2. What are some possible features of residual orality (or "secondary") orality preserved in Voluspa, according to the criteria Ong (1982) advances?
In the first lines of Voluspa, the speaker says, “I’ll speak the ancient lore/ the oldest of all that I remember” (3-4), signifying that there is a deeply rooted oral tradition that still stands within the text. This line shows that the poem and author want to preserve these ancient traditions.
The poem reads like a story is being spoken, as if telling it to an audience, "I remember giants of ages past" (5). The fact that the author starts the first two stanzas in the first person also adds to the oral aspect, as if it is an introduction that is meant to be spoken and not written. It also makes these stanzas stand out from the rest of the poem because it switches point of view. As Ong said, "orality is 'evanescent' not permanent", the first two stanzas in its story-like form is an example of non-permanence compared to the rest of the poem which switches to third person and then it starts the story.
When researching the similarities between Ong's orality characteristics and Volsupa, I too found a connection between line 5 and 6 and both texts.For me "those who called me, one of their kin;" (6) is an example of the orality characteristic number 5 expressing how "Orality is "empathic and participatory rather than objectively distance" (Ong, 1982:45-46). This means that the experience of verbal communication is communal. The words spoken are used to connect two parties together and have a mutual understanding. In Voluspa, what was exchanged were the kind words by the "giants, of ages past" (5) which the author took to heart with empathy.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the first person pronoun really does grab your attention, making it more narrative. I thought it also and made you feel involved, adding to another feature of orality: "Achieving close, empathetic, communal identification with the known." (Ong 1982). It is also portrayed here with the "Hear my words, you holy gods, great men and humble sons of Heimdall" (I1). It makes the audience feel involved in the story that is being told from the start and leaves room for participation.
ReplyDeleteOh, I agree. It definitely allows the audience to feel involved in the story. Although, the story is written with different cultural background. Ong's characteristic number (3) "Orality is close to the human lifeworld" (Ong, 1982:42-43) expresses how the verbal communication is significant to each culture. I find that while this story is inclusive of us, sometimes I don't appreciate or understand the connection the author has with the earth and the elements. In our culture we obviously were not brought up to understand the worlds power of elements and nature. It is clear that the author has a relationship with them. Throughout the entire poem there are infinite amount of references to them such as
ReplyDelete"Nothing was there, when time began,
neither sands nor seas, nor cooling waves.
Earth was not yet, nor the high heavens,
but a gaping emptiness, nowhere green." (9-12)
Even with the constant connection of metaphors between the sun and human characteristics and the suns human relationship with the moon (17-18) shows that the way the text is written and with the authors choice of words shows is significant to the authors culture and not similar to our culture now.
I agree with idea of the audience being part the story, instead of the author telling a story the audience is unfamiliar with. Throughout the poem, whenever someone new is introduced, there is no backstory given, so that implies that the audience knows these gods and they often share stories about them. Ong's third orality aspect says that it is "close to the human lifeworld" and that oral cultures have an "intimate connection with their environment and with each other". in order for that to be true both author and audience must have a relationship with these myths and these stories as they are passed on orally. So, the author in this poem is sharing his views and experiences in the beginning and then telling the story.
ReplyDeleteThat's really interesting because when I was looking at how Voluspa was "close to the human lifeworld", I was looking at the direction of their world, namely their culture. I agree that the narrator is deeply rooted with their world and the environment as Emma pointed out in the example given above.
ReplyDeleteI took a different approach when I was searching for his connection with the human lifeworld. I thought the narrator's poem also showed their deep root in their own culture and environment.
In the poem, the narrator makes reference to many God's names, mythical beings and places that are familiar and which is part of their culture. It does not say "Hel, the place of post death", but simply "The giant goes free: terror haunts all of Hel"(2:9). The poem itself is so closely connected with the world, the environment, it is as if it does not need to explain what is already familiar to the audience. The repetition of such 'inside knowledge' shows the poem is very closely connected with the environment of the lives of those in the audience.
After today's lecture, I wanted to add another feature of Ong's orality. In Voluspa, as the text is always spoken and not meant to be written down, I thought the text that we have on paper may not be the same story that the first narrator spoke of. We will never know exactly how it was spoken or the exact wording. Every time it is retold, it would have changed and the previous version would cease to exist; being 'Evanescent'. As soon as it was written down, it became permanent and lost its orality feature of never being permanent. Pretty interesting that the feature for an oral text is to be forever changing!
ReplyDelete