ETHNOPOETICS.ORG : a collaboration to extend the valuing and study of global poetries

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
omnipoetics:momaday [2025/04/16 21:53] – [Arrowmaker] blaineomnipoetics:momaday [2025/04/24 00:50] (current) – admin
Line 1: Line 1:
 +====== The Man Made of Words (excerpt) by N. Scott Momaday ======
 +
 +
 ====== N. Scott Momaday ====== ====== N. Scott Momaday ======
  February 27, 1934- January 24, 2024   February 27, 1934- January 24, 2024 
Line 26: Line 29:
 Language, then, is a limited two-way street in a world that knows no sidewalks. The audience and the arrowmaker are on different sides of the road, temporal and physical boundaries act as the yellow dividing line, oral history acts as the headlights and both the person telling the story to us and our imagining the tale as it is told act as us seeing the headlights and reacting to it (if we need to) The only thing that allows us to communicate with the arrowmaker (and vice versa) is our perception and continuation of the tale, similar to how headlights allow cars to communicate with limited input. Using headlights, similar to language as Momaday says on page 415, "involves elements of risk and responsibility". We may misunderstand or mistranslate the tale (in our example, this would be misunderstanding the headlights and acting by turning up our high-beams instead of down), changing both the story (the other car in our scenario) and the language that we use to tell it (what the road signs and dividing yellow line look like, which are used, where they are placed, etc.) but the core interaction will be the same, through language (driving on the road) and this will always involve some sort of risk (similar to driving). Language, then, is a limited two-way street in a world that knows no sidewalks. The audience and the arrowmaker are on different sides of the road, temporal and physical boundaries act as the yellow dividing line, oral history acts as the headlights and both the person telling the story to us and our imagining the tale as it is told act as us seeing the headlights and reacting to it (if we need to) The only thing that allows us to communicate with the arrowmaker (and vice versa) is our perception and continuation of the tale, similar to how headlights allow cars to communicate with limited input. Using headlights, similar to language as Momaday says on page 415, "involves elements of risk and responsibility". We may misunderstand or mistranslate the tale (in our example, this would be misunderstanding the headlights and acting by turning up our high-beams instead of down), changing both the story (the other car in our scenario) and the language that we use to tell it (what the road signs and dividing yellow line look like, which are used, where they are placed, etc.) but the core interaction will be the same, through language (driving on the road) and this will always involve some sort of risk (similar to driving).
  
-Intersecting with this, we could easily swap the arrowmaker here with anybody and the language could convey any experience. I may have seen a sunset that you have not, and despite how many times I try to describe it to you, no matter how vivid my wording or how much detail I put into it, there is the risk of misunderstanding, misperception, and the real risk of experience alteration through forgetting details or misattributing words. The scene of the sunset can never be fully experienced by you through me telling you about it (regardless of whether I say it, write it, whatever method) and the responsibility we have is to give you as close an approximation to the experience as possible. The risk is that we fail to do so in some regard/s. This is the way of language and is a semiotics issue which is perfectly embodied through the tale of the arrowmaker and Momaday's further analysis in this article.+Intersecting with this, we could easily swap the arrowmaker here with any piece of literature or anybody and the language could convey any experience. I may have seen a sunset that you have not, and despite how many times I try to describe it to you, no matter how vivid my wording or how much detail I put into it, there is the risk of misunderstanding, misperception, and the real risk of experience alteration through forgetting details or misattributing words. The scene of the sunset can never be fully experienced by you through me telling you about it (regardless of whether I say it, write it, whatever method) and the responsibility we have is to give you as close an approximation to the experience as possible. The risk is that we fail to do so in some regard/s. This is the way of language and is a semiotics issue which is perfectly embodied through the tale of the arrowmaker and Momaday's further analysis in this article.
  
 ====== Works Cited ====== ====== Works Cited ======
Line 37: Line 40:
  
 https://voicesofoklahoma.com/learning-center/famous-oklahoma-poets/ https://voicesofoklahoma.com/learning-center/famous-oklahoma-poets/
 +
 +{{tag>N_Scott_Momaday}}
  
  

Trace: • autoethnography • tedlock • zong • ramadan • zukofsky • turner • schechner • editing_guide_2025 • silva • lady_be_good_-_ella_fitzgerald

Navigation

Current:

Alcheringa:

Print/export
QR Code
QR Code omnipoetics:momaday (generated for current page)