Textural Poetry

Dr. Sherwood invites us to explore the positive nature of "being able to look at an oral performance represented on the page. And while it is interesting to delve into the reasons our contemporary audience yearns for the visual aesthetic comfort of the written word, I would rather address here how people like M. Jane Young, who analyze the oral tradition as having a poetic structure, may in fact read in to certain elements too far or manipulate the translation to serve a purpose other than maintaining and preserving an ancient language and oral performance tradition. In doing so, aspects which to me are more intriguing and perhaps revealing go ignored. And while I must admit that Young's work in mapping the structural parallelism is very worthy and valuable in allowing the oral tradition to be studied under the "heading" of poetry, I do not personally find it satisfying or even acceptable to simply study oral tradition as poetry in noting structural form and formula. I would even go so far as to suggest that Young may manipulate the translated structure of these oral traditions to suit her unconscious desire to classify and "pin-down" this art form. She writes, "I have tried to make this resonate poetic structure apparent both in the line indentations and spacing of my English translation." I argue that an oral tradition is simply too fluid to pin down and too complicated to keep structured within the bounds of indentation and spacing.

I found the intro "Because He made marks on Paper, the Soldiers Came," by Tedlock much more appealing in its approach to translation and study. Tedlock writes, "Of all the features of oral storytelling, the suspenseful pauses, and sudden shouts or prolonged whispers, and harsh or gentle tones are the easiest to translate from one language to another. Yet these are precisely the features most translators have left out." So, if this is the easiest stuff to translate, why isn't it being done? A suspenseful pause or sudden shout cannot be indicated on a page where each stanza follows a predictable structure and shape on that page. I personally read all of M. Jane Young's translations in a monotone voice forgetting that these words originated and connected orally, not visibly. Even if I am no longer able to orally hear that long pause or the voice inflection, the least a transcriber can do is allow me to see the once visible and oral aspects of the story.

The most a transcriber could do obviously has yet to been done. Ideally, the page would resemble the experience of the oral, the visual, and the physical. Whether it is possible for this to be achieved, I have no idea. Yet, I do feel that Tedlock tries to give this feeling of atmosphere, as well as oral intonation with his included "guide to reading aloud." The fact that he encourages it to be read aloud seems to me not only unique but ironic that an audience would question the experience of an oral tradition--to read to oneself, or out loud shouldn't even be a question. Unfortunately, it is. We are so programmed to respond to a written text in a particular way that most general audiences would not encounter Young's transcriptions any differently than they would a random posting on poetry.com. I think the visual/textural experience of an oral tradition should be just as intricate and unique as the physical experience of the story. Let's forget about trying to define and in turn confine this art and appreciate it for the dizzying colorful array and appeal to senses whit which it was created in order to evoke and unite.