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.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. Another residual feature of primary orality is that orality is "empathetic and paticipatory" (Ong, 1982, p.45). In the Voluspa, the narrator says "Hear my words, you holy gods, great men and humble sons of Heimdall". These varying groups of people are being involved in the story and invited to engage with the experience. In Primary orality cultures learning is participatory (Ong, 1982). This contrasts with cutures which have a written history, in which the writer distances themself from the reader.
ReplyDeleteReserved for Q2
ReplyDelete"How does Ong argue secondary orality differs from primary orality?"
Ong explains "primary by contrast with the secondary orality" (Page 17). However he focus secondary orality on other sources like radio and TV.
1. Ong defined primary orality as "verbalization in cultures with no knowledge at all of writing."(Ong, 6)
ReplyDeleteVoluspa was a writing of a primary oral culture. as far as we are concerned, because there are no previously recorded writings that we are aware of in that culture at least.
The concepts and imagery of Voluspa can still be seen in writings of today, as well as in religions. Voluspa told the story of the beginning of the world- "nothing was there when time began."(Voluspa, line 9) That is the same as what the bible says, as well as scientists with the big bang theory, therefore there are very concrete residual effects from that primary oral culture in today's society.
2. Ong said that primary orality is from a culture that has no access to previous writings. Secondary orality is like in our culture, where we have other cultures' writings to draw upon in our analysis of things, as well as our general understanding of the world.
3. how does it affect human thought and textuality? Chirography is writing,whereas typography is print.
Ong went a couple layers into how we have come to use both in the same context, such as how the electronic age we are in now is also a "secondary orality" age, because television, radio, and telephones have come to depend on both writing and print. (Ong, 13) But as far as primary and secondary orality affecting human thought and textuality, Ong's most appealing argument on the subject, at least to me, was that of Aristotle's "Art of Rhetoric." In it, he said that "rhetoric was and had to be a product if writing," and called rhetoric "speech art."(Ong, pg. 16) So if we need writing in order to speak eloquently, or artfully, then the two become intertwined in our thoughts, to the point where writing and speaking are almost synonymous in my mind, at least.
1. An example of the residuals of primary orality as explained by Ong (1982, p. 45) is the theory/myth regarding the end of life as we know it. The epic of Gilgamesh was the first dated text, and in it there is an account of floodwaters destroying the overly sinful and impulse-driven people. In the old testament (a text which may have had roots in orality before it was recorded by some man or diety), the great flood for which Noah builds an arc is caused by a culmination of violence and humans taking advantage of the earth and its inhabitants. In Voluspa, "Brothers will die, slain by their brothers, kinsmen betray their close kin; woe to the world then, wedded to whoredom, battle-axe and sword rule, split shields asunder, storm-cleft age of wolves until the world goes down, only hatred in the hearts of men." In the next line, the earth sinks below the sea. This would make for yet another pre-historic tale of chaos on earth resulting in destruction to pave a path of renewal.
ReplyDelete2. Ong argues that primary orality is "evanescent, not permanent". This is to describe the literal sounds of spoken word. They exist only for a fleeting moment. I would argue, though, that those words still exist in the mind of the storyteller, the same way our culture of secondary orality has books whose words only exist so long as somebody reads them. The only point by Ong with which I fully agree is that orality is homeostatic, and this is only because printed text can be nothing other than static. Spoken word can be adjusted to the audience or the occasion... though a textual reading could also be slightly altered by a quick-witted reader.
3. According to dictionary.com, typography is, "the art or process of printing with type". Chirography is, "The art of writing or engrossing; handwriting". In our modern age, chirography is being pushed aside by typography. We use typography on facebook, email, blogging, and most formal methods of textual production. Chirography has been moved to a more specific skill used by individuals for diaries and caligraphers for designing cards, invitations, and banners. As chirography careens toward an exclusively aesthetic use, typography takes the sturdy form of providing and sharing information. Plato was a firm believer in neither, suggesting that writing any information or discussion down is a surrender of the powers of the mind and memory to a secondary crutch. Personally, I prefer chirography so as not to rely exclusively on our relatively new computer systems to maintain the entirety of human knowledge from here on. Computers crash, papers get wet or burned, memories get hazy with age, so maybe an even more stable method is still needed. Chirography seems a more primal and personal interaction between man/woman and paper. Typography allows and even imposes spell-check, grammar-check, and the depersonalizes handwriting to a certain style of font and structure of page.
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?
ReplyDeleteAs defined in Shippey's essay, Modernism "is characteristically local, limited, finding beauty not in abstractions but in 'small, dry thing.'" (Shippey, 313) What i took this to mean is that modernism is supposed to be very detail-oriented, which Tolkien definitely is.
For example, while readign the Two Towers excerpt, he described Gandalf mounting his horse with, "his snowy hair flew free in the wind, his white robes shone dazzling in the sun." (Tolkien, 513) That description is both very detailed oriented, and finds beauty in the small things, while at the same time leaving the door wide open for abstractions into the symbology of Gandalf as being "white," and everything that color alludes to. With that in mind, Tolkien does definitely have ideological motivations, then. As has been analyzed in great length over the years, we know that Tolkien's writings have an abundance of ideological motivations.
However, I don't believe that Tolkien's ideological motivations differ from the agenda of modernism. Instead, I think he uses modernism techniques and perspectives as a tool to get across his ideas.
Perhaps the most interesting point raised by Ong(1982), in his explanation of primary orality, was that which touched on one of its faults.
ReplyDelete"Many of the features we have taken for granted in thought and expression in literature, philosophy and science, and even in oral discourse among literates, are not directly native to human existence as such but have come into being because of the resources which the technology of writing makes available to human consciousness." (p.12)
Writing has paved the way for a deeper understanding of our universe. The antiquity of Voluspa reflects a lack of understanding in this regard. What we consider mythology today was regarded as fact in its time.
Ong goes on to say "We have had to revise our understanding of human identity." (p.12)
In place of explanations based on evidence, we find grossly hyperbolic descriptions of cataclysmic events, from tales that had survived the ages. The following is a segment I enjoyed;
"The sun turns black, the earth sinks below the sea,
no bright star now shines from the heavens;
flames leap the length of the World Tree,
fire strikes against the very sky." (Translation by Terry, P. 1990, 1966)
I found Voluspa to be very entertaining, it's fantastic in every sense of the word.
Hi Adder
ReplyDeleteI agree with you but I feel Voluspa is boring to me.
According to Glenn (1991) Old English texts such as Beowulf influenced The Hobbit.
ReplyDeleteOne incident that has been debated about is to do with the theft of the cup from the dragon, which is an element of both of these texts. I found it interesting that Glenn defended Tolkein's inclusion of this event. He (1991) said that in 1938 Tolkein wrote to The Observer and claimed that the incident arose naturally and he could not think of another direction for the story to go in (Glenn, 1991). In Tolkein's notes there is evidence that he considered the alternative of Bilbo stabbing the dragon, but this seemed not to suit the character (Glenn, 1991). It is also noted that this part of the Beowulf manuscript was badly damaged so it is difficult to evaluate the extent to which the text informed The Hobbit Glenn, 1991).
Another way that the inspiration of Beowulf can be seen in the hobbit is in the bear-like character of Beorn, which means warrior, hero or man in Old English. Glenn (1991) says that the source for this was the Norse Hrolfssaga Kraker and that Tolkein blends two characters; Bjorn and Bothvar Bjarki, to inspire Beorn. In the poem Bjorn (Norse for bear) was cursed by his stepmother to be a bear and Bothvar Bjarki, his son, appears as a bear in battle (Glenn, 1991). The size and strength of Beorn is similar to that of Germanic heroes, but Tolkein prefers the terms "adventurer" and "leader" to "warrior" and hero" (Glenn, 1991). Gandalf even says "warriors are busy fighting one another in distant lands" which is a sharp contrast from the celebrated warrior figures in Old English texts like Beowulf.
I felt that Glenn (1991) wrote this critique to outline the differences, as opposed to the similarities between the two texts. For example, he points out that in The Hobbit, Frodo says to Bilbo that Gollum "deserves death". Bilbo replies "Many that live deserve death and some that die deserve life. Can you give that to them?" Bilbo makes it clear that he does not want to be help accountable for the justice of Gollum. This is perhaps more in line with more modern values than with the way that Beowulf dutifully kills to enforce his idea of justice, which seems quite barbaric in comparison.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFor example Voluspa, it was written as a primary oral culture, there were no history of it, however nowadays people still can see those writings. “…nothing was there when the time began.” As science wants to prove it as well, thus primary oral culture has outstanding effects in today’s civilization
ReplyDeleteIt should be noted that in the case of many of
ReplyDeletethese people literacy is not entirely unknown, but that a high degree of primary orality still informs their cultures.
I also believe as Alison states in terms of Glenn’s (1991) comment that Beowulf influenced The Hobbit. According to Glenn (1991) the character of courage in Tolken’s fiction and The Hobbit’s affiliation to Beowulf are not new. After reading Dr. Paul’s critical reader the course book, it is easy to see that Tolkien has sought to generate a new mythology. Unquestionably, Beowulf was made part of the canon because of Tolkien’s educated work and the point of views he made. Tolkien can be demonstrated in a very considerable way because in a logic, Beowulf lives on Tolkien’s literacy work.
ReplyDeleteSurely [says Gandalf] you don't disbelieve the prophecies because you had a hand in bringing them about yourself? You don't really suppose, do you, that all your adventures and escapes were managed by mere luck, just for your sole benefit? You are a very fine person, Mr. Baggins, and I am very fond of you; but you are only quite a little fellow in a wide world after all!"
"Thank goodness!" said Bilbo laughing, and handed him the tobacco-jar. (286-87)
Therefore, The Hobbit recognizes for itself an essential tension, the tension between balance and change.
Glenn (1991) believes that there are notes from Tolkien where evidence can be found that considered the different of Bilbo “stabbing the dragon” but the character does not match. Furthermore, there was an evidence that shows part of the Beowulf document was in not good shape, in other words was damaged so it not easy to read those texts and inform The Hobbit. According to Glenn (1991), the character called “Beorn” can be seen in Hobbit is from Beowulf. The terms “Beorn” means soldier or warrior in old English.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, Glenn (1991) states that the Gollum Episode is related to Beowulf’s adventures in Heorot. ("Tolkien's Creative Technique" 6). According to Glenn (1991), “It seems to me, however, that Christensen fails to account for the change in "heroic" role effected by Tolkien here: Bilbo's "heroism" consists in his wit, not in his might”. Also according to note 7 from Glenn (1991), “For Unferth's monstrosity in Beowulf, see Nicholson. In her notice of the Gollum Grendel parallel, incidentally, Christensen calls Gollum "a descendant of Cain" (6) an imprecise identification, since structurally he is "Cain," not his descendant, with a life stretched wearily long, in Tolkien's formulation (The Lord of the Rings 1: 83-86).”
ReplyDeleteI would like to add something about Beowulf. My research also attempts to measure the development of Beowulf's character in Beowulf. Direct speech works as a primary source for this enquiry since it takes us closer to the speaker's inner state of mind than do any other elements in the poem. My examination of the diction of the speeches in Beowulf reveals that the eponymous hero, though he is taken from a folk-state archetype, has an individual character which develops through the poem. Young Beowulf displays faultless courage and adheres to the heroic code. However, he is still developing and has not yet learned how to restrain some of his more inappropriate emotions. Furthermore, His responses to his interlocutors show that he has mental insight and the ability to master his circumstances. Although, he is already an established, confident hero, he is still a youth and his adventures in this country contribute to his continued mental growth. Old Beowulf's reflections later reveal a reappraisal of his life in which he achieves a spiritual awakening and goes beyond the Germanic ethics that have hitherto governed his life to a new awareness of spiritual values. In this development through the poem, Beowulf reveals the individualised traits whereby the poet has built him up from an archetype into a character.
ReplyDeleteIn my point of view, The Beowulf poet based much of the poem on datable history, though the namesake character Beowulf has no historical analogue. Scholars have determined from close examination of the text that Beowulf was written centuries after the fifth and sixth-century events it describes occurred. It survives after centuries of oral and, later, written, retelling.
As far as I am concerned, as can be seen by reading Beowulf is the oldest piece of literature in the vernacular not only in England, but in all of Europe. Although written in Old English, the story recounts the history of the Anglo Saxons' forbears: tribes from Germanic lands and Scandinavia. Its author is the Homer of early Germanic culture whose artistic skill and vision captured the historical antecedents of the early English people.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI add them as I am very interested about it and wanted to share with my group, although perhaps not answering Paul's question properly... I am still reading and finding out. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Ong (1982),Orality-literacy studies are beginning to revise the history of
ReplyDeleteacademic education, at least that of the West, as they reveal the oralagonistic
nature of schools until recently populated exclusively by males taught in a chirographically controlled but orally targeted language, learned Latin, spoken by millions of males all of whom could also
write it and yet governed in its expression by the all-pervasive art of rhetoric, which still maintained its original meaning of public speaking or platform address (Ong 1982).
Dear Group, Paul points out about the referencing as I had done some mistakes such as sometimes 1981 and sometimes 1982, so I am very careful now, I think you all should be careful in terms of referencing, thank you.
ReplyDeleteGlenn (1991) writes that Beowulf influenced Tolkien's The Hobbit through the concept of the hero defending justice. While there are some key differences between the two texts, the obvious parallels shine through: Beorn--Beowulf as fighters against evil and oppression. Draca-- Smaug as dragons who represent the perils which may confront the innocent. One main difference between Beowulf and the Hobbit is that in The Hobbit, Tolkien focusses more on a group effort to overcome the impediments of evil. "In The Hobbit, Tolkien takes pains that the dragon, at any rate, be slain by other means than "anes willan"--to wit, by cooperation among Bilbo, the Old Thrush, and Bard," (Glenn, p. 31). Tolkien follows the structure of Beowulf and Bothvar Bjarki for concepts of "strength from within" and "justice/benevolence triumphing over blind and cruel evils". The difference is that Tolkien demonstrates this perserverance through teamwork and wit instead of the older style of brut force and passion. In addition, the heroes do not die in the end of The Hobbit. They return home.
ReplyDeleteChristensen recognizes the similarities between Bilbo's encounters with Gollum and Beowulf's experiences in Heorot (p.28).
Glenn even pulls examples from the new testament of parallel strength-from-within-one's-character situations to Beowulf and Bilbo Baggins and Beorn.
From Voluspa, there is the obvious setting of the civilizations of these rational beings. They dwell in middle-earth, as in The Hobbit. Ancient Norse mythology is the basis for this multi-layered concept of the universe, where near-humans and animals dwell in one region and greater and lesser beings dwell above and below in correspondence with their virtues and actions.
Dear Group, after a conversation with Dr. Paul on 30th of April, I have decided to write more about the term "secondary orality" was coined by Ong (1981) in Secondary orality is post-literal in the sense of being dissimilar commencing, but also rooted in, grafted upon, literacy.
ReplyDeleteThus secondary orality is certainly not identical with the orality of preliteral cultures - with primary orality, as Ong calls it.
I have cleared myself after spoke with Paul today 30th April 2009, while the orality of preliterate cultures serves as the sole medium of collective consciousness and memory - think, for instance, of Homer - secondary orality has recourse to writing, book printing, and the electronic recording of texts and data.
However, from a semantic point of view, secondary orality does in important ways parallel primary orality. The meaning of utterances is in both cases intrinsically bound up with the extra-linguistic situations in which those utterances occur.
There is no pointed dividing line between the linguistic and the redundant linguistic. A person's name have a basic function, however, they belong together and do not merely designate, their bearers; and an utterance is not a complex of names, but an active act in itself, an accomplishment.
As far as Ong (1982) is concerned, written language consists of detach words, each of which has a literal meaning, designates a definite concept or object. Context plays a character, but only as a conduct to recognizing the proper report. Therefore, my understanding is that, the meaning of a written text is open to understanding, but does not alter with changing condition.
Hi Group, when I was searching for answers, I looked at page 17, the secondary orality has better and larger participations than the primary orality. I saw Ong said something about Standard English with uncountable words; however, the primary orality has not many words as secondary orality has.
(Ong, 1982). On the next page that is page 18, I can see that primary orality stories have been telling again, in other words, the story was written in different way, however it is the same story, but if I read it carefully, I can see that those words are used at some stage in illustration. Surprisingly at page 17, I found that Ong (1982) said about semantic history which is not part of primary orality.
To conclude, after reading through couple of pages, I noticed that Secondary orality is more important, in other words, more leading than primary orality. Especially, in page 20, once the person’s mind is overflowing with writing, the person cannot relapse back to the primary orality as it is going to be very difficult.
This 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).
March 12, 2009 10:02 PM
kiniko said...
Here are pieces of opinion I want to add to Q2.
According 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.
Revisiting the question, How do Old Norse and Old English literary sources such as Voluspa, Beowulf and Volsunga Saga inform The Hobbit according to Glen(1991)?
ReplyDeleteDear group, this writing is a continuation from the previous writing as I went to explain why I decided to agree with Alison as I wanted to write more and show the differences according to Glenn (1991).
I want to write what Glenn (1991) points out and how the writer compares between “The Hobbit” and “Beowulf”.
Before I write I would like to mention that some good information can be found from this website,
http://www.tuckborough.net/gollum.html, perhaps if anyone read it properly then able to see the similarities. Of course I should read the course materials as well as books if I have to be clear about anything.
As I know that, the work of Tolkien towers over the scenery of contemporary fantastic literature. The lord of rings is truly not the first and, according to my own research, it is arguably not the best, but it is the one that stands tallest and casts its influence the farthest.
To begin with, according to Glenn (1991), Bilbo went on a journey and that journey was very difficult, in other words, it was a mission which never could be done (Glen, 1991, p. 48).
Also, when I read Beowulf I found the same theme for more information please read Glenn, 1991, Page from 45 to 55 (Glenn, 1991).
Subsequently, according to page 50, Glenn (1991) does not see any differences between Smeagol from Hobbit and Draca from Beowulf (Glenn, 1991, p 50).
Next, according to Glenn (1991) from page 50, development of both Beowulf and Bilbo are related. For example, they both deport their motherland.
Then, according to Glenn (1991) from page 51, drinking lobby comes into view in both Beowulf and The Hobbit.
I want to point out that, because of the different representation of the hero, there are intentional differences in as far as old Norse and old English are concerned. For example, Beowulf seeks reputation, but in Bilbo does not seek any reputation or popularity.
Furthermore, main character from Beowulf suffers his adventure that ends with his life but with popularity, however, the main character from The Hobbit returned to the homeland (Glenn, 1991, p 53).