This was an interesting read. Did anyone else pick up the error in the book on pg. 83? I'm surprised that the editor's of the book didn't. "When Ekwefi brought the hoe, he had already put aside his goatskin bag and his big cloth and was in his underwear...etc..... uh hello, Ekwefi is a woman according the the rest of the book....Just my two cents to the editors!! :-)
While I see that it was a fictional book, I would pose a question as to how much of it is authentic material.
When I say authentic, I'm referring to it as Achebe's personal experiences or authentic events. I would like to know how much of this book was actually predicated on Achebe's own life experiences. Are the events that happened in this fictional book based on events that occurred in real life?
That being said....It was interesting to note the cultural attributes the tribes and individuals displayed within the book. From what I gathered, the purpose of the book seemed to be racially evident. Achebe builds momentum in the book by describing many things about the tribes beliefs, customs, rituals, etc... so that we are able to identify and relate to their world. Achebe concludes through an evident racial undertone, unequivically lending the destruction of the tribe to the white man.
It may be arbitrary for me to take a suppositional approach to Achebe's book, however I as the reader am interpreting it's meaning as described. The descriptions of the tribes brutalities seem to equal that of the white man's brutalities, irrespective of customs or beliefs as described in the book. In some ways the tribe may even take the drivers seat with regard to brutality. The way in which beatings were regularly handed down and children were killed is not akin to the brutalities between men.
I'm not really sure what else I was supposed to take away from the reading. Cultural differences were really the only thing to cite.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Review on "Orality and Literacy" (Second Half - Ch. 4 priority)
After reading Ong’s “Orality and Literacy” , I must admit, that while technically challenging and at times dry, he collaborates his information into a well rounded view of his subject.
I was awe struck as he laid out the foundation of orality, language, writing, grammar, and context. It was fascinating to gain introspect on the subject and learn about the process in which we transcend from a primitively oral being into a literate one when given the necessary tools.
From the beginning of Chapter four, Ong’s borrowed quote “Writing establishes what has been called ‘context –free’ language (Hirsch 1977, pp. 21-3, 26) or ‘autonomous’ discourse (Olson 1980a)”, reveals a truth about writing that I’d never given any thought to. It’s relatively easy not to give any thought to this, because typically, we as the reader are putting into context what the writing is “saying” to us.
While parts of Ong’s book are redundant, he does lend some brilliant statements and ideas to us. Some of these statements are as follows and should protract our thoughts as readers in retrospect.
- “Writing heightens consciousness.”
- “With writing or script in this full sense, encoded visible markings engage words fully so that the exquisitely intricate structures and references evolved in sound can be visibly recorded exactly in their specific complexity and, because visibly recorded, can implement production of still more exquisite structures and references, far surpassing the potentials of oral utterance. Writing, in this ordinary sense, was and is the most momentous of all human technological inventions.”
- “Writing develops codes in a language different from oral codes in the same language.”
- “…orality relegates meaning largely to context whereas writing concentrates meaning in language itself.”
One of the most brilliant quotes in Ong’s book, “The condition of words in a text is quite different from their condition in spoken discourse. Although they refer to sounds and are meaningless unless they can be related – externally or in the imagination – to the sounds or, more precisely, the phonemes they encode, written words are isolated from the fuller context in which spoken words come into being.”
What is really amazing however is that we as individuals, process and put into context what we are reading differently from one another. While I’ve long known that individuals are different from one another, the idea of interpreting written language differently is something that I had given little thought to.
Ong does bring up a couple of things in his book that I found questionable. First, described on pg. 88, “The most remarkable fact about the alphabet no doubt is that it was invented only once.” I’m wondering how he came to this conclusion. Was it because someone else stated that in their book?
Secondly, on pg. 95, “A present-day literate usually assumes that written records have more force than spoken words as evidence of a long-past state of affairs, especially in court. Earlier cultures that knew literacy but had not so fully interiorized it, have often assumed quite the opposite.”
Interestingly, I find myself asking who is right? Both are assuming that they have more force than the other. An assumption has a small amount of credibility over a fact and leaves me pondering the situation. According to Ong, written words far surpass oral utterance. Contrary to the prior notion, Ong writes about Plato describing how written words are unresponsive and therefore indefensible. So who’s more credible?
I was awe struck as he laid out the foundation of orality, language, writing, grammar, and context. It was fascinating to gain introspect on the subject and learn about the process in which we transcend from a primitively oral being into a literate one when given the necessary tools.
From the beginning of Chapter four, Ong’s borrowed quote “Writing establishes what has been called ‘context –free’ language (Hirsch 1977, pp. 21-3, 26) or ‘autonomous’ discourse (Olson 1980a)”, reveals a truth about writing that I’d never given any thought to. It’s relatively easy not to give any thought to this, because typically, we as the reader are putting into context what the writing is “saying” to us.
While parts of Ong’s book are redundant, he does lend some brilliant statements and ideas to us. Some of these statements are as follows and should protract our thoughts as readers in retrospect.
- “Writing heightens consciousness.”
- “With writing or script in this full sense, encoded visible markings engage words fully so that the exquisitely intricate structures and references evolved in sound can be visibly recorded exactly in their specific complexity and, because visibly recorded, can implement production of still more exquisite structures and references, far surpassing the potentials of oral utterance. Writing, in this ordinary sense, was and is the most momentous of all human technological inventions.”
- “Writing develops codes in a language different from oral codes in the same language.”
- “…orality relegates meaning largely to context whereas writing concentrates meaning in language itself.”
One of the most brilliant quotes in Ong’s book, “The condition of words in a text is quite different from their condition in spoken discourse. Although they refer to sounds and are meaningless unless they can be related – externally or in the imagination – to the sounds or, more precisely, the phonemes they encode, written words are isolated from the fuller context in which spoken words come into being.”
What is really amazing however is that we as individuals, process and put into context what we are reading differently from one another. While I’ve long known that individuals are different from one another, the idea of interpreting written language differently is something that I had given little thought to.
Ong does bring up a couple of things in his book that I found questionable. First, described on pg. 88, “The most remarkable fact about the alphabet no doubt is that it was invented only once.” I’m wondering how he came to this conclusion. Was it because someone else stated that in their book?
Secondly, on pg. 95, “A present-day literate usually assumes that written records have more force than spoken words as evidence of a long-past state of affairs, especially in court. Earlier cultures that knew literacy but had not so fully interiorized it, have often assumed quite the opposite.”
Interestingly, I find myself asking who is right? Both are assuming that they have more force than the other. An assumption has a small amount of credibility over a fact and leaves me pondering the situation. According to Ong, written words far surpass oral utterance. Contrary to the prior notion, Ong writes about Plato describing how written words are unresponsive and therefore indefensible. So who’s more credible?
Monday, January 18, 2010
Review on "Orality and Literacy" (Ch. 1-3)
Wow, what a read. I never thought I'd finish. The pure depth and complexity in Ong's writing style notably shows why he's written a book on orality and literacy.
Maybe I'm naive here, but there seemed to be quite a few words that I (and possibly many others) was unable to comprehend or define. In my opinion, Ong's writing style is one that is definitely suited for the scholarly field. It was by all means, a very un-enjoyable read.
That aside.....I did comprehend a fair amount of what he was persuading the reader to endure. Interestingly noted, was the way Ong writes about the differences in oral cultures and literate cultures repeatedly. He seems to illustrate the same point regarding the cultural differences over and over, utilizing three chapters, when it may have been more appropriate to summarize it in one. Maybe that's his culturally literate side appropriating his oral character? :-)
To start chapter one, Ferdinand de Saussure, "the father of modern linguistics", brings up a generic, yet satisfying definition of oral speech's implications on writing as the basic form of language.
Digging deeper in the chapter, we find orality is really, in its own right the basic form of language. We also learn that orality existed and still exists without writing. Conversely, writing doesn't exist without orality (Maybe just me, but I believe any intellectual being could have figured this one out.)
By the end of chapter one we are able to "see" (all pun's intended) that "text" (pg. 13) enables us as literary beings to visualize meaning associated with written language.
Chapter two was a complete sleeper for me. It seemed like filler for the book. The most useful portion of this chapter was Marshall McLuhan's brilliant saying - "The medium is the message", which seemingly resounds among all of the D.T.C. courses at Washington State University.
Chapter three was definitely the most useful and inspiring conceptually. While Ong continually perpetuates the differences in the oral and literate cultures, he clearly illustrates some key points.
- Fully literate people have great difficulty imagining what a primary oral culture is like.
- Primary oral cultures depend on mnemonic patterns, where as literary cultures depend on linguistic structure.
- Fully literate cultures often denature "human things" in favor of making them more abstract. Primary oral cultures verbalize their knowledge based on life experiences, making abstract items fit or relate to human beings.
Ong makes an interesting statement (pg. 50), when he says, "it takes only a moderate degree of literacy to make a tremendous difference in thought process." This statement leads into the most interesting portion of the chapter (pg. 50-51) and describes the differences in thought process among somewhat literate and primary oral people. It is invaluable to evaluate the responses among the people interviewed (pg. 51) in direct correlation with Ong's statement regarding literacy and thought process. The thought process the primary oral culture utilizes is one that very few of us will experience here in the United States and should be worth noting as a highlight in Ong's book.
Maybe I'm naive here, but there seemed to be quite a few words that I (and possibly many others) was unable to comprehend or define. In my opinion, Ong's writing style is one that is definitely suited for the scholarly field. It was by all means, a very un-enjoyable read.
That aside.....I did comprehend a fair amount of what he was persuading the reader to endure. Interestingly noted, was the way Ong writes about the differences in oral cultures and literate cultures repeatedly. He seems to illustrate the same point regarding the cultural differences over and over, utilizing three chapters, when it may have been more appropriate to summarize it in one. Maybe that's his culturally literate side appropriating his oral character? :-)
To start chapter one, Ferdinand de Saussure, "the father of modern linguistics", brings up a generic, yet satisfying definition of oral speech's implications on writing as the basic form of language.
Digging deeper in the chapter, we find orality is really, in its own right the basic form of language. We also learn that orality existed and still exists without writing. Conversely, writing doesn't exist without orality (Maybe just me, but I believe any intellectual being could have figured this one out.)
By the end of chapter one we are able to "see" (all pun's intended) that "text" (pg. 13) enables us as literary beings to visualize meaning associated with written language.
Chapter two was a complete sleeper for me. It seemed like filler for the book. The most useful portion of this chapter was Marshall McLuhan's brilliant saying - "The medium is the message", which seemingly resounds among all of the D.T.C. courses at Washington State University.
Chapter three was definitely the most useful and inspiring conceptually. While Ong continually perpetuates the differences in the oral and literate cultures, he clearly illustrates some key points.
- Fully literate people have great difficulty imagining what a primary oral culture is like.
- Primary oral cultures depend on mnemonic patterns, where as literary cultures depend on linguistic structure.
- Fully literate cultures often denature "human things" in favor of making them more abstract. Primary oral cultures verbalize their knowledge based on life experiences, making abstract items fit or relate to human beings.
Ong makes an interesting statement (pg. 50), when he says, "it takes only a moderate degree of literacy to make a tremendous difference in thought process." This statement leads into the most interesting portion of the chapter (pg. 50-51) and describes the differences in thought process among somewhat literate and primary oral people. It is invaluable to evaluate the responses among the people interviewed (pg. 51) in direct correlation with Ong's statement regarding literacy and thought process. The thought process the primary oral culture utilizes is one that very few of us will experience here in the United States and should be worth noting as a highlight in Ong's book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
