13, 2011 0:28:27 GMT -5
I feel like I've stepped into a discussion of post-colonial criticism. *sighs* They do that. Welcome to the world of English majordom. |
|
|
|
Post by andreaisabbbw on Jun 13, 2011 0:32:37 GMT -5
I feel like I've stepped into a discussion of post-colonial criticism. *sighs* They do that. Welcome to the world of English majordom. I know. I feel like I can't get away from it. D: l-o-l |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 13, 2011 8:14:55 GMT -5
Who's been in control of what defines literature though? Up until relatively recently (40 years), it's been western white men. For a long time, the canon was nearly exclusively made up of works from a white, western, male culture. That's racist. It was justified with the concept that reason/knowledge is defined in part by written language. Now that we know better, we should be trying to tear those barriers down, not reaffirm them. Very few non-westerners were actually that bothered by the white western male's culture until recently. They did care about whether or not the white western male butchers them, but culturally, white male values were irrelevant to them because they didn't regard white male culture as culturally relevant and didn't try to integrate themselves in western culture ( so the fact that the western canon doesn't include them didn't bother them because they didn't read the western canon, they read their own canons which illustrated their own values). Non-westerners didn't need white culture to tell them that culture and literature exist, they had already known it for many, many centuries. The western canon was only revised recently because until recently the western world really was predominantly white. It's absurd to say that people living in Europe in the 18th century were racist because they didn't value Japanese or African writers when the said Japanese and African writers didn't value European writers either and neither had much of an opportunity to read each other. Only recently western culture has managed to impose its values on everyone and claim a universality and a kind of pretense of 'natural-ness' (westerness is man's natural state) which allows it to include (what used to be) non-western literary works in the western canon. That's a very revisionist view of history to take, particularly the bolded portions. And I have to point out that the idea of a literary canon (that is to say a collection of literature meant to encompass all that is beautiful and blah blah blah about the form (sorry I can't remember the exact quote)), is a Western, male idea. You don't see how that's a bit exclusive? And racist was probably a poor choice of words. |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 13, 2011 8:22:52 GMT -5
Who's been in control of what defines literature though? Up until relatively recently (40 years), it's been western white men. For a long time, the canon was nearly exclusively made up of works from a white, western, male culture. That's racist. It was justified with the concept that reason/knowledge is defined in part by written language. Now that we know better, we should be trying to tear those barriers down, not reaffirm them. I'd just like to point out that we are discussing this on an English major forum. I'm not saying that everyone here is an English speaking native, but I'm sure many of us are. I think the reason most "literature", and especially well known "literature" tends to be from the Western Culture because English is a Western Language. Perhaps if we were all Majoring in Chinese, or some other language like that, our opinion would be different. I'd also like to point out that while a lot of novels I could consider to be literature are written by men, there are some written by women - Mary Shelley, Jane Austen the Brontë sisters, J.K. Rowling, Harper Lee, Margaret Mitchell, Laura Ingalls Wilder, Yoko Kawashima Watkins, Agatha Christie, Emily Dickenson, etc. There are many more, but I won't continue listing. And I'm glad those (overwhelmingly white, western) group of women are considered literature, but that's not my point. Language has constantly been used as a tool to flex power over other cultures. When I think about defining a word like "literature," I believe that word should not be used to oppress, but to emphasize inclusion, just as I believe the art form itself should seek to do. The "written word" (as in written language) is a creation in which some cultures did not take part. Overwhelmingly, these are cultures that become abused and massacred. I'm incredibly uncomfortable with any definition of literature that would exclude those populations. Basically, I feel like literature is an aesthetic first and a form second. |
|
|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 13, 2011 11:46:36 GMT -5
I'd just like to point out that we are discussing this on an English major forum. I'm not saying that everyone here is an English speaking native, but I'm sure many of us are. I think the reason most "literature", and especially well known "literature" tends to be from the Western Culture because English is a Western Language. Perhaps if we were all Majoring in Chinese, or some other language like that, our opinion would be different. I'd also like to point out that while a lot of novels I could consider to be literature are written by men, there are some written by women - Mary Shelley, Jane Austen the Brontë sisters, J.K. Rowling, Harper Lee, Margaret Mitchell, Laura Ingalls Wilder, Yoko Kawashima Watkins, Agatha Christie, Emily Dickenson, etc. There are many more, but I won't continue listing. And I'm glad those (overwhelmingly white, western) group of women are considered literature, but that's not my point. Language has constantly been used as a tool to flex power over other cultures. When I think about defining a word like "literature," I believe that word should not be used to oppress, but to emphasize inclusion, just as I believe the art form itself should seek to do. The "written word" (as in written language) is a creation in which some cultures did not take part. Overwhelmingly, these are cultures that become abused and massacred. I'm incredibly uncomfortable with any definition of literature that would exclude those populations. Basically, I feel like literature is an aesthetic first and a form second. No one is excluding anybody! This is the 21st century! We've moved on! Everyone, especially on this thread, is accepting of everybody else! What I'm rejecting is your idea of oral tradition as literature! And like I've already said above, it deserves it's own recognition, instead of being grouped with literature! |
|
Dobby
Young Armadillo
Posts: 80
|
Post by Dobby on Jun 13, 2011 11:55:06 GMT -5
And I'm glad those (overwhelmingly white, western) group of women are considered literature, but that's not my point. Language has constantly been used as a tool to flex power over other cultures. When I think about defining a word like "literature," I believe that word should not be used to oppress, but to emphasize inclusion, just as I believe the art form itself should seek to do. The "written word" (as in written language) is a creation in which some cultures did not take part. Overwhelmingly, these are cultures that become abused and massacred. I'm incredibly uncomfortable with any definition of literature that would exclude those populations. Basically, I feel like literature is an aesthetic first and a form second. No one is excluding anybody! This is the 21st century! We've moved on! Everyone, especially on this thread, is accepting of everybody else! What I'm rejecting is your idea of oral tradition as literature! And like I've already said above, it deserves it's own recognition, instead of being grouped with literature! Exactly. I don't think we're trying to say that cultures who dever developed a written language are inferior and don't deserve to be recognized. However, I think literature implies written words. Oral traditions are by no means "inferior" just because they were never written down, they are simply different. Once oral traditions are written down (like in the case of Beowulf or The Odyssey), then they become literature, because they are written down for all to read, but that does not make them "superior" to their previous state, just more accessible. |
|
andy
Young Armadillo
Posts: 80
|
Post by andy on Jun 13, 2011 13:39:18 GMT -5
Very few non-westerners were actually that bothered by the white western male's culture until recently. They did care about whether or not the white western male butchers them, but culturally, white male values were irrelevant to them because they didn't regard white male culture as culturally relevant and didn't try to integrate themselves in western culture ( so the fact that the western canon doesn't include them didn't bother them because they didn't read the western canon, they read their own canons which illustrated their own values). Non-westerners didn't need white culture to tell them that culture and literature exist, they had already known it for many, many centuries. The western canon was only revised recently because until recently the western world really was predominantly white. It's absurd to say that people living in Europe in the 18th century were racist because they didn't value Japanese or African writers when the said Japanese and African writers didn't value European writers either and neither had much of an opportunity to read each other. Only recently western culture has managed to impose its values on everyone and claim a universality and a kind of pretense of 'natural-ness' (westerness is man's natural state) which allows it to include (what used to be) non-western literary works in the western canon. That's a very revisionist view of history to take, particularly the bolded portions. And I have to point out that the idea of a literary canon (that is to say a collection of literature meant to encompass all that is beautiful and blah blah blah about the form (sorry I can't remember the exact quote)), is a Western, male idea. You don't see how that's a bit exclusive? The idea of a literary canon isn't a western idea at all. Chinese or Arabic poetry canons were being put together and studied many centuries before Chinese and Arabic culture had any chance to have long term connections with Western culture (and, actually, before the modern notion of a western canon was formed). As I've said before, non-westerners didn't need westerners to teach them how to write or to appreciate literature - let's at least remember that the earliest forms of writing were found in Asia and Africa, not Europe or North America. My views are hardly revisionist for the non-western world, but, alas, since western views on history are the only official views on history in the first place, I suppose I must accept the term. |
|
