- The reading by Walter J. Ong titled, “Some Psychodynamics of Orality,” explains the differences between written cultures and oral cultures. Coming from a written culture, it can be hard to even imagine storytelling or fact sharing orally. However, Ong insists that oral storytelling can be very powerful and time-lapsing. With that being said, Version II of “Sundiata” gives us an example of powerful storytelling. We start off by reading Version I which is the written story of Sundiata. In this written version we are able to understand the story more due to excessive details in setting the plot up. We are able to have a feel for the characters, setting, and emotions through the words being wrote. Because we are so used to this kind of storytelling, it made sense for us and we are able to create a picture. On the other hand, Version II tells the story orally through song. In an oral culture, this version is much more easy to understand and brings the audience back in time.
One way Version II does this is through repetition. The story repeats important information to give it that effect of imagery and life-like storytelling. For example, a line that is often repeated is,
“And upwards he drew himself”
“And upwards he drew himself.”
I think that this kind of repetition is placed there for a reason. In Ong’s text he explains that oral storytelling is all about technique. This technique is often practiced and memorized by a “griot” or a storyteller/poet. The way the griot tells these stories involves technique and I can argue that the main technique in “Sundiata” is repetition. Ong argues that oral storytelling can sometimes be repetitive and I agree. However, it sort of has to be repetitive so that the information in these stories sticks with the audience and they will be able to visually understand what is going on. I think that repetition is key in oral storytelling because as humans, we are so preoccupied with other thoughts, stories, facts, etc. Having a story or line drilled into our heads allows us to better understand and better remember so that we may pass that story along.
In conclusion, I think that “Sundiata” was a perfect example of an oral culture sharing stories and re-living the past, even if that past is hundreds or thousands of years ago. Ong makes many great points and claims that convey this as well. I think that Ong’s favored take is ultimately with writing.
2. One claim that I found interesting in Young & Sullivan’s article is an argument by James Britton. Britton believes that, “writing is a means for developing important intellectual abilities, including the ability to speak effectively” (Young & Sullivan 216). I agree with this claim because I believe that writing is an intellectual act within itself. Writing requires us to access all parts of our brains and formulate our thoughts in an organized way. Anyone can talk and tell a story, but not everyone can effectively write. Further, I would imagine it would be hard to orally tell a story without the image of words or proper grammar in mind.
Caitlyn Bettenhausen 
I find it interesting that you grew up in a written culture and still appreciate oral storytelling. I grew up with Spanish as my first language and my dad would tell me countless stories which I found repetitive and exhausting, but it is thanks to his technique that I remember most of his stories from my childhood. I wonder if you have a similar experience through writing?
Your second paragraph made me question my own writing technique and how I don’t think of what is being writer, its mostly just typing the word out and saying it in my mind—bilingual problem, I guess? I agree with your statement that writing is an intellectual act within itself and luckily, we both get a lot of experience through college, I hope it doesn’t stop here and we keep writing throughout our lives!
LikeLike