The text that we were asked to interact with this week is a story preserved within an oral culture about a boy who became king and his fantastical victory over his own handicap. Sundiata was a 7 year-old boy who couldn’t use his legs and our text gives two versions of his story. The first version was recast in a typical western structure while the second is a more faithful rendition of the story (as told by a different griot in the village). Unsurprisingly, locating the characteristics that Ong noted about narratives in oral cultures was much easier in the second narrative than the first.
The first version has aggregate descriptions (e.g., “stiff-legged king; wicked queen mother”) and an obvious, agonistic turning point (in Sassouma’s insulting Sogolon Kedjou), but other markers are lacking.[1]
The second version keeps the participatory structure intact and therefore fits one of Ong’s characteristics in form alone; hardly a line gets told without the audience’s refrain of “indeed” (or some variation). The second most obvious characteristic that is present in the second narrative is the use of repetition. The majority of the second stanza is a word-for-word repeat of what immediately preceded it and several times there are lines that are repeated right after another (e.g., “And upwards drew himself” in stanza 7).
A significant amount of space in the second narrative is given to the mother’s prayer which seems to be composed of rhetorical questions that characterize an aggregative approach to narratives. The “If he be/If he is” questions are not actual investigations but are designed to “assure that [he be/is], to keep the aggregate intact, not really to question or cast doubt on the attribution[s]” (Ong, pg. 33).
If Ong’s categories are legitimate they would seem to offer hermeneutical insight to oral tales that might otherwise be subjected to exegetical tools commonly used in literate societies for written stories.
[1] In fact, as the story comes to a close, I expected a more “additive” structure in the final few paragraphs and instead the narrative relied on several subordinate clauses.
You produce an insightful, smart reading of the text. You analysis seems spot-on. It’s accurate and insightful. I really like this: “A significant amount of space in the second narrative is given to the mother’s prayer which seems to be composed of rhetorical questions that characterize an aggregative approach to narratives. The “If he be/If he is” questions are not actual investigations but are designed to “assure that [he be/is], to keep the aggregate intact, not really to question or cast doubt on the attribution[s]” (Ong, pg. 33).” That’s a great connection and a rich insight.
ReplyDeleteMy only quibble is I would like to have seen slightly more sustained textual analysis – i.e. fuller discussion of specific passages.