I also recommend that you print out your first essay and have someone else read it and correct any errors. Look for the following common errors: basic spelling and grammar errors, clear pronoun usage (often times inexperienced writers will talk about two males in the same sentences and refer to each as he), verb tense, verb agreement, unclear thesis, weak transitions between paragraphs, lack of citations, as well as weak introductions and conclusions. Please, use the rubric! Yes, I know that it says "O'Rourke Rubric" but pretty much any English teacher will be using the same rubric.
Part #1-Blog
Response
So this week’s blog is more along the lines of “AP thinking” rather
than what’s the plot etc.…
Black Elk Speaks is the narrative of the life and times of a Sioux medicine man
named Black Elk. This book was created
as a dissertation study of the Sioux people by John Neihardt in the early
1930's. In order for Neihardt to conduct
his research he either had to learn how to speak Lakota (a dialect of the Sioux
language) or find someone who could translate Lakota into English. Neihardt found Ben Black Elk who was the son
of Black Elk. Ben helped Neihardt to translate Black Elk's life's story into
English. Neihardt then told his own
daughter Black Elk's stories and she wrote down what he said. However, because the book shows John Neihardt
as the author of Black Elk Speaks and not just the editor, there has
been a controversy in academic circles and Native American circles as to the accuracy
of the story from Black Elk's point of view. The primary argument made is that Neihardt,
being the author and editor, was able to exaggerate or change some parts of the
story and did so to make the story more interesting to a white
"American" audience of the 1930's and thus more profitable. Thinking about the number of translations
(John Neihardt asking Ben to ask his father Black Elk a question and Black Elk
responding to Ben who translated to John the answer and then John telling his
daughter to record Black Elk's response and then publishers' prerogatives added
to the mix), do you believe the final
product is effective in telling the world the story of the Battle of Little Big
Horn and the Wounded Knee Massacre from the perspective of a Native American? Do you believe that if Black Elk read and
spoke English that the book would have been much different? What is the role of an individual's voice in
such a story?For next week you will need to read through the end of chapter 20 of Black Elk Speaks (about 100 pages). There will be more of a focus on details next week.
Part #2-Flashcards
This week’s words
are…
S
satire A work that exposes ridicule the shortcomings
of individuals, institutions, or society, often to make a political point.
setting The location of a narrative in time and
space. Setting creates mood or
atmosphere.
situational irony A technique in which one
understanding of a situation stands in sharp contrast to another, usually more
prevalent, understanding of the same situation.
speaker The narrator of a poem; also the voice
assumed by the writer. The speaker and
the author of the poem are not the same person.
stream-of-consciousness narration Form of narration in which
the narrator conveys a subject’s thoughts, impressions, and perceptions exactly
as they occur, often in disjointed fashion and without logic and grammar of
typical speech and writing. Usually
written in first-person narration, but sometimes written in the third person as
free indirect discourse.
syllepsis A stylistic device in which a single word
governs or modifies two or more other words in different ways. Example:
“Mr. Pickwick took his hat and
his leave.”
symbolism The use of objects, characters, figures, or
colors to represent abstract ideas or concepts.
Unlike emblems, symbols may have different meanings in different
contexts.
syntax The way the words in a piece of writing are
put together to form lines, phrases, or clauses; the basic structure of a piece
of writing.
T
theme A fundamental and
universal idea explored in a literary work.
thesis statement The main idea, or principal
claim, that is supported in a work of nonfiction.
third-person narration / third-person point of view A literary style in which the narrator
remains outside the story and describes the characters in the story using
proper names and the third-person pronouns he,
she, it, and they.
tone The author’s attitude toward the subject or
characters of a story or poem, or toward the reader.
transition words Words that connect ideas
and show the relationships between those ideas (relationships such as casual
links, similarities, contrasts, and so on).
trope A figure of speech that extends the literal
meanings of words by inviting a comparison to other words, things, or
meanings. Metaphor, metonymy, and simile
are three common tropes.
U
unreliable narration A process of narrating in
which the narrator is revealed over time to be an untrustworthy source of
information.
utopia An imaginary, idealized world presented in
literature.
Opinion of the Depiction in Black Elk Speaks
ReplyDeleteEach culture and society is full of an immense gamut of stories and traditions. They can be told in different languages and by numerous peoples. If someone does not speak the language of the people with stories, they often have to ask for the help of a translator. However, it is common for things to get lost in translation. An idiom or phrase may be manipulated or the story may be changed around. This may cause a problem if the story is translated many times because the chance of change gets higher each time. Such is the case with Neihardt’s book, Black Elk Speaks. The story is about the Battle of Little Big Horn and the Wounded Knee Massacre in the Native American community. I believe the final product is an effective portrayal of the events. The story is told from the perspective of a Native American and his interactions with the events. It shows the culture and customs that Black Elk’s people practiced and also involves the myths that Black Elk’s people believed. By doing so, it allows the reader to have a better understanding of the cultures and customs of the people. The events are depicted graphically and involve Black Elk’s struggle with the Wasichus. If the events were to be exaggerated by the author, then the Wasichus would have been depicted as harmless and fair. However, they are depicted as untrustworthy and cruel. The way the story is told shows the cruelty and malice behind the Wasichus. By depicting the Native Americans as good and the Wasichus as the enemies, Neihardt is showing that the events are not exaggerated. I believe that if Black Elk could speak and write English, the story would stay relatively the same. He would tell the story as he experienced it so there would be some minor changes. After the multiple translations, details get lost and things are added in place. By having Black Elk write it himself, it would be the most accurate and complete version possible. An individual has the choice to what to include and what to exclude. Black Elk could also choose to not depict certain events in the sake of preserving pride and make the Wasichus look even worse. Due to this possibility of change, it is often best to hear different accounts or consult other resources in order to seek the truth. In summation, Black Elk Speaks effectively portrays the story of Black Elk’s people by showing the cruelty of the Wasichus and the Native American’s struggle to save their land.
Often times when events in history or even simple stories are passed from person to person throughout time, they get lost in translation. When something is lost in translation, it means that over time it was misinterpreted, misunderstood or used out of context. In John Neihardt's case the chances of Black Elk's stories of getting lost in translation are higher because they are being translated between two different languages. Though Neihardt did run the risk of having the story manipulated, I believe that it is effective in depicting the historical accounts like the Battle of Little Big Horn and the Wounded Knee Massacre from the perspective of a Native American because of the fact that it is told from a bias point of view. Black Elk described the events in the story the way he experienced them no matter how violent or crude they were. If Neihardt would have greatly altered the story, it would have been told in a more general sense. However, because, as the reader, I am able to deeply connect with Black Elk, I feel that the story is told accurately. Even if some small details may have been changed to make the story easier to understand, I don't believe that the slight nuances would alter the true nature of the novel. Further, I don't think that the book would have been much different if Black Elk spoke English because it most likely would have just included a little bit more detail. Neihardt successfully took the accounts of a Native American man and illustrated them accurately and eloquently.
ReplyDeleteA person’s voice is probably the most important instrument a person has. Voice is used to communicate ideas and to tell a story, amongst other functions. In the story Black Elk Speaks a Sioux Native American is not just telling his story, but telling the story of his tribe. In stories created in a way such as this one language has to be translated to another and in this processes words can be translated in a form which the narrator might not agree with. Black Elk’s purpose in telling this story is to not just tell a story, but to tell it from a perspective I which modern day Americans aren’t accustom to.
ReplyDeleteIf Black Elk were able to speak and read English I feel the story would have come out a little differently. He would have been able to use stronger and more passionate vocabulary to explain some of the events in his life. It also would be more interesting to the reader because it would be going from Black Elk’s mouth to the page and there would be no linguistic barriers or multiple people hearing the story and then publishing it. It could be appreciated a little more, especially because Black Elk actually lived through these experiences and, if he would have written the story, the reader would be able to catch the true emotion in which he was feeing. Therefore, language did not barricade the story being told, but it perhaps lacks in Black Elk’s Native American perspective of the events in this Sioux tribe.
A few prominent points in which translations can affect a reader’s perspective is during the Wounded Knee Massacre and the Battle of Little Big Horn. These were violent events in the Sioux tribe. These events were troubling for the tribe. People were killing ad being killed, but they did it with honor. It also shows the relationship between the Native Americans and the white people. It also impacts the reader by Black Elk having an eye witness account of these two tragedies. Hence even with some loss through translation the way John G. Neihardt writes these experiences impacts the reader effectively.
When retelling a story, some details could be misinterpretted or forgotten. Yet, the gist of it would always remain when telling it. Therefore, the story that Black Elk told about the Battle of Little Big Horn and the Wounded Knee Massacre in my belief had the credit to it even though it had gone through many avenues. Black Elk and his friends experienced the events and could be seen in the book as cruel but realistic. It gave reasonable descriptions of a battle seen by a young boy, "We rode around several times, and once we got close, but there were most many of us and we could not get at the Wasichus behind their wagon; so we went away" (94) which showed an average boy's response to such an event. Thus far, it was understandable that some events of the battles might be changed or have additions to it to spice it up by the publishers but the main point of the book was still there, that Native Americans fought to keep their land. Yet if Black Elk spoke and read english, he would probably be confused and angry as to why events have changed because in his society, stories about supernatural visions and signs were not exaggerated and accepted as a gift, so an exaggeration about a battle would be upsetting to him. Nonetheless, stories as impacting as Black Elk Speaks by John E. Neithardt gave light to the critical situations. It gave a deeper understanding of how land and homes were taken from Native Americans and how they suffered along the journey. It prevented anything of the sort from being repeated and gave new methods of dealing with similar situations.
ReplyDelete