Hi guys
Here are week 1/2's questions. Have a crack at them,
Paul
1. What, arguably, are some of the 'residual' features of 'primary orality' (as defined by Ong, 1982) in Voluspa?
2. How does Ong argue secondary orality differs from primary orality?
3. What is the difference between chirography and typography and how does he believe it affects human thought and textuality?
4. How do Old Norse and Old English literary sources such as Voluspa, Beowulf and Volsunga Saga inform The Hobbit according to Glen(1991)?
5. According to Shippey(2000) how do the idological motivations and use of language by many fantasy writers like Tolkien differ from the agenda of Modernism?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi, group.
ReplyDeleteThis posting is my answer for Question 5.
The differences between modernists and Tolkien:
1. “Modernist works tend to rely very heavily on literary allusion - as, for instance in Eliot’s ‘Waste Land’” (Shippey, 2000, pp.313-314). If the reader “does not realize the contrast between the words in their original context and in their modernist context, then the point is lost” (Shippey, 2000, p.314). Tolkien did this too. However, “the words work best when they have become quasi-proverbial, common property, merged with ordinary language” (Shippey, 2000, p.314).
2. Modernists did the experiments of introspection, the stream of consciousness technique and the characteristic trick what the characters are thinking, because modernists wanted to see what interesting effects could be produced (Shippey, 2000). Tolkien did the experiments too. However, his purpose was not the same as modernists. “Because he thought all forms of human language were already an experiment” (Shippey, 2000, p.315). And then, he did the experiments seriously for “the use of ‘threads’ of story alternating and contrasting; and of course, the deliberate creation of unknown languages and unrecorded dialects” (Shippey, 2000, p.313) “instead of playing around with them” (Shippey, 2000, pp.315-316).
3. Modernism was said “to have made it possible to replace narrative method by ‘mythical method’” (Shippey, 2000, p.313). For examples, Eliot alludes to the tales of Greek myths, and Milton alludes to the tales of Bible. Tolkien did this too. However, “Tolkien’s heroes and his major debts came from the native and Northern tradition which Milton never knew and Eliot ignored: Beowulf, Sir Gawain, Sigurð, the Eddic gods – a tradition seen by most modernists as literally barbarous” (Shippey, 2000, p.314). Shippey (2000, p.315) notes “he used ‘mythical method’ not because it was as interesting method but because he believe that the myths were true” (, although I’m not sure what the evidence is).
4. Modernism is distinguished “by rejection of the ‘realist illusion’” (Shippey, 2000, p.313). However, Tolkien did not want “to shatter the ‘realist illusion’ of fiction” (Shippey, 2000, p.315). Because “he thought all our views of reality were illusions” (Shippey, 2000, p.315).
The ideological motivations:
The above differences between modernists and Tolkien indicate that modernists were to be snobbish and elitist, and the works were intended to produce for only “the thoroughly cultivated individual, the fine and superior sensibility” (Shippey, 2000, p.316), although Tolkien did not have such ideology.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is my answer for Q.2
ReplyDeleteOng (1982) states that ‘primary orality’is the orality of culture sheerly intact by any knowledge of writing or print. ‘It is ‘primary’ by contrast with the ‘secondary orality’ of present-day high-technology culture, in which a new orality is sustained by telephone ,radio,television,and other electronic devices that depend for their existence and functioning on writing and print. (Ong, 1982,p.18).
Besides, Ong (1982) believes that primary oral culture in the strict sense nearly diminish, since every culture perceives writing and has some experience of its influences. However, ‘Still, to varying degrees many cultures and subcultures, even in a high-technology ambiance, preserve much of the mind-set of primary orality (Ong,1982, p.11).
Here are pieces of opinion I want to add to Q2.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Ong(1982),the ‘secondary orality’ is also known as electronic age. The primary orality is not so easy to conceive of accurately and meaningfully. Writing (on which secondary orality heavily relies) makes ‘words’ appear similar to things because we think of words as the visible marks signalling words to decoders :we can see and touch such inscribed ‘words’ in texts and books , Written words are residue. Oral tradition has no such residue or deposit. (Ong,1982,p.11)
Ong ( 1982,p.9) says that human beings in primary oral cultures ,learn a great deal and possess and practice great wisdom, but they do not ‘study’. They learn by apprenticeship-hunting with experienced hunters for example-by discipleship, which is kind of apprenticeship, by listening, by repeating what they hear, by mastering proverbs and ways of combining and recombining them, by assimilating other formulary materials ,by participation in a kind of corporate retrospection-not by study in the strict sense.
Hi, group:
ReplyDeleteThere is no presentation, so I’d like to present my answer for question 4, although Glen’s explanations (pp.28-31) are so long and I cannot summarise well.
Recognizing that the first and fourth of these episodes show the unmistakable imprint of major episodes in Beowulf – and that the figure of Beorn in The Hobbit derives just as unmistakably from an analogue of Beowulf” (Glen, 1991, p.28).
“The Gollum-episode is somehow related to Beowulf’s adventures in Heorot” (Glen, 1991, p.28). Christensen asserts that the Gollum-episode is a conflation of Beowulf’s encounters with Unferth and Grendel’s mother” (Glen, 1991, p.28). Hodge, on the other hand, simply (and silently—but, I think, accurately) conflates Beowulf’s conflicts with both members of the Grendel family” ” (Glen, 1991, p.28). Glen (1991, p.28) concludes that “though it is probable that Unferth, Grendel, and Grendel’s mother all represent the monstrous undercurrent in Hrothgar’s civilization, one dose not need Unferth to account for the verbal conflict between Bilbo and Gollum: that is plausibly provided by the substitution of Bilbo for Beowulf”
Glen (1991, p.28) points out “the obvious parallel between Beowulf’s draca and Smaug”, too.
Glen (1991) also points out the parallel between Gollum and Grendel. “ That Gollum is, like Grendel’s ancestor, a fratricide who has been exiled from his home to live in subterranean “mere” strongly suggests a conscious parallel between the ancient monster and the modern one (Glen, 1991, p.28). There is an alteration, and, the “alteration structurally prepared for by the introduction of Beorn in the next episode of the story. In any case, Tolkien’s summary of the placement of the Grendels in Beowulf’s episode of the life could equally apply to Gollum’s place in Bilbo’s development” (Glen, 1991, pp.28-29).
Glen (1991, p.29) points out “Beorn’s immediate source in Germanic story is not Beowulf, of course, but an analogue of that poem, the Norse Hrólfssage Krake” (Glen, 1991, p.29). Glen’s explanations (1991, p.29) are the followings, although this citation is a little bit long:
Beorn’s name is the Old English word Beorn which, although it means ‘warrior’, ‘hero’ more generally ‘man’, is cognate with the Old Norse bjiöm ‘bear’. By a happy linguistic chance (or choice), then, Tolkien is able to use a name for Beorn that suggests both his human and his ursine natures. As a character, Beorn evidently derives from a combination—with significant differences—of two characters, father and son, in Hrólfssage: Bjorn, who was cursed by his sorcerous stepmother, White, to be a bear during the day and a man by night, and Bothvar Bjarki, Bjorn’s son, who appears in the saga’s last tragic battle as a great bear.
There are the alterations of Talkien from his Old Norse antecedents to Beorn (Glen, 1991). “Unlike Bjorn—who as a bear kills and eats the king his father’s cattle and is explicitly cursed to do so by White (Jones 265-67)—Beorn is a vegetarian” (Glen, 1991, p.29). “In this way, his role as Justicer (discussed below) is untainted by any hint of killing in other roles or for other purposes” (Glen, 1991, p.29). “Whereas Bjorn’s bear-shape is assumed by day, his man-shape at night, Beorn’s shapes, insofar as they follow a regular pattern, are assumed the other way around: while Bilbo and the dwarves visit him, at least, Beorn is a man by day and a bear by night” (Glen, 1991, p.29). “This reversal of the antecedent simply puts Beorn in harmony with conventional/archetypal associations between daylight and rationality, darkness and animality” (Glen, 1991, p.29). Moreover, Beorn is “at all time either wholly man or wholly bear: he chooses his form for the time and for the tasks he must do” (Glen, 1991, p.29). Though Beorn’s “great strength and size certainly class him with heroes of Germanic story” (Glen, 1991, p.30), “Tolkien has concentrated in this character one of Bothvar Bjarki’s traits—concern for justice—making it Beorn’s chief function in the novel” (Glen, 1991, p.29). “Tolkien’s use of Beorn as Justicer follows Bothvar’s lead, and Beorn’s role in the Battle of the Five Armies is to redress the imbalance of numbers which favours the forces of evil” (Glen, 1991, p.30).
Tolkien himself wrote that “Beowulf is among my most valued source” (Glen, 1991, p.31). However, “Tolkien has developed in The Hobbit an alternative to the Beowulfian Hero” (Glen, 1991, p.28) through denying “what the Beowulfian hero proudly takes his duty and his right” ” (Glen, 1991, p.31). “Tolkien, then, creates an alternative to the heroic hierarchy of Northern story” (Glen, 1991, p.31).
Glen (1991, p.31) summarizes Tolkien’s achievements as the followings:
Using “structural quotations” from Beowulf and its analogue Hrólfssage Kraka at key points in The Hobbit’s plot, Tolkien creates in Bilbo Baggins his anser to the defects of a Beowulf or a Beorhnoth or a Bothvar Bjarki—creates, that is, a person who chooses and acts according to his stature, who learns to make his way in the Wide World when he must, but who—in a way the Beowulfs of the world never can—comes home again, to be “only quite a little fellow in a wide world after all.
Excuse me, Stephy (aka Kiniko),
ReplyDeleteIf only you had come to class yesterday, you would have been made aware with the arrangement within our group for this week’s questions. Each of us had chosen one question to answer in order for all other group members to comment on. And I was to answer Question 2 this week!!!
Anyway, it was very helpful of you to have done this for me but may I ask you these simple questions:
1. What is the point of copying and pasting your answer ‘word-to- word’ from Ong’s article?
2. Would you like me to spell out the word ‘PLAGIARISM’ for you???
Albert
Oh, I am so sorry, Alby. I was absent on Thursday. What's wrong with my answer, can't I use the direct quotation like kimiko does? It is nearly impossible to write the answer in my old words as some of them are special terms. ??
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Kiniko,
ReplyDeleteOkay , thanks for answering the question through Ong's article. It shows that you have read the article, which is great I must say - because that is the only way to answer the question. But I would like to hear your thoughts on the article as well and turning up to class would also be helpful (like Alby said), because we did have a strategy in how to approach this assessment or assignment (or whatever). And, it would be great if all the group members attend class - especially when we need to work together.
anyways, to add a comment to your answer -
What I think Ong(1982) is saying overall, is that, primary orality as I view it would be persons who are illiterate, who do not know how to read or write. Like you said (or more like Ong said)...
"Ong (1982,p.9) says that human beings in primary oral cultures ,learn a great deal and possess and practice great wisdom, but they do not ‘study’".
...they have wisdom, and practice it - but do not STUDY. People who do not study? hmm ... not exactly illiterate but to back this up Ong (1982, p.11) also said "the style of a culture totally untouched by any knowledge of writing, or print, 'primary orality'".
Just to emphasize on the primary orality, Ong (1982, p.9)also said that they don't learn through reading and writing but "by listening, by repeating what they hear, by mastering proverbs and ways of combining and recombining them, by assimilating other formulary materials, by participation in a kind of corporate retrospection - not by study in the strict sense" - which is why they're so wise, i reckon.
Primary orality differs from secondary orality, by lets just say that secondary orality is totally the opposite of primary orality. However, to be sure of this we must look at what Ong (1982)says about this.
Ong (1982) says that the secondary orality refers to todays world. With all the high technology that we are working with, which for example are our televisions , computers, mobile phones and so on - were/are produced by educated scientists.
Thank you Annie so much for demonstrating the 'correct' way of paraphasing someone else's work.
ReplyDeleteAnd to answer your question Stephy (aka Kiniko), the so-called 'special terms' could have been in "xxxx" if they are of any significance and you do not intend to alter its meaning in the author's original article.
May be enrolling in one of the KEYS APA Referencing course will be beneficial to your future study at AUT???
Albert
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou should have told me early, Albert, you comments made me confussed.Will you pay the tution fee for me as an internationl student if I take the APA course at Aut? He.. I will learn it from you and Annie.
ReplyDeleteBy the way,thanks for your guide, Annie.
I think that although ‘secondary orality’ (electronic age) is prevalent nowadays, it can not replace the ‘primary orality’ or ‘oral literature’(Ong,p.20). I agree with you,Annie. People who are in low-technology take up their language without the help of the electronic apparatus such as electronic dictionaries to help them touch and see the ‘words’ in texts and books as (Ong,1982)said.
As for the ‘second orality’, I consider that it can help people preserve the history and language of generation that may be lost track without recording properly. The electronic age also gives the explanation of language and keeps its prevalence
A extra piece of information on primary orality.
ReplyDeleteIn accordance with Wikipedia's finding on Ong, primary orality is about thought and verbal expression in cultures.
Hi Kiniko,
ReplyDeleteUmmm, I'm sure that if you would ask Alby to pay for your fees for APA classes at AUT, he would be pleased... because they're free. But I am flattered for how you said you could learn from me. :D I'm glad I could be of any help to you and your education.
-anNiE:)
Hi again Kiniko,
ReplyDeleteIt's true what you said about the primary orality but...
Wikipedia? hmmm... a place where I would steer far away from. Because, though it is like an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is always edited by more than one person and facts could be tampered with, hence why I was always warned to stay away from the wikipedia sites.
-anNiE:)
Oh I'm sorry Stephy, I didn't realise I was responsible to hold your hand and guide you through ALL the courses at AUT; it might have been the case for primary school kids but as for university students, shouldn't we be a bit more proactive about all the resources in which would be helpful towards our studies??? And if you're still confused, let me suggest you make an appointment with the International Students Centre and find out what courses are avaliable for free.
ReplyDeleteAlbert
PAUL,
ReplyDeleteWHY DID ALBERT GET DELETED AS A MEMBER OF THE PAGE =[, but he can still add comments because he's a follower.
-anNiE:)
Regarding Q3. The benefit of typography is to have a printed reading material that I can read over and over again before I can even start to comprehend what is being written.... It may be mass produced and not personal or intimate like hand written letters, but the authors' accumulated knowledge and information are shared among readers, and no doubt all you kind people will correct me if I misunderstood something.
ReplyDeleteBefore I forget, I Googled 'chirography and typography' and found the following. http://libraries.slu.edu/sc/ong/digital/texts/unpublished/pw_fragment2.pdf
It's a lecture copy by W. Ong (no date) titled 'Material related to The Presence of the Word (from earlier drafts of the manuscript) complete with the handwriting of the title, ink-stamped with the author's name and obviously produced by an old fashioned typewriter with a ribbon. Can't help feeling nostalgic and sensing closeness, as I have been there done that, struggling to press down the keys and making weak indentations. Of course, I am not complaining about the modern(er) technology. What will I do without touch typing, cutting, pasting and blogging, not to mention the lovely laser printers? I will try and refer to this material later.
Ong (1982) notes, in his introduction, that 'the subject is, first, thought and its verbal expression in oral culture... and second, literate thought and expression in terms of their emergence from and relation to orality.' (p.1)
I think he is saying that the technology of writing is not a native instinct which the human was equipped with when we came to existence. Rather, 'many of the features we have taken for granted in thought and expression in literature, philosophy and science' is a result of human consciousness enabling us to utilise the available resources.
According to Ong, 'Written words are residue. Oral tradition has no such residue or deposit.' (1982, p.11) In other words, the written words can be visibly seen with our eyes as inscribed marks, sitting and waiting to be decoded. And these inscriptions are what the scholars pursue relentlessly and deem of great importance.
'Oral cultures produce powerful and beautiful verbal performances of high artistic and human worth, which are no longer even possible once writing has taken possession of the psyche.' (Ong, 1982, p.14) This may be true in a sense that, written words can never describe 'accurately and meaningfully' the precise thought or minds. However, it can reconstruct the human consciousness which was originally discovered as not literate, and bring a better understanding of what literacy really is about.
I'm not sure if I have actually covered the question. Comments are appreciated.
Leech & Svartvik (2006) explains that Beowulf is a heroic poem in Old English literature and it was written in vigorous language with heavy use of metaphor. It is 'the oldest surviving epic poem in the whole Germanic family of languages... the first printed edition was published in 1815... it has been handed down to posterity in a later West Saxon manuscript from about the year 1000.' (Leech & Svartvik, 2006, p.30) This is just a note for myself. Mental reminder (or managing knowledge) doesn't work for me. Everything in my daily life are constituted around papers and screens, and controlled and dictated by writing.
Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (2006). English - One tongue, many voices. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hi guys
ReplyDeleteNot sure why Albie doesn't appear in the contributors list. Will fix that Thurs.
Guys - two rules only really for an assessed blog:
1. Reference all quotes
2. No flaming
So, while it's not so helpful on the one hand to post endless material verbatim (google that one on dictionary.com) it's also nice if we can avoid put downs.
Good to know you're finding ways to organize the discussion, on the one hand, and good if you can keep some room for free-flow on the other.
If you get snarled up over anything just say 'Love Angel Music Baby' twenty times in your head and things may look brighter. *_*
Verbatim: in exactly the same words; word to word
ReplyDeleteSource: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/verbatim
'Love Angel Music Baby' isn't that one of Gwen Stefani's song and also her clothing label 'L.A.M.B.'?
Albie ^_^
U'r on to it. L.A.M.B: Just like the phrase.
ReplyDeleteI find it c a l m i n g. Don't know why.
Keep up the good work.
Hi All,
ReplyDeleteThis is my attempt to answer Dr Paul’s Question 1.
What, arguably, are some of the ‘residual’ features of ‘primary orality’) as defined by Ong, 1982) in Voluspa?
According to definitions by Ong (1982), there are a number of arguably ‘residual’ features of ‘primary orality’ to be found in Voluspa.
The first feature, as defined by Ong (1982), is the use of stock formulas and phrases in Voluspa; for example, sons of Heimdall which mean men, men’s fair dwelling which means Midgard; the sun was being described as the moon’s companion and fairness of face simply means hair. This is an “additive rather than subordinative”; “aggregative rather than analytic” feature, which is unique in ‘primary orality” (Ong, 1982, pp. 37-39). Whereas printed texts or words are arranged in a rigidly and orderly system according to the levels of importance and they are visibly indicated by typography.
The second ‘primary orality’ feature is that the narrator of Voluspa includes all social ranks by using phrases like, “Hear my words, you holy gods, great men and humble sons of Heimdall”. Ong describes this feature as “empathetic and participatory rather than objectively distanced” (Ong, 1982, pp. 45-46) in contrast to the prominent feature in writing, which urges writers to be objective, distant and impartial in their written works.
Sentence like “by Odin’s will, I’ll speak the ancient lore, the oldest of all that I remember” in Voluspa shows that the narrator is conservative and she posses the ‘divinely-inspired’ knowledge of traditional culture. This is the “homeostatic” (Ong, 1982, pp. 46-49) feature of ‘primary orality’; “oral traditions reflect a society’s present cultural values rather than idle curiosity about the past” (Ong, 1982, p. 48).
*My apology to Akash for this was supposed to be her Question for this week’s blog. *
Albie
Hey Albie,
ReplyDeleteThanks for answering the first question, though I was a little lost and hoping that someone would answer it. [ LOL ]. Just thought I'll say that you got me back on track and that I've understood what Paul is trying to ask. HEHEHE ^_^
-anNiE:)
Hi, Albie;
ReplyDeletemy Critical reader has only the pp.12-19 of Ong's reading material. Where can I find the pp.37-49 of his reading material?
Kimiko
L + O + S + T = LOST! Okay, question four is one of the hardest questions I have had to answer, it was going to be a bit of a challenge in which I wished to take on board but - thanks to Kimiko who happily answered my assigned question by using the extract by the author of Glen (1991), from our wonderfully large critical reader ^_^ !
ReplyDeleteFrom Kimiko’s presentation ( and might I add, the copied and pasted presentation), what I gathered from your long the “citation”, part of it came to my attention. The part about the name “Beowulf”.
The word Beowulf became interesting when Paul pointed out the similar word ‘werewolf’ ( I know it’s spelt differently, but it rhymes - phonetically).
“Beorn’s name is the Old English word beorn which, although it means ‘warrior’, ‘hero’ or generally ‘man’, is cognate” (Glenn, 1991, p. 51) or in other words similar to the Old Norse word “bjöm, meaning bear. However, Tolkien decided to use the word Beorn to identify his main character as a human and a hero or warrior at the same time.
To explain my understanding of the last part of the name which is “wulf”, the word ’wulf’ is the Old English spelling for the more modern spelt word - wolf. However, Glenn (1991) stated that “Beorn is a man by day and a bear by night” (Glenn, 1991, p. 29) (But to have the name Beojöm would phonetically be impossible to pronounce). Similar to this the word ’werewolf’ or more like the fantasy creature, a werewolf is a man by day and a wolf by night. Which is probably why Tolkien chose to create his character by the name ’Beowulf’ - “a man by day and a bear by night (Glenn, 1991, p. 29).
I don’t know if you understand what I just said right there, but feel free to comment on it if you like. :-D
I know that my comment didn’t answer the question, I just found that interesting on the cut and pasted presentation.
Just to go out of topic on things for a little bit. I found something interesting on the internet in which was related to how Beowulf was composed. F.A Blackburn (a linguist who studied Beowulf, summerised this in his website called “Beowulf in Hypertext”) came up with some theories and how the epic based text was formed - “1. The poem was composed by a Christian, who had heard the stories and used them as the material of the work.
2. The poem was composed by a Christian, who used old lays as his material. 3. The poem was composed by a heathen, either from old stories or from old lays. At a later date it was revised by a Christian, to whom we owe the Christian allusions found in it”. However, according to Blackburn (1963), he couldn’t find any relevant evidence on whether or not the author (meaning Tolkien), of Beowulf, was a Christian or not.
The reason why Beowulf would have been written by a Christian, it was because that the epic contained many possible sources for the Christian elements. “1. Passages containing biblical history or allusions to some scriptural narrative. These include references to Cain, Abel and the flood.
Passages containing expressions in disapproval of heathen ideas or heathen worship. There is one of these in the introduction to the Danes near the beginning of the poem. 3. Passages containing references to doctrines distinctively Christian: references to heaven, hell and the day of judgement. He finds ten cases. 4. Incidental allusions to the Christian God” (Blackburn, 1963)
(Blackburn, F.A. "The Christian Colouring in the Beowulf" in An Anthology of Beowulf Criticism. University of Notre Dame Press. 1963)
check more out on:
http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~beowulf/main.html
I'm sorry guys, I didn't know how to answer the question so I thought maybe I should do some researching on how the epic came about. Interesting facts, but then again, the question aint answered properly. Any ideas on how we could discuss this group :-D
-anNiE:)
Hi Annie,
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for the comprehensive research you've done on Beowulf, it opened a whole different can of worms for us to ponder on the creation of this ancient poem. To be perfectly honest, I found it rather difficult trying to read and understand the Old English language used in Beowulf but upon reading your research, I might go back and give it another read and try to look out for any implicated Christian beliefs in it.
As referring back to Dr Paul's previous comment about the flaming that occurred here on our blog, I would like to point out that it is part of what goes on when working in a group environment. I understand that everybody would prefer to live in a harmonious world but at times there will be disagreements and clashes of personalities among the group members. I know that the whole flaming situation could have been handled with a whole different strategy but at the end of day, the purpose of this blog (correct me if I'm wrong) is to motivate our peers to read, reflect, research, discuss, contribute and comment on each other in a collaborative manner. Perhaps the way that we (namely Annie and myself) blog is not suited to all our group members' liking but we simply want to encourage each and every of our group member to do their best and strive for a high mark.
It is absolutely beyond my control for other people to see things from the same point of view as mine and I would never in a million year expect anyone to do that either. But since we're intending to work as a group, I would sincerely invite any of my group members who happens to encounter any differences in opinions or any other matters, discuss it on the blog here and work towards a 'win win' resolution.
Albert
Hi Albert,
ReplyDeleteI was suprised myself when I read about the Christian aspects added to the epic text. So I kept on reading. It's really interesting due to the fact that I have a Christian background, I can learn a lot from this. :D
And thanks for clearing the air Albie, I must say that your statement on that is true though what will life be without a little spark in our lives ( more like blog), but we must move on and like Albie said "work towards a 'win win' resolution".
LET'S GET BACK TO IT! :D
-anNiE:)
I've been thinking about Q.5 for a very long time.....day and night.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Shippey (2000), Tolkien was pretty hard done by critics. Some called Tolkien childish and his readers retarded. Apparently, Alfred Duggan - a historical novelist - predicted that Tolkien's work was too long, for any adult to pick up and read more than once. Philip Toynbee also predicted that Tolkien's popularity was just a passing one and about to fade out. Edmund Wilson - the then American BOSS of modernist critics - 'had dismissed The Lord of the Rings as 'balderdash', 'juvenile trash', a taste which he thought was specifically British.' (Shippey, 2000, p.307)
Earlier, Wilson had 'sternly if pompously' rebuked a tendency towards dismissal of the so called Toynbee's 'Good Writer' theory. (Shippey, 2000) So, his comments were specially notable considering he had totally contradicted what he had preached before. Shippey's use of the word 'pompous' may be ironic. Wilson is an American, and Tolkien, a British who subsequently had great success in America. He goes on to say that 'Joseph Pearce's 1997 book... implies that the antipathy is a reaction if not to Tolkien's Catholicism specifically.' (Shippey, 2000, p.309)
Actually, Tolkien's ideological motivations doesn't seem to differ from the agenda of Modernism. Shippey (2000) is confident that Tolkien had the core substance of 'the Good Writer (who) is not directly concerned with communication, but with a personal struggle against the intractable medium of modern English... Tolkien saw deeper into and reacted harder against the nature of specifically modern English than any other writer this century' (2000, p.307)
The criticisms come from those who self profess to be 'committed to widening the canon' with their influence in literary world. Eyes of those scholars, who were the English speaking Establishment intellect (Shippey, 2000), must have been wide shut.
Some great wrestling with the critical sources and primary texts here, guys. I did warn it was difficult: keep it up.^_^
ReplyDeleteQ3. Earlier, I mentioned the 'Material related to The Presence of the Word'. In the actual book 'Presence of the word', Ong (1967) explains his definition of 'writing'. 'Writing "retains" words... It is a record. It holds words so that they do not escape.... a script is supposed to flow. But as applied to writing, this notion competes with constriction. Writing is fixed in space, confined, bound, unvarying, subject to inspection and reinspection, and thus firm, controlled... Less spectacularly than print.' (Ong, 1967, p.94)
ReplyDelete'If constriction is closely associated with writing, it is of the absolute essence of print... Type is "set", placed in rigid lines, by hand or by a machine. (Ong, 1967, p.96)
I still don't get the difference between chirography and typography.
Ong, W. (1967). Presence of the word : some prolegomena for cultural and religious history. London: Yale University Press.
Hi Group,
ReplyDeleteThis is my answer for Question 1 and I apologize about late entries. I wasn’t too confident about posting my side of the answer yet until Albert told me theres no right or wrong to answer in this blog and just as long as we show what we observed.
What I observed in Ong is the first feature of “thought and its verbal expression in oral culture” (Ong, 1982: 1-15). This feature can be seen in Voluspa. Voluspa is a story of the beginning, middle and end of the world and using the first feature to relate to Voluspa is that mythological poems were new to expressing in words and writing exact thoughts down. This also can be related to Orality is “evanescent" not permanent (Ong, 1982:31-32). To explain this, it’s something like spoken words are only used and spoken with for a moment, the word will soon be forgotten and only the sound will be of memory. At that time there was no consciousness and awareness of proper literacy. Example of this from Voluspa: sons of Heimdall (men), men’s fair dwelling (Midgard); the moon’s companion (the sun); fairness of face (hair).
The second feature in Ong is the “literate thought and expression in terms of their emergence from relation to orality”(Ong, 1982: 1-15). I’m not too sure what this means but I think it means that the thought of putting down written text is based on speech expressions and that is connected to spoken language. In a better way of elaborating is that they way we speak today is the way we write on Relay Chat such as MSN or Skype, so I’m guessing that is the way it was Voluspa.The way they spoke was put down in exact written text on the mythological poem.
Does that make sense guys? I hope it does and you have gotten too confused, feel free to ask any questions if you need me to explain what I think.
Akash
Reference:
ReplyDeleteOng, W. (1982) Orality and Literacy: the technologizing of the word. London: Methuen. p. 1-15
Hey Akash,
ReplyDelete=D good comment by the way. Oh and you shouldn't feel like your answer is wrong. Like Albie said, there is no right or wrong answer. Whatever we come up with - post it up and if we'll comment on it, disagree or not - we got to comment. =D
anyways, your posting is fine. I just don't know what to say about it. =[ other than the fact that you answered th question fine. =]
-annie =] x
Hey Annie,
ReplyDeleteThanks :). I'm finding this Literature class a bit hard to keep up with, but I'm trying non the less :). See you tomorrow!!
Hi Akash,
ReplyDeleteI especially like the second part of your analysis regarding the features of orality from Ong (1982); are we going backwards in times when we use MSN or SKYPE? We write (I should say ‘type’) down the exact same words in our chats as the same way as we speak and we don’t really follow any conventional rules such as grammatical structure, punctuations (we never speak with these, do we?) or even the correct spelling! This orality feature expresses our initial thoughts instantly when they emerge in our minds; it maintains a high level of authenticity of our oral communication.
Keep up the good work Akash & good luck to all of us!
Albie ^_^
Hey Albie,
ReplyDeleteYes I would agree a little bit that we are going backwards into time when we use MSN or Skpe. We "type" or "text" the same way we speak and tend to forget to use proper grammar and spellings when we are performing in our academic writing work.
Akash :)
It makes more sense after reading your posts, why Ong (1982) said, 'contrasts between electronic media and print have sensitized us to the earlier contrast between writing and orality. The electronic age is also an age of 'secondary orality'. (p.13) I don't think we're going backwards into time when we use modern technology. grammar and punctuations only came into being because of the shift to writing. and writing wouldn't have been if it wasn't for orality. The noble monks and educated court clerks were special people who used chirography in early days. So, the shift from typography to secondary orality, I think, is progress.
ReplyDeleteStill going on with Q3.
ReplyDeleteI had to look up 'textuality' as I may have misunderstood the meaning. Dictionary.com says,
The property of written material to form a coherent whole; the nature or identifying quality of a text.
Strict adherence to a text, esp. a scriptural text; textualism
(Wikipedia says 'Textuality can be seen, heard, read, and interacted with
An example of Textuality in the oral medium is the sound itself.
An example of Textuality in the electronic medium is the interactivity of a website, or visual of a specific television show.
An example of Textuality in the print medium is the physicality of a book.)
The highly regarded scholars thought of the written texts as their world yet the articulated sound of language is paramount in communicating and 'not only communication, but thought itself relates in an altogether special way to sound.' (Ong, 1982, p.15) The textuality of chirography and typography in paper form dominates the minds of scholars even to this day that no concepts for oral art can be formed without referring to writing. (Ong, 1982)